Talk:Damnatio memoriae

Did it really exist?
Damnatio memoriae is mentioend by several modern historians, but I am unsure if it truly existed in such as official capacity. How often did the State really act in condemning an emperor? For instance, Nero was declared an enemy of the state during Galba's rebellion, but then given a large funeral. His collosus and other statues were erected after his death. Later emperors chose to trash some of his statues, but there was no edict to do so.
 * Not only emperors were condemned to damnatio memoriae. People like Sejanus and Livilla also suffered this penalty after their death. No statues from Sejanus currently survive (at least none that I know), and most of the coins that were struck to commemorate his consulship have his name erased. --Steerpike 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hapshepsut
I've added info about the attack on Hapshepsut's memory by her nephew/co-regent Thutmose III. It wasn't quite damnatio memoriae, but it's worth keeping here for the contrast.--Joseph.nobles 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin photos
I'm not saying that there's any intentional deceit here, but the bottom photo doesn't look like a "retouching" of the first photo (e.g., the color of the water, the position of the man behind Stalin, etc.). Samer (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Adolf
Neither in Scandinavia nor in German-speaking countries does anybody call their babies Adolf (after the German dictator Adolf Hitler). Should this be considered an act of Damnatio Memoriae?

85.200.128.34 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is actually proof that memory of Adolf is still alive enough to hinder parents from giving their kids that name. You don't call your son "nazi guy", that's rather a matter of taste. With a true damnatio memoriae on Mr Hitler, what would popular history books in Germany be about? Booksellers, tv stations and half the print media would go bancrupt. I doubt there's any other longseller on so many fields like that one. --2.240.2.179 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dune Universe
When talking about Dune universe, one needs to declare if he means Frank Herbert's Dune Universe or Brian Gerbert & Kevin Anderson one. Thus, we need a source on this one. 91.76.182.85 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ
I think the section on the Jewish curse "may his name be erased" needs to be reworked. Saying this is the worst curse possible and then saying Jews have pronounced it on Christ is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Without getting into the accuracy of the statement itself, I think it is safe to say it is not necessary to include the reference in this unrelated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.248.64 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But this is true. The phrase ימח שמו וזכרו is indeed a noted curse in Jewish culture. It was created as a back acronym, the initial letters spelling out the word Yeshu, the Hebrew form of Jesus; and it is used as the ultimate put-down. I have restored the edit. RolandR (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you cite the restored edit since you have reinserted it and seem to know something about it? He  iro 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Google references to this phrase and usage. Most of these are in Hebrew, and I have no time to translate them at present; but this is something I learned long ago as a child. I'm sure that, among Jews, it is common knowledge. Among the references in English, there is one applying this curse to Richard Silverstein, a liberal Jewish critic of Israel; another applying it to Fidel Castro, and one applying it to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Among the Hebrew references, there are several applying this curse to Jesus and Hitler, and even some applying it to Theodor Herzl! RolandR (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

where is this may his name be erased??? no mention of Jesus, Yeshu or may his name be erased... this is appalling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.96.67.120 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris Benoit
There's been a very similar move by World Wrestling Entertainment as regards the late Chris Benoit - all references to Benoit have been removed from WWE's website, save for a name on a list of past champions. 98.192.97.233 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Milli Vanilli
Does Milli Vanilli qualify? They basically disappeared after the backlash they received from the scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.66.29 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. That was more due to the passage of time than an active attempt to erase memory of them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

List
Hello, I think we should be more selective with the list. Damnatio memoriae means to erase the public memory of a person. If a street is no longer named after certain persons it this not to compare with the extinction of public memory in Soviet Union.--Ziko (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If a few street names were changed, then I would agree that it is not damn. mem. but rather giving honor to the the newly named people. But the disputed paragraph couples this with removal of statues: "Public buildings and streets named after nationalist personalities were renamed and statues of Francisco Franco and other nationalist leaders were removed."  Clearly a decision was made by the people who ordered the renaming and removal to erase Franco's name from public memory.  Greensburger (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the Spanish people is not supposed to forget about the Franco nationalists. These will be dealt with also in future in history books, in newspapers etc. But in Soviet Union the inhabitants were supposed to forget the disgraced persons, not to mention them etc. They were erased even from encyclopedias. As if they had never existed. That's the whole point of damnatio memoriae.--Ziko (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Organization?
I think it would really help the article if the "Similar practices in other societies" section was put in some sort of order. Chronological order seems the most likely but it could also be geographic. Right now, it's a bit jarring to jump from one millennium to another, from the UK to Greece and back. 63.143.216.178 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Heimlich manoeuvre
Not sure is this one has been at all successful (yet anyway) This is the first time I've even heard of an attempt to rename it and I've never heard of the alternative. Talltim (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway it would still be a simple renaming and in no way a damnatio memoriae. Should not be in the list. Probably the renaming of streets in Spain does not fit in either. The term is about erasing somebody from history (or trying to), not about removing public symbols that are honouring the "wrong" people. --2.240.2.179 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Move info from "modern" to "ancient"
How should we move the part about Norwegian Jarl from the "Modern" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.251.124.170 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I noticed the same thing myself. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a damnatio memoriae with Videla in Argentina?
The article says: ''Also in Argentina in the year 2003 following the election of President Néstor Kirchner, there was a widespread effort to show the illegality of Jorge Rafael Videla's rule. The government no longer recognized Videla as having been a legal president of the country, and his portrait was removed from the National Argentinian military school.'' The assertion is correct, but I'm wondering if it is relevant as a practice of damnatio memoriae? Videla's name is mentioned on almost a daily basis by the press aligned with the ruling party in Argentina (e.g. www.pagina12.com.ar). Then there doesn't seem to be any process of damnatio memoriae related to Videla's name. Quite the contrary, the memory of his name and others members of the Juntas are very much remembered, although, of course, with a negative valence. However, the valence of the memory is not what damnatio memoriae is about, if I correctly understood the concept. 193.205.207.35 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Exodus...?
Is it possible that the reason that Moses and the Exodus do not appear in the ancient history is because of Damnatio memoriae?--Splashen (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Current archaeological thought indicates that the Exodus never happened. It could be possible that the Israelite transition to monotheism was caused by Akhenaten and evidence of this might have been destroyed when Akhenaten and the worship of the Aten suffered damnatio as the Amarna period ended. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern usage in Judaism
In the section on modern usage, the item on usage in Judaism may have a transliteration error. The transliteration is "Yimach Shmo Ve-Zichro" and the Hebrew text is ייתכן ששמו וזכרונו להימחק. Calling my Hebrew terrible would be a complement, but even I can tell that the two don't match up; the first word, transliterated as "yimach" is spelled yod-yod-tav-kaf-nun. The third word ends with a nun-vav that does not appear in the transliteration. The last Hebrew word, lamed-he-yod-mem-het-kof, doesn't appear in the transliteration at all.

Can someone who knows Hebrew much better than me please correct one or the other (or both)? Dead Horsey (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlabeled Hitler at Madame Taussauds
I recall visiting Madame Taussauds in London several decades ago and seeing the wax figure of Hitler, alone in a glass case, on the stairway leading from the upstairs rooms depicting famous people down to the Chamber of Horrors depicting infamous ones. This location, and the fact that the figure had no label identifying him, seemed to me a fitting observance of his uniquely evil position in history. The absence of a label, in a museum where other famous people are clearly identified, would be an example of damnatio memoriae. In hopes of eliciting documentation of this, I will add this as to the list of modern examples of damnatio memoriae.CharlesHBennett (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of Lenin statues in Eastern Europe
Since 1989 there have been extensive acts of vandalism against statues of Lenin (and to a lesser degree Stalin) all across eastern Europe, with a new wave of destruction having begun in the Ukraine since the outbreak of political turmoil there. Should this be included here_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.116.125 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Acts of vandalism (specifics of which you did not state) are different than an official policy of removal from the public consciousness, which is the phenomenon to which the subject of this article primarily refers. The fact that someone is disliked and/or blamed for certain societal ills by certain factions to the degree that they deface or damage public likenesses of that person is a different phenomenon.  If, on the other hand, all the statues of Lenin and Stalin in the Ukraine had simultaneously been dismantled and removed on the authority of the Ukrainian government, that could be an example of damnatio memoriae. I would say that is not what has occurred in the example you cite.  Dwpaul   Talk   16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been vast amounts of removing imagery, renaming streets and places, and so on, most of it official. Of course this should be mentioned in the modern section, as should equivalent post-colonial and post-Nazi moves in many places. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources are available to show that there has recently been a widespread, coordinated and state-sponsored program to remove images and references to now-disfavored people in eastern Europe, that is, of course, the phenomenon discussed here and should be mentioned (with citations of those sources). However, that is not what the OP described.  Individuals and/or groups reflecting societal anger onto the inanimate symbols (in this case statues) of a real or perceived aggressor/invader, resulting in damage or destruction of those symbols, is not damnatio memoriae; it is just vandalism born of anger and frustration.  Dwpaul   Talk   17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all part of the same thing. You may be aware that neither Leningrad nor Stalingrad are called that now! The US is pretty unusual in retaining most colonial place names such as Georgetown, though I think many statues were removed. The article should also mention the various phases of French actions for the 40-odd years from 1789 onwards. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually in Poland nmost statues were removed and most street names were changed, that was coordinated by the government, though some remained.
 * 83.13.239.255 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Kim Howe?
Bruce Jenner's murder victim. No criminal charges, he/she/it didn't show up to court when sued for wrongful death, and now tabloids want to deny any mention of her name because it's inconvenient to the Jenner "hero" narrative. Qualifier? 107.5.70.39 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if you can find a reliable, published source that makes this assertion and somehow connects it to damnatio memoriae. As of now, this is just your theory.  General Ization   Talk   12:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Similar practices in other societies
This seems heavily OR. This article should focus on the Roman custom. I suggest the examples, except ones from the Roman times, are removed form here; some can be merged to Historical_revisionism_(negationism). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Damnatio memoriae. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080611034558/http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm to http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Damnatio memoriae. 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://web.archive.org/web/20150619015851/http://www.dominicantoday.com:80/dr/local/2014/2/7/50469/Dominican-bishops-Photoshop-the-Vaticans-shame-away to http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2014/2/7/50469/Dominican-bishops-Photoshop-the-Vaticans-shame-away

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Bolesław the Forgotten
Bolesław the Forgotten: "According to the chronicle he was killed because of his extreme cruelty, and sentenced to the Damnatio memoriae.". Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? 83.13.239.255 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Saville
The sentence " Subsequent attempts to expunge public memory of Savile have included the vandalism of commemorative plaques and properties that he once owned." I am not sure this follows as trying to remove his memory, unless there is a citation it is more likely to have been angry vandalism. There is no effort to expunge Saville, almost the opposite. So I will remove the above if no-one complains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ei2g (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Damnatio memoriae. 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://web.archive.org/web/20101203213839/http://dougsmith.ancients.info/geta.html to http://dougsmith.ancients.info/geta.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2014/2/7/50469/Dominican-bishops-Photoshop-the-Vaticans-shame-away

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) 23:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Modern examples are original research
The "Modern" section is filled with examples that are either not cases of damnatio memoriae and/or are trivial. Removing one official portrait from an exhibit or taking photos down from an official from a website is not damnatio memoriae, particularly is that person is still alive. Serious sources (e.g. those found in Google Books results) turn up almost no instances of these terms associated with these personages. This issue has been raised before by User:Ziko and User:Greensburger here and by User:Piotrus here with no changes to the article. Does anyone have a defense of this list? —  AjaxSmack 02:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have a clear consensus to remove this WP:OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the worst yesterday. I'm not sure I think I'd want to see many more removed. Just removing website info etc doesn't qualify, but I think selective doctoring of artworks etc is worth keeping. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the cited source does not mention damnatio memoriae by name, that's probably WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. —  AjaxSmack 01:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, like most such allegations, it probably means a proper search (not just by google) has not been done. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then those sources found in the Google search should be used. I searched a number of them myself before starting this discussion.  While I could usually find a few mentions in blogs and their ilk, it is difficult to find mentions in more reliable sources.  —  AjaxSmack  03:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's one modern example I can give of an unofficial damnatiio memoriae that could be used to show how such a thing can be done even without official action: Food Network's attempt to pretend that Mario Batali never appeared on any of their shows, to the extent of re-working the opening of early episodes of Iron Chef America to remove any shots of him competing. This could be done without actually asserting that this is an official action, just that it's an action taken by the company that owns the rights to the show.JDZeff (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damnatio memoriae. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110524061906/http://www.lind.no/nor/index.asp?lang=&emne=&vis=s_i_olav_tryggvason2 to http://lind.no/nor/index.asp?lang=&emne=&vis=s_i_olav_tryggvason2

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) 17:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There should probably be some discussion of the Confederate memorials in the U.S...
But I have no idea how to frame it so it doesn't become epic troll bait. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. The connection is being made in lots of sources - e.g. The Federalist, cited by Slate. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This opinion piece makes the connection in a positive way. StAnselm (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Off topic examples:
This is a latin phrase, and a Roman practice. As such, "modern examples" are impossible, since the Roman Empire does not exist. The other examples listed are all very interesting, but are off topic. The examples should go to their relevant articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

While it is a Latin phrase, it is incorrect that "'modern examples' are impossible". As indicated in the "Etymology" section, the phrase was coined in 1689, not in classical times.Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

21st-century example
New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern vows never to say the name of the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shooting of 15 Mar 2019. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111403410/pm-jacinda-ardern-promises-to-never-speak-alleged-christchurch-shooters-name http://time.com/5554057/new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-mosque-shooter-name/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.92.124.23 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lev Kamenev and Leon Trotsky disappeared from the photo.jpg
 * Vladimir Lenin Leon Trotsky Lev Kamenev 1920.jpg

Streisand effect
Greggens added a link to the Streisand effect. I've reverted it but thought I should explain why here. With the Streisand effect, drawing attention to something that is being hidden or removed is an unintended consequence of the action. The point Guy Beiner makes is that the preservation of memory through the act of destroying of defacing something was deliberate. The intention in those two circumstances is different, so it's not quite a straight analogy. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. People tried to ensure only negative remembrances of a person through the destruction of the person's monument, which had the unintended consequence of bringing martyrdom to the dishonored person (Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 380). In that sense, the Streisand effect applies. Nevertheless, Guy Beiner successfully repudiated the popular notion that damnatio memoriae was carried out for purposes of erasing a person's memory. A more appropriate term for such erasure would, therefore, be abolitio memoriae. My next article edit will explain all this to readers in detail.
 * I do see that the concepts have some parallels, but do we have a reliable source comparing them in that way? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge with memory hole
Those two articles are about the same concept, the latter popularized through 1984 and perhaps more common in modern English, likely due to being easier to spell/remember. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge, but that article would really need to be merged here, rather than the other way around. Since Nineteen Eighty-Four is still (embarrassingly) on my reading list, I hadn't encountered the phrase "memory hole" before, although I did know this title and was well-acquainted with the concept, primarily through Egyptology and Roman history.  The other article seems entirely concerned with the use of the concept in Nineteen Eighty-Four, suggesting that the influence of its appearance there has not spread widely in popular culture, or eclipsed the use of this phrase to describe the much broader—and historical—concept.  Nineteen Eighty-Four is hugely influential, I know that—but not, it seems, because of this particular plot element.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a subtle difference between both concepts. Memory holing is more of a pop culture term used to describe unsavory facts being suppressed while damnatio memoriae was a real historical practice that involved attempting to scrub a person's entire existence from official records. As it is, I think this article does a good job describing the historical practice. So if any merging is to be done, it should be merging memory holing into this article. Wertwert55 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The underlying ideas are similar, but it wouldn't make sense to call the Roman practice "memory hole" (because no hole was involved, and the concept of memory hole was invented 2000 years later) and it wouldn't be helpful to call the 1984 concept "damnatio memoriae" (because students of 1984 don't have to be Latinists or classical historians). So neither article's title would suit the other. Instead, assuming that some reliable source connects the two, let's just ensure that clear links exist in the article texts. Andrew Dalby 18:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew, the topics are distinct enough for there to be separate articles. All the same, this article could use some TLC especially around the 'modern' section. Of the three non-paywalled sources used in that section, only one uses the term 'damnatio memoriae'. This could be trimmed unless the sources explicitly make the comparison. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While the term memory hole can be applied to deliberate disappearance, tampering, redaction and abrogation and burning of documents, the term Damnatio memoriae specifically refers to these actions done as mere attempts to erase any trace of existence of a certain person rather than ideologies or ideals or tenets as in pair with the term memory hole. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, no benefit in a merge. Some material now here might be better there. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

List of condemned Roman emperors
The list of condemned Roman emperors is to be merged here per WP:Articles for deletion/List of condemned Roman emperors. It seems to me that the scope outlined in the lead of the list article is narrower than the entries in the list suggest; in particular Nero and Caligula have arguably not been subject of a senate decree to erase their memory.

I think one should either trim the list to clearly verifiable subjects of pertinent senate decrees and then include the list article as a section here, or one rephrases the lead and keeps a larger list. Does anyone here have any thoughts or opinions? Felix QW (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I see I voted for the merge, but I wonder if this was a good idea. But such issues could be handled by the comment column in the table. This article is very broad in scope, and doesn't mention a senate decree as a requirement, does it? The article says the Romans didn't use the term themselves at all. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your input! I have merged the table here now and populated the comment sections with some information from the sources I mentioned above. Feel free to improve! Felix QW (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Spoken Article
I plan to record a spoken version of the article soon. Any feedback is welcomed. 0101Abc (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent "Spain" addition
I don't believe the recent addition of the "Spain" section is beneficial to the article. Firstly, the material as added is clearly not neutral: so-called, an intense task of destroying memorials to those who fell in the Civil War. Secondly, the source provided doesn't really seem to support the statement as claimed - it's about the removal of a single monument, not an intense task of destroying memorials to those who fell in the Civil War. Most importantly, I don't believe this, even accepting it as presented, is relevant. The source provided doesn't connect it to damnatio memoriae at all. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The Spain section was added because it was of particular interest, since it is something that is happening right now, in these years.
 * Added explanation, description and reference. However, one user in particular, for unclear reasons, insists on hiding it, incurring Damnatio Memoriae himself.
 * The best demonstration of this is that he does not request modification of the phrase or "non-neutral" reference, according to his personal criteria, but instead tries to censor and make the entire paragraph of the article disappear, in an activity that clearly borders on vandalism. I revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.6.19.12 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * IP, you haven't addressed any of the points raised, and you haven't gotten consensus as is required, instead preferring to cast aspersions and assume bad faith. Please self-revert your edit and seek consensus that the material you want to add is appropriate for the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My main concern is whether the sources describe the acts in Spain as damnatio memoriae or draw parallels with it. If not, then its inclusion would seem to be original research and the text should be removed. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can check it out for yourself in the following reference now added. It's not that this is a similar case, it's that it is exactly what is being done:
 * https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2017/06/09/593aa0faca474117078b4655.html 46.6.19.12 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IP, the restoration doesn't address any of the problems, and you don't have consensus to restore it. Simply adding a new "source" doesn't address the problems when the new "source" has the same problems as the first "source". It also doesn't support the claimed statement, as it's about the relocation of one thing, not an intense task of destroying memorials. It also doesn't mention damnatio memoriae at all, again. And since you restored the non-neutral material, that is still a problem too. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That source along with the other one in this edit each describe a plaque being removed from it's current location and doesn't appear to describe it as or even compare it to damnatio memoriae, making the wording in the article WP:OR since it's drawing a conclusion not supported by sources. Use of so-called and the scare quotes in phrases like the so-called "Ley de Memoria Histórica" is an issue with regard to MOS:DOUBT. That it's of particular interest does not mean it's relevant to this article's subject or warrants inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Undoing the vandalism of the previous user, who insists on deleting important and current parts of the article without consensus. 46.6.19.12 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting your addition is not vandalism, the content being added is problematic for the reasons described above, and per WP:ONUS the editor wanting to add content needs the consensus to include the material, not the editor contesting the material. The disputed content is not relevant to this article. - Aoidh (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the other user who has been reversing the contributions, vandalizing the article and, in effect, applying the "damnatio memoriae", as someone indicated before. And who not only has not resorted to any consensus for these mutilations, but also hides behind others to try to justify what simply cannot be justified.
 * Attributing to me or others what that user has been doing, that is, reverting without justification, vandalizing, deleting references and also with the audacity of assigning to me what he has not done, that is, obtaining some type of consensus is, Unfortunately, this causes this encyclopedia to lose the prestige it once may have had. 46.6.19.12 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not address the concerns with the content or absolve WP:ONUS, nor is it an accurate assessment of what has been written about the addition of the disputed content. Do you have reliable sources that describe the disputed content as being in any way related to this article's subject? - Aoidh (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the source describe the event as damnatio memoria or is this your conclusion from reading the report of the event and comparing it to established cases of damnatio memoria? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)