Talk:Lawn jockey

message: I have put up a photo, and have sent the documentation on to permissions:
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK .
I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [ - for works released into the public domain by non-Wikimedia users)].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
3/13/08, John Barker
I hope to put up another photo as soon as I get clearance for it. DavidOaks (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi.  Direct me to another article, please, if it exists, but I'd like to know the purpose of a lawn jockey.  Maybe that could be included in the article.  Decoration?  Do/did the black lawn jockeys serve a different functional purpose than the white ones?   Thanks SolitaryThrush 02:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of a lawn jockey? 

message: I lack the scholerly finesse to document the connection, but i think that somebody should  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.170.76 (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to Venice Blackamoors

message: Haven't been able to find an instance of this term that didn't seem likely to go back ultimately to this article. It certainly doesn't qualify for "commonly known as" After two years of being tagged, it's time to delete. DavidOaks (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yardell" 

message: Anyone else find the information and sources provided in the linked "Article debunking ..." insufficiently supportive? Can the debunked claim be better sourced?
Ebenheaven (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "debunking" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lawn jockey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080229160823/http://consortiumlibrary.org/archives/CollectionsInv/GtoJ/HALLIGAN.WPD.html to http://consortiumlibrary.org/archives/CollectionsInv/GtoJ/HALLIGAN.WPD.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222102323/http://www.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=5006 to http://www.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=5006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the text stating that Blockson's claim is backed up by an 1848 act establishing red and green buoys, for two reasons: (a.) it's original research, which is disallowed, and (b.) it's incorrect - the source that the writer cited to back up that claim actually says clearly that the 1848 act established red and black buoys; green came much later in the 70's.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:187:807F:2500:180C:80B1:8A6D:20F1 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed red/green buoy reference 

message: Here Snopes says that it is undetermined.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underground railroad connection? 

message: for what is so clearly a racist symbol, there is no section on its racist past anywhere in the article. this whole page needs to be re-written. JointCompound (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs section on racist history 

message: When these were more prevalent, they weren’t only used by racists … and often weren’t even acknowledged as racist. You cannot apply the thinking process of today’s society to a historical figure and call it a fact or historical reference. 
While the claims of attachment to the UR were never fully substantiated, they were also never fully debunked. 
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This article is written, entirely, with an opinionated slant. Even if it’s the prevailing opinion, it’s still opinion and has no place in a referential setting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commediallc (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Isn’t Referential, It’s Preferential  

message: If the Underground Railroad depictions are debunked why would the article put up pictures of Southern interpretations of a debunked theory? 2600:1702:44C0:1750:94D7:B499:F7FE:AAA8 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the depictions of the Underground Railroad depictions of Southern origin?