# Talk:Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan

here by Women in Red Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is in many ways great to see, however looking at the sources and understanding that this was a one day protest act that took place only a few days ago, I am inclined to think this probably doesn't earn a page of its own, and believe this will be clearer as the dust settles. I would say the same for the Tlalli page. I think also to call and list this as a public sculptural art work is questionable and should be supported by citations, hopefully those artistically knowledgeable. I mention the sources, because a few come from not recognised mainstream nuetral sources, others only link to captioned photos, and the rest refer to the circumstances leading up to the protest act... Most aren't in English. Given that the page also exists in Spanish Wikipedia, and that this event is not really recognised by English language media, I think it is problematic. I think also an important question here about the relevance would be "Do residents of Mexico City know or refer to this space as the "Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan"?" I would imagine the overwhelming majority do not. In this case the page leans toward greatly over-emphasising its significance and can be considered npov in its overall trajectory. In closing I will offer a solution: merge this page, with Tlalli, into the Monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma) page. Saludos, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: Could you exemplify why this and Tlalli don't satisfy WP:GNG? Note that the lack of English sources is not (in itself) a reason to say something is not notable (WP:NOENG). I used 24 News Recorder here as it was the only available source I could find in English. Everything that source says can be found in other Spanish language sources. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I found another non-trivial English source (The Fresno Bee). And this falls into public art: "Public art is visually and physically accessible to the public; it is installed or staged in public space or the public realm, usually outside. Public art seeks to embody public or universal concepts rather than commercial, partisan or personal concepts or interests". This is one of many anti-monuments installed and never removed artworks in Mexico. This one will not be removed by the city until there's an agreement on what to do at the roundabout.[1] This one will most likely receive its own space (like this one or this one) once an agreement happens. And that will be covered accordingly when it happens because Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary. And for the "Do residents of Mexico City know or refer to this space as the 'Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan'? I would imagine the overwhelming majority do not" is true, we do not, as we don't call BBVA "BBVA" or Niños Héroes / Poder Judicial CDMX Station "Niños Héroes / Poder Judicial CDMX Station". But this article is not about the Columbus Roundabout; "Monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma)" was not even moved to "Women Who Fight Roundabout" (like it was attempted here by IP editors). This is an independent article about an anti-monument artwork titled "Women Who Fight Roundabout", which was placed on top of what was once the Monument to Christopher Columbus, a monument that still legally existing in Paseo de la Reforma as the agencies responsible for the monuments of the city have not officially relocated it. You're giving a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. In any circumstance, you can request them to be merged or deleted, but at the very least, Tlalli won't be deleted per the Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Every article is independent of each other and their only connection is the Reforma roundabout. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to wait and see... I think the quick roll-out of this page makes me skeptical, especially as the events are still unfolding. You miss my point about most Chilangos not knowing the name. You give examples of colloquial usage, which is totally true, but I raise the question to ask if this is a notable and acknowledged site name, and not only a political action that happen last week. And you're wrong, the connection is not insignificant. The specificity of place and the succession of inter-related events, one thing leading to the next, makes them deeply physically and conceptually connected. They all relate to the politics around having the Columbus monument in the first place. You have the monument by a Spanish artist to the man who began the colonisation of the Americas. You have its removal, and that in the global context of numerous Western monuments being toppled in world-wide anti-racism protests. You then have Sheinbaum and Reyes, that process, the proposed Tlalli, and its cancelation. And you have the plaza name and sculpture which is a response to Reyes's proposed use of a stylised indigenous woman's head. They are inseparable. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Then what you are asking for is an independent article covering the event(s): "Removal of the monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma)". The problem, however, still being Tlalli. Tlalli exists, it's not completed, but it still exists. The project to place her at Reforma was suspended, but not its sculpting. Reyes is legally required to finish her before March 2022 and the city is obliged to pay him an undisclosed amount of money that will be disclosed eventually as the city is legally required to be open about such information. Whatever the city does with Tlalli after its delivery is none of Reyes's businesses and that decision will not require more than a "Tlalli was later placed at XXX". And the bust will most likely be placed elsewhere because you don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that you will trash away. Tlalli is part of this, but only partially, not totally as is the Women Who Fight monument. And I even say it here: "I don't know if it is relevant." It was so irrelevant that it took 3 days to be there. It was so irrelevant that I waited until the October 3rd march to verify that the monument was still there, and it was until that moment that I realized that this is an independent artworkwhose removal is not a priority for the city. Yes, without the previous events the "Women Who Fight Roundabout" wouldn't exist (Columbus would be still standing, vandalized, of course, Tlalli would be a sculpture that is part of Reyes' collection, and the feminists would have chosen another place, subject, and piece of art to continue requesting for justice). But that doesn't mean everything should be amalgamated in a single place solely because a butterfly-effect action happened last 10 October. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to see and keep this article as well as Tlalli. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tbhotch. I don't think anything needs to be decided today, although I'm leaning towards WP:TOOSOON and WP:USUAL. I think looking at something Oscar Grant Plaza as a precedent might be useful. Here we are ten years later, and what was front page news at the time, and for months, is now seen as a chapter in a longer history. Saludos Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking into this and now see the Spanish Wikipedia has a completely different understanding of the word 'Anti-monument. In English it is more conceptual and relates to the form the work takes to determine it's counter monumentality. In Spanish, it appears to refer to the Latin American movement of placing unsanctioned monuments in public spaces to forgotten events or tragedies that the state normally does not commission. Although the origin seems to be in common, we have a different meaning branching in the Spanish usage. As it stands now, here on English Wikipedia, the Justicia woman at the Women Who Fight Roundabout isn't an anti-monument, despite the parrot word in Spanish. I think a better term might be guerrilla art, like some of Banksy's works. Although looking at similar activist 'permissionless' actions like The Emperor Has No Balls, Dump Trump (statue), or Bust of Edward Snowden maybe Protest art is better? I think both the English and Spanish pages could be improved and/or expanded to create a more complete understanding, but that will take some work. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there is no mention of it being an 'Anti Monument'. Not in English that I can see. If it there is one in Spanish, then it should link to the Spanish page imo as per above. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
"This statue joins the list of 'anti-monuments,' some memorials raised by the citizens themselves that in recent years have been proliferating in Mexico City". A link to es.wiki will be reverted by a bot because the article exists in English. If you believe that both entities represent different topics, you have to solve it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
They do indeed represent different ideas and topics. Working on it already (with or without the ridiculous level of hostility and condescension being leveled at me in virtually every one of your responses!). Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: Of course the goal is that the "point here is to make information understandable" but when your "corrections" end up being corrected, it's clear that hypercorrecting everything is not the real point. This article is not even a candidate for the WP:GA or WP:FA processess, and it's not even listed at WP:GOCE. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, anything that improves the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia is positive. That definitely includes grammar, improving sentence structure, concision, or simply rephrasing something to make it more understandable. I suspect, based on this and your past behaviour directed at me, you may be over personalising things, to which I will simply say: don't.
Your use of 'Legend' was just incorrect. No big deal. It was directly translated from the Spanish language article, and was actually so unintelligible I corrected it to the best of my understanding (which was incorrectly that the marigolds and cut paper were labelled or captioned like a map's legend). You were pushed to dig deeper and figured out the problem: the article was referring to the text *cut into* the 'papel picado'. Glad we got there, because now an English language reader will be able to understand it.
I will continue to improve articles in an encyclopedic manner. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I updated that sentence as I should have done in my previous edit, but was trying to be respectful of your word choice. Inscribed is also wrong, it means "to write, engrave, or print as a lasting record", not die cut like papel picado. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)