Talk:Albert Pike Memorial

Possible sources

 * "Brigadier General Albert Pike, (sculpture)", Smithsonian American Art Museum


 * "District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites", District of Columbia Office of Planning - Historic Preservation Office, September 30, 2009


 * "National Register of Historic Places Inventory--Nomination Form - Civil War Monuments in Washington, D.C.", by Gary Scott, National Park Service, September 19, 1977


 * "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form - Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site", by Robinson & Associates, Inc., National Park Service, August 23, 2004, pgs. 60, 153


 * "Statues, Monuments, and Memorials in National Capital Parks", National Park Service


 * Testament to Union: Civil War Monuments in Washington, D.C., by Kathryn Allamong Jacob, JHU Press, Baltimore, 1998, pgs. 59-62, ISBN 9780801858611


 * The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C., by James M. Goode, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1974, pg. 228, 413, ISBN 0-87474-149-1


 * "The Veterans Are Up In Arms", The Evening Press, May 26, 1898


 * "Statue of Albert Pike", Alexandria Gazette, July 11, 1899


 * "Corner Stone in Place", Evening Star, July 4, 1900


 * "The Scottish Rite", Evening Star, October 10, 1901


 * "Centennial Celebration", Evening Star, October 17, 1901


 * "A Centennial Day", Evening Star, October 23, 1901


 * "High Masons at Banquet", The Washington Times, October 23, 1901


 * "Pike Monument Unveiled", The Washington Times, October 24, 1901


 * "Letters Wearing Away", Evening Star, October 27, 1912


 * "Protesters Want Statue Removed", The Washington Post, October 8, 1992


 * "Fitting Symbol for Spirit of Hate Behind Death Penalty", by Courtland Milloy, The Washington Post, October 28, 1992


 * "Confederate Statue Target Of Protesters", Associated Press via TimesDaily, November 30, 1992


 * "Pike's Pique: Why This Statue Is a Bust", by Michael Farquhar, The Washington Post, March 14, 1993


 * "No Proof Of Klan Membership", by John W. Boettjer, The Washington Post, March 24, 1993


 * "It's a Monument to Terrorism", by Anton Chaitkin, The Washington Post, April 4, 1993


 * "Judge Convicts Two Protesters Of Pike Statue", The Washington Post, April 20, 1993


 * "General's Role Brings Indian Bloodshed, Land Loss", by John F. Doyle, The Washington Times, March 7, 1998


 * "Poor Choice For a Pedestal ", by Richard G. Zimmerman, The Washington Post, April 30, 2000


 * "This Man Deserves to Be on a Pedestal ", by C. Fred Kleinknecht, The Washington Post, May 7, 2000


 * "Traces of the Confederacy in Washington, not all gone with the wind", by David Montgomery, The Washington Post, April 11, 2011


 * "Hunting for the Confederacy in D.C.", by David Montgomery, The Washington Post, April 12, 2011


 * Ceremonies at the Unveiling of the Albert Pike Statue at Washington, D.C., October 23, 1901,

APK whisper in my ear  06:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the Smithsonian Institution surveyed the sculpture in May 1993 and deemed it "well maintained" as part of their "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program (per the Smithsonian reference). I added the corresponding category. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've added the info. APK whisper in my ear  23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Brigadier General Albert Pike → Statue of Albert Pike – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "" -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 11:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move. Makes it clearer that the article is about the statue, not the man. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as User:Blueboar In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; Brigadier General Albert Pike should redirect to Albert Pike. Ham II (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
The identity of the protesters that tore down the statue is know. BLM was there and organized the event. Police did not intervene except for a dozen offers that extinguished the fire and left.

sourceL https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/demonstrators-topple-burn-statue-of-confederate-general-near-dc-police-headquarters/2338978/ 97.116.64.60 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
On the night of June 19, 2020 around 11 p.m. EST an estimated 80 to 100 rioters and vandals targeted the statue. In a violent riot the group tore down the statue using rope and set fire to it. Propaganda by the vandals cited protests continued in response to the killing of George Floyd, despite the officers being charged. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/protesters-topple-burn-albert-pike-statue-in-dc/

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+protest&oq=definition+of+protest&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.3748j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

An editor cited an insufficient and political source.The summary did not accurately capture the nature of the events. Due to their incumbent position on the platform they pushed a bias that was clearly rebuked by other editors. The currently explanation is not satisfactory. 98.116.101.183 (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has since been updated.  APK  whisper in my ear  06:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Past tense
I notice people were quick to change everything to past tense. But although the statue has been removed, the memorial itself (base along with the bronze sculpture representing the Goddess of Masonry) is still there. What are page watchers thoughts on this?  APK  whisper in my ear  06:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like your opinion if you get a chance.  APK  whisper in my ear  06:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've raised this concern on a couple talk pages recently as well. I agree, we should note the removal, but in most cases, these recently removed statues/monuments exist somewhere even if they are not on public display. I think we should only switch to total past tense if the monument has been destroyed. I'm sure there will be some grey area, though -- I have a feeling some statues will be relocated, others placed into storage for decades, some only partially removed, etc. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - I kept the past tense for the statue itself but changed the rest of the memorial to present tense. Hopefully it makes sense to readers.  APK  whisper in my ear  16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Right now, the lead says "...is a public artwork in Washington, D.C.". The statue of Pike is no longer a public artwork, so the past tense is appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's more than just a statue like I mentioned above. The base and attached sculpture are still there. The entire thing wasn't brought down my protesters. Why are people renaming it and removing things from the infobox like height specifics, etc.? Those things are included in similar articles. The name of the artwork is Brigadier General Albert Pike according to the Smithsonian and the NRHP nomination form.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, making past tense changes such as "The memorial was one of 18 Civil War monuments in Washington, D.C., which were collectively listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978" is factually inaccurate. Just because the statue was taken elsewhere doesn't mean the NPS has removed it from the collective listing. If they do so, then we can change it to past tense. Also the memorial hasn't disappeared into thin air. The statue was the centerpiece of the memorial, but the base and second sculpture are still there as seen in these photos. Yes the statue is no longer on the pedestal and that's been noted in the lede and body, but that doesn't mean the rest of it vanished.  APK  whisper in my ear  22:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References for toppling
here are some more references, since pashpost is paywalled - Heatmor (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * https://dcist.com/story/20/06/20/protesters-confederate-general-statue-albert-pike-in-dc/
 * https://wtop.com/dc/2020/06/protesters-tear-down-albert-pike-statue-in-dc/
 * https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/demonstrators-topple-burn-statue-of-confederate-general-near-dc-police-headquarters/2338978/
 * https://www.fox5dc.com/news/protesters-topple-burn-albert-pike-statue-in-dc

Bundling

 * @User:AgnosticPreachersKid You replaced with a different format a format that I used when adding several related in-line references to a paragraph. The format that I used for my references is a type of "bundling", which Help:Citation merging describes. Therefore, the format that I used is acceptable, although it is uncommon. Help:Citation merging states that "bundling" has several advantages:


 * It helps readers and other editors see at a glance which source supports which point, maintaining text–source integrity;
 * It avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph;
 * It avoids the confusion of having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text, such as this.[1][2][3][4]
 * It makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point.


 * Help:Citation merging also states that "bundling" has several disadvanges. However, when there are more than two related footnotes (as is the case with the footnotes that I placed in the Pike article, the advantages appear to outweigh disadvantages.
 * I agree that, in general, all citations within an artcle should have the same format. However, since "bundling" is uncommon, that would preclude its use in nearly all WP articles, as many editors are not aware that "bundling" is acceptable.
 * Further, some editors would bundle only two citations, while others would bundle only when there are many more citations. Therefore, "bundling" is one of those instances in which consistency among formats within the same article would be nearly impossible to achieve. Corker1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this is posted here since we just discussed it on your talk page, but as I stated there "Ok but if you could stick with the same format when there's already dozens of other citations, especially on something that's a GA ,I'd appreciate it. Thanks."  APK  [[User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid|whisper in my ear ]] 22:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:AgnosticPreachersKid: As you stated, Albert Pike Memorial is presently listed as GA (Good Article). However, the article is not presently listed as FA (Featured Article).


 * I therefore have no reason to consider that the references in this article need to have a consistent formatting regarding bundling. In this instance, however, I bundled only three references in a single location. While unbundling those three references has decreased the readablity of Albert Pike Memorial, this number is small enough for me to accept the change. Corker1 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not like I've asked some huge favor, just common courtesy which seems to be what others have asked on your talk page regarding this same issue. Since the disadvantages of the confusing bundling format weren't mentioned above, I've listed them below for anyone else that comes across this discussion.
 * It requires that several sources are collected together at one point in the text, breaking the link between which piece of text is supported by which source. This damages text–source integrity;
 * If a piece of article text is re-arranged into another paragraph, sources have to be extracted from the bundling to move them to the new location. This also means that every source in the bundle has to be re-examined to ensure that the new text is still accurately supported.
 * If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references or List-defined references. This increases the citation clutter within the wiki-text.
 * Have a great night.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)