Talk:Silent Sam

message: 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)
thread_title: Quick failed GAN

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cost of the Statue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Past Tense?

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism sugar-coated as "pull-down" in the wiki article 

message: “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)
replies: text: and not by. At the time, this was true for the reasons you state. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect information  

message: Why does the article mention only one? -Topcat777  00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: My feedback was constructive. It specifically answered the question posed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text: No problem.  I get his meaning - You can't do any race-baiting with the other speeches.-Topcat777  14:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: By asserting that this is race-baiting... are you claiming Carr's speech was not racist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources discussing the other speeches? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This was merely an idea to address '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  That was very uncalled for. Please read WP:NPA#WHATIS regarding personal attacks. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: Source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  There were at least a half-dozen speeches at the dedication of this monument... 

message: Were most of them under 18? -Topcat777  00:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the typical age of UNC students in the 1860s? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: 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)
replies: text: I’ll turn the toppling into a separate article, if there is consensus. deisenbe (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Toppling, 2018 section 

message: I added patch.com as a source for "UNC trustee" in this edit . It looks like they have a model similar to Forbes where they publish both user-submitted and staff articles. The particular article I added  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)
replies: text: NCpedia would likely be a better source: . TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch.com 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Democrats and Republicans 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. She is currently a footnote to Silent Sam, not the other way around. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Maya Little 

message: 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:
* ‎Confederate Memorial Fountain (Helena, Montana)
* Confederate Monument (Hollywood Forever Cemetery)
* Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument (Baltimore)
* Confederate Soldiers Monument (Durham, North Carolina)
* Jefferson Davis Monument
* Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monument ("demolished")
as well as (not Confederate, but removed with the others in New Orleans):
* Battle of Liberty Place Monument
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Silent Sam has been disestablished 

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

text: 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". 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019 

message: 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)
thread_title:  November 2019 update 

message: 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. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protestors or rioters? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've updated the article with this information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Silent"