Talk:Chartist Mural

Article balance
This article may be a good candidate for Did You Know?, but this requires that the article is fairly stable without any major issues or editing battles. Because the recent events are still fresh and the demolition is controversial, I'm hoping the article doesn't become a battleground. We've tried here to create a succinct, balanced overview of events and both sides of the argument are represented. Hopefully any major points of disagreement can take place here, on the Talk page. Sionk (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * lol, as if anyone is going to rush in here with loaded muskets!? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You never know ;) Sionk (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"Demolition" or "destruction"?
See this edit, which I've partly reverted. In my view, "demolition" refers to the whole building, and "destruction" to the loss of the artwork. This article deals with the artwork, not the building where it was located, so "Destruction" is the appropriate sub-heading. The protesters certainly use the word "destruction", and the council tend to refer to "demolition" - we can use both in the article, as appropriate. They are not quite interchangeable, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Demolished" is not too controversial, because the mural was attached to a brick wall which fell down/was knocked down. I haven't been following the recent events too closely but, if the pieces have been stored somewhere "destroyed" may be too strong a word to be used in all circumstances. It's really six-of-one and half-a-dozen of the other! Sionk (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd slightly favour "destroyed", but as Sionk notes, the whole wall was demolished and it took the mural with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My view, as I said, is that we can use both - the mural was certainly destroyed, as part of the operation to demolish the building. We should try to avoid anyone getting into edit wars over only using one word or the other.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Like Andy my preference errs towards "destroyed". The building it was attached to hasn't been demolished and the actions of the council were solely intent on removing the mural. Surface artworks need a substrate and in this instance it was a skin of brick. Sionk (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The building hasn't been demolished though (and this is crucial, as the council has mis-reported this as a reason for the high estimates on removal costs). All that was demolished was one non-structural wall, and this was done safely without compromising the strength of the overall building. The building is to be demolished, but AFAIK this hasn't happened yet (it might have done, but it wasn't done immediately). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The mural was destroyed. No suggestion has been made that it should, or even could, be re-erected anywhere. Daicaregos (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacement?
I recently read an article - unhelpfully I can't remember where - that mentioned the, long-promised, "replacement" artwork had been completed. Does anyone, perhaps more local, know anything about that, and does it warrant a mention in this article? KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems there's one over in Rogerstone: . Maybe Gareth knows more. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, and probably warrants a mention - particularly as it was done by Budd Junior, but I'm not sure it's the Chartist artwork the council promised, and for which the Chartist Trust was to run a competition? KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Maybe I'm wrong? But I'd thought that something rather more ambitious was originally envisaged. The council was to cough up £50K, and the Trust was to fund raise for more. This cost £20K. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right. This was just a copy of the original? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep - and a quarter-size replica at that. KJP1 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but so unable to throw a light. Cheers to you both! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Que?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - this appears never to have happened? But the Rogerstone one, should probably be mentioned. I suspect (OR), that Newport Council would contend that it means they have met their commitment. KJP1 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These days it's difficult to even remember what John Frost Square actually looked like. Utterly ruined IMHO. Yes, the Rogerstone one could be certainly mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My visits to South Wales this century almost never included a visit to Newport - quite deliberately, I'm afraid to say. I just found the decline of the city centre too depressing, in every sense; social/commercial/architectural. I suspect the last time I was in JFS the mural was still in place. KJP1 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have rarely seen a more unsympathetic city centre "redevelopment". The High Street is now largely set adrift. The new railway "station" is a joke. And Newport Market, once quaint and historic, now looks like something out of Blade Runner. Apologies for the WP:FORUM ranting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. "The station was nominated in 2011 for the Carbuncle Cup, awarded for the ugliest building of the year.
 * As a schoolboy the High Street still had a real buzz - the Murenger, the Berni Inn, and the music place down the end the name of which escapes me, for illicit drinking; the Westgate still a hotel; Wildings as Newport's version of Howells; and one of the last Wimpey Bars I can ever remember being in. The 21st century, and the council, haven't been kind to the city. KJP1 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Add a full view of the mural?
I was going through old data and found this : I took as good a capture of it as I could before it was destroyed. Is it high quality enough for the page? Shizoor (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, it could always be enhanced using photo editing software. But it would certainly be a very suitable addition to this article. Sionk (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it’s a very interesting image. I would certainly put it in. KJP1 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A useful photograph. Should be added. Wasn't it originally in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I thought something like it would have been but checking old versions nothing is there.  It could use a tidy up as Soink says, the lighting wasn't great that time of day, and catches the first part of mural head on, and as I walked through the tunnel, holding my phone sideways I had to adjust course slightly as there were some other people in the tunnel.  Then there's the fluorescent lights at the top.  I assumed a historian or journalist would have done the same thing with a professional setup, but it doesn't look like it.  I think the bit at the start on the left where it's covered is where they'd already started to destroy it. Shizoor (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah no it's just the board over the old Iceland. Shizoor (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a real saga, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk)