K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) three projects is sufficient |
K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 164:
*For some reason we do not have a Project specifically covering the [[Lost Cause of the Confederacy]] and other legacy aspects of the [[American Civil War]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 07:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks, but are you sure about 'Sculpture' and 'Visual Art'? I mean, have you seen the picture of the part? Those highway markers look like grave stones and I find the trees planted along the party line to be the most pleasant visual art. It just hard for me to make the connection. [[User:C. W. Gilmore|C. W. Gilmore]] ([[User talk:C. W. Gilmore|talk]]) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I restored the projects that were here on 16 December: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jefferson_Davis_Park,_Washington&oldid=815646490 16 Dec version]. Three is sufficient, while a dozen is overkill. Could be selectively expanded, but I think three is good for now. Otherwise, the pages begins to have what someone put as "projectspam". [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 01:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
== Archive talking page. ==
|
Revision as of 01:08, 19 December 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adding a photo, suggestions
I hope to be taking photos of this park soon and wished to add them to the page. What is the process for uploading the photos and then transferring them to this article? Thanks for the help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- From any Wikipedia page, select "upload file" from the toolbar menu. Then select the wizard for uploading to Wikipedia Commons. See WP:IMAGES for instructions on how to add images to articles. I'd suggest you add Template:Infobox park to the article too. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for that and thank you for your edits of this page. I'm sure it will take a few tries as all of this is new to me and I grew up before all of this; but even the old can learn. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Blogtown, The Portland Mercury website
As discussed on other pages, The Portland Mercury website 'Blogtown' is a reliable source, despite the name as it is the official website for the newspaper and articles posted there are by paid credentialed staff from the newspaper. [1] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- This particular author does appear to be mastheaded as a reporter, so, yes, his stuff is as good as something like the Mercury can be. Blogtown appears to also have contracted/part time/independent writers who aren't listed there; it's not clear if they all are compensated. Do you have any source for that? Anmccaff (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Go to the site and click on the upper left icon of The Portland Mercury and it will take you to their main page where you can then look up the reporters, photographers and video reporters they use. [2] Now, The Portland Mercury does have a left leaning bias, but it is a RS per past discussions which I'm sure you are better able to look up than I can. If you still question it, then ask again for it to be reviewed as a RS (with bias noted) for sourcing material, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, going to their website and clicking does not bring up their reporters, only the reporters currently used in online articles. It happens this guy is on the current masthead, but no other reporter appears to be. Clicking on a former reporter in an old article does not show that the person is no longer associated with the the Mercury. There is nothing showing in the online Blogtown version which pieces are actually in print, and when.
- The article used here isn't exactly a testimonial; it's just this side of plagiarism of Samantha Matsumoto's piece in the Oregonian for the unattributed third of the body, with the remainder an antifa press release, and an "extract" from the Columbian which is about half the size of the article. Dunno about the guy's usual output, but this looks like blogshite at its worst; the only part that was not borrowed from others, or introducing stuff lifted, was "Fuck confederate monuments." Suim cuique, I guess. Anmccaff (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- That was a quote from Rose City Antifa, not the words of the reporter and if you go to the Portland Mercury main page,[3] you will find a number of stories by a number of reporters. Now click on any of those stories and they show up as 'Blogtown' as that is what they call their online article section. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- We've already established that the Mercury puts all of its print articles and some other online only articles in Blogtown. The questions I raised above were about whether they had any staff listing beyond the masthead; it appears that they do not.
- I also had an implied question about the particular cite. Do you think this is good journalism? It appear to be a combination of borderline plagiarism, press release, and direct reproduction of another newspaper's work. The only original bit is "Fuck confederate monuments", and a few weblinks. I don't think you should hold your breath waiting for their Pullitzer to get there. Anmccaff (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- The demographics of The Portland Mercury's reader are mostly young (20-30) and very use to such language, especially coming from Rose City Antifa, which is in-your-face direct action, in every way possible, including their colourful language. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would say their journalism is raw, but accurate when put up against the Oregonian. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- The demographics of The Portland Mercury's reader are mostly young (20-30) and very use to such language, especially coming from Rose City Antifa, which is in-your-face direct action, in every way possible, including their colourful language. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- That was a quote from Rose City Antifa, not the words of the reporter and if you go to the Portland Mercury main page,[3] you will find a number of stories by a number of reporters. Now click on any of those stories and they show up as 'Blogtown' as that is what they call their online article section. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Go to the site and click on the upper left icon of The Portland Mercury and it will take you to their main page where you can then look up the reporters, photographers and video reporters they use. [2] Now, The Portland Mercury does have a left leaning bias, but it is a RS per past discussions which I'm sure you are better able to look up than I can. If you still question it, then ask again for it to be reviewed as a RS (with bias noted) for sourcing material, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)"The language..." or, if you prefer, "the fucking language", did not come from antifa. It came from the reporter. It was, as far as I could see, the only fucking thing the sonofabitch had contributed to the article. It began with a God-damned rip-off of the Oregonian, or, possiblly, something the Oregonian ripped of him, with a couple of fu...Oh, wait. My index fingers give up. To many Effs and Us. Antifa put their press release on Facebook. It said nothing about unnatural urges toward cold granite. The reporter wrote that, and the article delineates it by showing the antifa statement in a section with a grey background, and a light grey stripe, just as it does the part ripped from the Columbian. Most of the article is stolen from...no, let's say "an homage to..." other papers. It is not a good source. If the Oregonian wrote their piece first, mostly, there is nothing the Mercury itself is saying, except...well, i think we covered this.
- If the Mercury published first, then the Oregonian piece is a ripoff. It's better written, and the writer doesn't need to avoid graveyards as an occasion of sin, but it covers, completely, the same ground as the Mercury piece.
- Pick one. Anmccaff (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I spent this from August through October working on the articles surrounding the 2017 Portland train attack and the rise of province of White-nationalist and right-wing groups in the area; but also the rise of anti-racist, anti-fascist and street actions by left-wing groups, mostly around the Portland area (though I'm about 150miles north). I say all that to come to the point that The Portland Mercury, like the Seattle Stranger, are reliable, if not course; they are well sourced news outlets if not tilted more liberal and to a younger reader. If you keep all that in mind and watch for editorialising in some of the news reports; these urban underground papers often get the story first and get it correct. Rose City Antifia is one of the more active chapters of Antifa (United States) that has come together within this year and sadly they have had no shortage of very visible racists, or pro-Trump protests to show up to over the summer; thankfully the return of cold and rain will keep most off the streets until next summer. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- You don't have to belabor the fact that you are here, essentially, to push a POV; it is kind of obvious.
- There's nothing "underground" about the Stranger's operation. It's a successful business model that gives providers of services that reputable papers won't touch a place to put their ads; the symbiotic relationship between the booze-n-drugs peddlers and the DUI lawyers who can't survive on word-of-mouth is particularly amusing; the ads that show where runaways can wind up a good bit sadder.
- It's difficult to write back to someone who writes things like
...and the rise of province
, orreliable, if not course
. This isn't English. - Finally, even if we concede that the Mercury is capable, occasionally, of good journalism, there is none displayed here. Stripped of the stuff borrowed, it's a press release from antifa, with a little desandoser editorializing. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
As the quiet removal of the marker stones from public land gained steam,
Can someone suggest an English translation of this? Anmccaff (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Read the New York Times news article, or the webpage for the SCV, they will tell you that the stone marker sat in a shed at the city cemetery in Vancouver Washington for almost 4yrs before anyone noticed they were removed. Once the SCV chapter found out, they raised such a stink that the city placed the stone outside their Historical museum until 2007 when the city of Vancouver removed it during construction at the building. The city had no intention of replacing the stone, so the SCV bought the land, created the park and fly the Confederate flags facing the busy I-5. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Try rephrasing it without using a mixed metaphor. The sources have nothing to do with his complaint. It's just poor writing. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reworded: "As the quiet removal of the marker stones from public land was discovered, so the outcry from the Sons of Confederate Veterans' awareness and resistance to them being removed from public view increased." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Try rephrasing it without using a mixed metaphor. The sources have nothing to do with his complaint. It's just poor writing. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits again suggest coatracking
We have two stones, one from Blaine and one from Vancouver that now sit in the park with different histories that need to be explained as they are the reason for the park.)
Which is to say, this is a continuation of the fuss regarding the Jefferson davis Highway in Washington state, and probably should be addressed there as an epilog, rather than spam the same material on at least three separate pages. Anmccaff (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note The Jefferson Davis Highway was never official in Washington State and everything about it ended in 2016 when what is left of the Old Hwy 99 was officially renames. The park on the other hand is all about the stones from 1940, and the Confederate legacy of Jefferson Davis. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- But it sure looked official, what with the markers, and, if everything about it ended in 2016, then it overlaps with 90 percent of JDP's history. That's a point in favor of consolidating the articles, not against.
(Undid revision 810517637 by Anmccaff (talk) The stone markers are central to the Park, and telling their history gives context to why the park even exists.)
So, if the stone markers from the Jefferson Davis Highway#Washington state are essential to this story, why aren't the stories appropriately combined, rather than split? Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Here are the sections now in the Jefferson Davis Highway article:
Washington
In 1939, the Washington State Legislature proposed naming U.S. Route 99 as the "Jefferson Davis Highway", making it the final component of the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway,[14] but it was never made official.[15] The markers were removed to private land in 2007[16] and the highway was renamed in 2016.[17]
Washington
In 1998, officials of the city of Vancouver removed a marker of the Jefferson Davis Highway and placed it in a cemetery shed in an action that several years later became controversial.[26] The marker was subsequently moved twice, and eventually was placed alongside Interstate 5 on private land purchased for the purpose of giving the marker a permanent home.[27][28]
The marker stone in Blaine, Washington, was removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the state.[29] Both markers now rest, in the Sons of Confederate Veterans owned Jefferson Davis Park near Ridgefield right beside I-5.[30] In 2002, the Washington House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that would have removed Davis' name from the road. However, a committee of the state's Senate subsequently killed the proposal.[31][32]
In March 2016, the Washington State Legislature unanimously passed a joint memorial that asked the state transportation commission to designate the road as the "William P. Stewart Memorial Highway" to honor an African-American volunteer during the Civil War who later became a pioneer of the town and city of Snohomish.[33] In May 2016, the transportation commission agreed to the renaming.[34]
Here is from this article:
In the early 1900s, the Daughters of the Confederacy began a project of dedicating a route across the southern United States as "Jefferson Davis Highway" and this was later extended to include Highway 99.[6] Stone markers at both ends of the state designating the Jefferson Davis Highway were erected in the 1930s by the , with State approval.[7] By 1998, officials of the city of Vancouver removed a marker of the Jefferson Davis Highway and placed it in a cemetery shed in an action that several years later became controversial.[8] The marker was subsequently moved twice, and eventually was placed alongside Interstate 5 on private land purchased for the purpose of giving the marker a permanent home.[9][10] One of those moves included an installation at the Clark County Historical Museum and a petition for its inclusion on the historical register was approved in 2002, which was re-approved by the commission in 2007 when it moved to its current site.[11]
The marker stone in Blaine, Washington was removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the state.[5] Both markers now rest, in the Sons of Confederate Veterans owned "Jefferson Davis Park" near Ridgefield right beside I-5.[12] In 2002, the Washington House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that would have removed Davis' name from the road. However, a committee of the state's Senate subsequently killed the proposal.[13][14]
In March 2016, the Washington State Legislature unanimously passed a joint memorial that asked the state transportation commission to designate the road as the "William P. Stewart Memorial Highway" to honor an African-American volunteer during the Civil War who later became a pioneer of the town and city of Snohomish.[15] In May 2016, the transportation commission agreed to the renaming.[16]
If these are legitimately separate subjects, why is there such complete overlap? WP:COATracking, I'd suggest. Anmccaff (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- The park is all about the stones, not the Jeff Davis Highway, it is all about showing them off and maintaining a Confederate presence by the SCV. The Jeff Davis Highway, in Washington State was never official and has been dead in Washington State for a year; but this park, this park still lives and still stirs controversy because of the stones, the flags, and the legacy of honoring their 'glorious cause' with pride. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Jefferson Davis Highway, never took hold in Washington State and the stones began to be taken down in 1998 with the permanent removal from public lands in 2007. This article is about what happened to those stones after the death of the Jeff Davis Highway, the controversy they still stir up, with the adjacent town and the vandalism their prominent and very visible location brings to these symbols of the Confederacy in Washington State. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- No. The "park" is about Jeff Davis, and the fuss is about the flags visible from I-5. Neither are particularly noteworthy, except to cranks and slackivists. Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your interest in this article. If you have a complaint I believe the Administrative boards are open and available. If you have a constructive comment you would like to add, a section has been opened below. Have a great day. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is about improving the article, in the only way it can be improved: by deleting it, or by cutting back the repetitious bits in other articles. One subject, one article, and there is really only one subject here. See the repetition above? Anmccaff (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your views on this matter have been taken under advisement and the previous statement still stands as to the best course of action to improve the article. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- So, given an illustration that the article may qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:A10 as a
Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic
, you have no policy-based or practical response. - For those not familiar, this policy says:
This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages. (When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion.)
- So, given an illustration that the article may qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:A10 as a
- Your views on this matter have been taken under advisement and the previous statement still stands as to the best course of action to improve the article. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is about improving the article, in the only way it can be improved: by deleting it, or by cutting back the repetitious bits in other articles. One subject, one article, and there is really only one subject here. See the repetition above? Anmccaff (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your interest in this article. If you have a complaint I believe the Administrative boards are open and available. If you have a constructive comment you would like to add, a section has been opened below. Have a great day. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- No. The "park" is about Jeff Davis, and the fuss is about the flags visible from I-5. Neither are particularly noteworthy, except to cranks and slackivists. Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Db-a10|article=Existing article title}}, {{Db-same|article=Existing article title}}
- This deletion rationale should only be used rarely. In the vast majority of duplicate articles, the title used is a plausible misspelling or alternate name for the main article, and a redirect should be created instead. This criterion should be used only if its title could be speedy deleted as a redirect.
- So, wiki policy suggests that this quite likely should be converted to a redirect to the existing, almost exactly parallel material elsewhere. Anmccaff (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- As it has been explained multiple times to you here, at the AfD, and on your talk page, multiple people want this article to be kept, and it will be kept per consensus. Your crusade against this article is borderline disruptive and at WP:IDHT territory. I suggest you quit your obsession with Gilmore while you are ahead. Nihlus 05:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then I'd suggest that "multiple people" explain a reason why it should be kept beyond "I like it, as you appear to be saying here, again. This is a new article which substantially duplicates material already on Wiki; that falls closely under a category for speedy deletion. As you can see from the quotes above, this article parallels a section of an existing article very, very closely. Why shouldn't it be redirected back to that, with a small epilogue covering the minuscule part that doesn't overlap? Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Then I'd suggest that "multiple people" explain a reason why it should be kept beyond "I like it", as you appear to be saying here...again. This is a new article which substantially duplicates material already on Wiki; that falls closely under a category for speedy deletion. As you can see from the quotes above, this article parallels a section of an existing article very, very closely. Why shouldn't it be redirected back to that, with a small epilogue covering the minuscule part that doesn't overlap? Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- As it has been explained multiple times to you here, at the AfD, and on your talk page, multiple people want this article to be kept, and it will be kept per consensus. Your crusade against this article is borderline disruptive and at WP:IDHT territory. I suggest you quit your obsession with Gilmore while you are ahead. Nihlus 05:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- So, wiki policy suggests that this quite likely should be converted to a redirect to the existing, almost exactly parallel material elsewhere. Anmccaff (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- instead of rearguing the AfD here, please see WP:DRV. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Helpful suggestions to improve the text of the article
I not that there may be issues with the way certain sections are written and request comments on how to improve the readability of the article. Thanks for all the help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Further Coatracking.
This sentence "The opening dedication was on April 27, 2008 with a large stone plaque in front of the Vancouver highway marker stone" is supported with a cite which does not even mention the subject at all. While the first page of the work cited does briefly mention some of the facts stated in passing, @C. W. Gilmore: linked to the second page of the article. Given the competence issues, there is no reason not to assume this mis-linking was a good-faith error, but the cite remains, essentially, a coatrack. The cite isn't about the subject, but about the whole retrogrit outlook. Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia and this page specifically, it is most unique. Thanks again C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Vancouver marker
Apparently the stone marker was removed by Vernon Stoner, the city manager in Vancouver, Washington from 1996 to 2000. In this interview, he admits to having them quietly removed[4]. "STONER WAS RELIEVED. BECAUSE WHEN HE SEES WORDS LIKE 'CONFEDERACY' AND 'JEFFERSON DAVIS,' MEMORIES COME FLOODING BACK. OF HIS GRANDFATHER WITH TEARS STREAMING DOWN HIS FACE. TELLING DARK STORIES ABOUT HIS LIFE AS A SLAVE."
This explains the push to have the marker removed from public in Vancouver. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:, i'd (obviously) disagree that my edit was not an improvement)
. @C. W. Gilmore: has made a large group of substantive edits, and mis-labled them as minor. Frankly, were it not for the obvious WP:CIR questions, this would be the sort of thing that could be taken up at ANI, it looks like hiding changes from scrutiny, doesn't it? Anmccaff (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you are here to continue your harassment campaign. I have previously advised you about it: Harassment of another user.
- The end result was that the edit improved the caption; that's what I was judging it on. Hence I reverted you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)...and left unaddressed at least 10 substantive edits mislabeled as minor, hidden, in effect, from many page watchers, yes. Is that the sort or "contribution" you support, @K.e.coffman:? Anmccaff (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just went though the photos I took and resubmitted them as major changes, so as not to offend anyone's editorial sensibilities, thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks you so much for your interest my photos I uploaded today, and this article. I changed out the uploading number as a caption to a more accurate descriptive of the photos taken as #22 does not say much for the image. Thanks again, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)...and left unaddressed at least 10 substantive edits mislabeled as minor, hidden, in effect, from many page watchers, yes. Is that the sort or "contribution" you support, @K.e.coffman:? Anmccaff (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Projectspam
I don't know or care who added all these projects to this article, but per WP:CONCENSUS, you're gonna need to make a case for the vast majority and until you gain consensus, they're out. Death? Public art? African-American disporia? Politics? Urban planning? Travel and tourism? You've got to be kidding me. John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I now fail to find it, but I seem to remember that WikiProject-specific tagging and assessment should usually be handled and decided by the members of those projects. But since I can't find it I also don't remember if it's policy or only a suggestion. I'm not sure if article-content consensus applies, and tags are not spam; they are usually tied to maintenance categories and bot-assisted resources (article alerts, 1.0 assessment log, needing-attention list, suggested articles, etc). Of course, if those projects are dead and none of their members care, it may be different... —PaleoNeonate – 19:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Horse hockey. Adding Urban Planning to a park in a rural area is spam. Adding Death to a location where no one has ever died is spam. Since everyone dies, shouldn't Death be added to every biography? (j/k) Adding Former Countries to a park (almost...it's private property open to the public) in a US State is nonsense. There is no public art at this location....simply flagpoles and two highway markers. And I am sorry, but the removal of the highway markers relates in no way to African-American diaspora. I may be wrong about removing the Politics project, because that is ALL this is. I cannot see how any of this relates to military history. It is all politics. There were no battles here. There are no military displays here. Simply two removed highway markers, added without authorization by the Daughters (or Sons) of the Confederacy dedicating a highway to J Davis. My uncle was in the army and there is a park named after him in my hometown. It's not notable, but if it was, would it be the concern of the MILHIST project? And your contention PaleoNeonate that consensus doesn't apply seems somewhat nonsensical and antithetical to the way Wikipedia works. Pretty much the only things on Wikipedia that are NOT subject to consensus on some level are those where the law supersedes consensus. Now whether the consensus would need to be established here, or on the project page is another question, but since there is contention over it, no matter where the consensus is decided, notification would need to be made here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I participate in WP:WikiProject Discrimination. The discrimination project focuses on forms and manifestations of segregation. Civil war monuments are generally out of scope, unless they, for example, have strong ties to particular incident involving racial discrimination. Billhpike (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- There has been no documented discrimination at this location, unless somehow arresting someone for vandalism is a form of discrimination, and it still wouldn't apply as those arrested were I believe white. This is instead a misguided effort by those trying to inexplicably erase the Civil War from American history to try to legitimize their cause. Hence the extremely proper title of this section. John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I participate in WP:WikiProject Discrimination. The discrimination project focuses on forms and manifestations of segregation. Civil war monuments are generally out of scope, unless they, for example, have strong ties to particular incident involving racial discrimination. Billhpike (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Horse hockey. Adding Urban Planning to a park in a rural area is spam. Adding Death to a location where no one has ever died is spam. Since everyone dies, shouldn't Death be added to every biography? (j/k) Adding Former Countries to a park (almost...it's private property open to the public) in a US State is nonsense. There is no public art at this location....simply flagpoles and two highway markers. And I am sorry, but the removal of the highway markers relates in no way to African-American diaspora. I may be wrong about removing the Politics project, because that is ALL this is. I cannot see how any of this relates to military history. It is all politics. There were no battles here. There are no military displays here. Simply two removed highway markers, added without authorization by the Daughters (or Sons) of the Confederacy dedicating a highway to J Davis. My uncle was in the army and there is a park named after him in my hometown. It's not notable, but if it was, would it be the concern of the MILHIST project? And your contention PaleoNeonate that consensus doesn't apply seems somewhat nonsensical and antithetical to the way Wikipedia works. Pretty much the only things on Wikipedia that are NOT subject to consensus on some level are those where the law supersedes consensus. Now whether the consensus would need to be established here, or on the project page is another question, but since there is contention over it, no matter where the consensus is decided, notification would need to be made here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment You are both somewhat correct and in error, Dims over linked some of the projects and John was a bit too quick to delete them all. "African-American disporia?" Yes, as a matter of fact, as this park owes it's existence to the the Black mayor of Vancouver, and great, great grandchild of slaves, that mayor fought to have the Marker Stones removed and with his allies, ensured they would never again be displayed on public land, just as one example. On the other side, Dims, 'Public Art' project is a stretch, so can we all go through them one at a time, please, and reach a middle ground. Thanks everyone for caring. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Some one is continually removing links such as *Jefferson Davis Highway from the page without first bringing their reasoning to the talk page. This should not be happening, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- They are removing it because it's already linked above. They spoke to you on your talk page about it. Please stop. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Now, I know why, so it is linked above and you are both correct. Sorry C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Which WikiProject(s)
It has been considered to add this page to ALL of these WikiProjects:
- WikiProject Urban studies and planning
- WikiProject Travel and Tourism
- WikiProject African diaspora
- WikiProject Death
- WikiProject Discrimination
- WikiProject Former countries
- WikiProject Military history
- WikiProject Politics
- WikiProject Sculpture
- WikiProject Visual arts
- WikiProject Historic sites
Which ones in particular should not be on this list? For me, I see no reason for: 'Urban studies and planning', 'Military history', 'Sculpture', 'Visual arts', or 'Historic sites.' I just can't find much logical leap that would connect these projects to this page. What do others think? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please note: tagging
- Most of our park articles are covered specifically by WikiProject Urban studies and planning (which covers parks within and in proximity to urban areas) and WikiProject Travel and Tourism (which covers sightseeing destinations). We also have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas, but it mostly covers nature parks and areas of considerable biodiversity.
- This is a memorial park in memory of a specific Confederate politician. Most of the Confederate memorials are under the memorial task force in WikiProject Military history. Memorials to the dead are also covered by WikiProject Death (which covers cultural aspects of death, not only biological), Sculpture (for elements such as stelae and statues), Visual arts (which covers architectural features and several elements of design), and Historical sites (which covers Heritage sites and monuments).
- WikiProject Former countries (despite its name) also covers articles related to former countries which do not have dedicated WikiProjects. It has dedicated task forces for articles related to the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and Historic Italian States, and also covers and evaluates a number of articles connected to the Confederate States of America.
- Much of the modern legacy of the Confederate States and the display of Confederate symbols are covered by WikiProject Africa diaspora (which covers various topics connected to African-American culture and history), Discrimination (given the connection of the symbols to white supremacy), and Politics (since they connect to American politics on several levels).
- For some reason we do not have a Project specifically covering the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and other legacy aspects of the American Civil War. Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but are you sure about 'Sculpture' and 'Visual Art'? I mean, have you seen the picture of the part? Those highway markers look like grave stones and I find the trees planted along the party line to be the most pleasant visual art. It just hard for me to make the connection. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I restored the projects that were here on 16 December: 16 Dec version. Three is sufficient, while a dozen is overkill. Could be selectively expanded, but I think three is good for now. Otherwise, the pages begins to have what someone put as "projectspam". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but are you sure about 'Sculpture' and 'Visual Art'? I mean, have you seen the picture of the part? Those highway markers look like grave stones and I find the trees planted along the party line to be the most pleasant visual art. It just hard for me to make the connection. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Archive talking page.
- Could someone help with setting up an archive function on this page as it is becoming a bit cumbersome in length. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I hope I got that correct, but a little time will tell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- No it wouldn't as you had it set to archive to another article entirely. This talk is not really long enough or active enough to require archiving. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article is brand new, and the entire talk page covers discussions only from November-December, 2017. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Vancouver marker
According to all reports, "It was quietly removed by city officials(the City Manager of Vancouver according to some) four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed". No opinion pushing or editorializing is need, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Another granite marker proclaiming the road's designation as the Jefferson Davis Highway was erected at the time in Vancouver, Wash., at the highway's southern terminus. It was quietly removed by city officials four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed there, but publicity over the bill has brought its mothballing to light and stirred a contentious debate there about whether it should be restored."[5]
The source is clear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 19 December 2017
C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The current first sentence of the 'Vancouver, Washington marker stone section' reads: "In 1998, a city of Vancouver official quietly removed the marker of the Jefferson Davis Highway and had it placed it in a cemetery shed, in an action that four years later became controversial."
There is an extra it in it. I did not realize that "had it" was also added by someone. Could someone please fix this, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)