Talk:Moses Jacob Ezekiel

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moses Jacob Ezekiel. 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/20071020102100/http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.9/html/396.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.9/html/396.html
 * Added tag to http://72.249.182.183/collection/search.do?id=15496&db=object&page=1&view=detail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718073408/http://www.norfolkbotanicalgarden.org/gardens-horticulture/all-gardens/statuary-vista to http://www.norfolkbotanicalgarden.org/gardens-horticulture/all-gardens/statuary-vista
 * Added tag to http://72.249.182.183/collection/search.do?id=12734&db=object&page=1&view=detail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225233409/http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=18 to http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=18

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) 10:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to remove
this sentence, ' He is the only well-known sculptor to have seen action in the Civil War.[3]. We could quibble all day about what "well-known" might mean but I would like to offer Levi Scofield as another Civil war vet who went on to become a "well known" sculptor. I can pretty confidently state that if you went out and asked the first 1,000 people you meet no one would know who either of these men are. The fact that this claim is referenced does not mean that it has to be included in the article. Even reference worthy folks make mistakes, Do you have an opinion? Carptrash (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not unbiased information
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an unbiased place to receive information. In fact, I recently donated to Wikipedia as I do every year because I use it often and felt it was A good place to receive information, rather than the slanted things that we see so often today in the news or in the news articles. I read this morning in the news about a statue being removed from the Arlington cemetery and wanted to know more about the history, and why it was being removed, and also about the sculptor who created it. This definitely wasn't the place for me to read about it because I've never read a more biased article on Wikipedia before. Perhaps you have changed your History of being an unbiased place to receive knowledge? If so, kindly, let your readers know so we can seek information that is historically correct at other locations. Thanks for all the work you do, but I would say this article was very disappointing. Hartlady68 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please be a little more specific. What do you find as being biased in the article? Carptrash (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ezekiel's thoughts about why he fought for the South:
He wrote in his memoirs, "Though he would come to fight for the South, Ezekiel says he didn’t believe in slavery—“In reality no one in the South would have raised an arm to fight for slavery. It was an evil that we had inherited and that we wanted to get rid of,” he said. “Our struggle…was simply a constitutional one based upon…state’s rights and especially on free trade and no tariff.” Source: https://www.historynet.com/moses-ezekiel-hidden-plain-sight/ Odin1919 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Can this be added to the page with source? Odin1919 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I will suggest that this be added just after the first paragraph of the Virginia Military Institute and the Civil War section as follows:
 * Ezekiel later explained in his memoirs that he didn't espouse slavery: "In reality no one in the South would have raised an arm to fight for slavery. It was an evil that we had inherited and that we wanted to get rid of. Our struggle…was simply a constitutional one based upon…state’s rights and especially on free trade and no tariff."
 * I'm not sure how much value this adds to the article, though, since his artwork is full of "Lost Cause" imagery which fairly clearly elucidates his thoughts on the causes of the Civil War. But I'm not opposed to adding it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The given source isn't reliable, but we might be able to use the memoir itself... Not sure about that being due though. We can't just cherry pick from a primary source like that, it would amount to OR. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Memoir is a good source. I think his personal feelings from the Memoir are important, as its not someone else's interpretation about his art. Please include it Sir as you suggested. Thank you Odin1919 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ignored the meat of HEB's argument: picking and choosing a single quote from Ezekiel's memoir would constitute original research. It would be better to rely on a reliable source that has investigated Ezekiel's memoir and presented any conclusions to be drawn from it with the proper historical context. Further, unless you have access to the actual memoir (rather than just a vague reference to it from an unreliable source), it would be difficult to properly cite the memoir. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * His memoir is indeed the best source, since it was written by him. I actually have his handwritten memoirs, and have read the entire thing about 50X. VMI has the type written memoir, as well as 2 boxes of hand written notes. The book, "Moses Jacob Ezekiel, Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian", edited by Joseph Gutmann and Stanley F.Chyet,1975, is also a good source. Odin1919 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian
 * Moses Jacob Ezekiel
 * Wayne State University Press, 1975 - Sculptors - 509 pages
 * 1975
 * Bibliographic information
 * Title
 * Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian
 * Author
 * Moses Jacob Ezekiel
 * Editors
 * Joseph Gutmann, Stanley F. Chyet
 * Edition
 * illustrated
 * Publisher
 * Wayne State University Press, 1975
 * ISBN
 * 078373591X, 9780783735917 Odin1919 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of the Sue Eisenfeld article, it is already cited multiple times in the article, having originally been printed in Civil War Times Magazine. I think we can call the source reliable, but the use of the quote remains of dubious value. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahhh I had missed the author... Eisenfeld is certainly a subject matter expert (I have Wandering Dixie on my shelf) so it doesn't matter that the source isn't reliable (I would not accept the Civil War Times Magazine as a source on anything other than expert SPS grounds). I'm more or less ok with the quote as long as we present it as "claimed" rather than "explained" because we don't want to lend implicit support to a claim that is objectively false. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have Ezekiel's Memoirs and that section quoted above (not too accurately) is on page 103. Ezekiel also says that Lincoln "had not received a single vote in all the fourteen Southern states" and a footnote mentions that he received 24,000, so his understanding of these issues was nothing more than inaccurate opinions. Carptrash (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm on page 103, interesting read. Ir-regardless of his understanding of currant issues at that time, per his statements, it is very clear within the content of that page, why he fought for the South. This I think will do just fine:
 * "Ezekiel later explained in his memoirs that he didn't espouse slavery: "In reality, no one in the South would have raised an arm to fight for slavery. It was an evil that we had inherited and that we wanted to get rid of. Our struggle…was simply a constitutional one based upon…state’s rights and especially on free trade and no tariff."
 * Why not consider Using both sources: both sources I see have been accepted on this page:
 * https://www.historynet.com/moses-ezekiel-hidden-plain-sight/
 * and the Memoirs. Help me out here? Odin1919 (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well his claim, "In reality, no one in the South would have raised an arm to fight for slavery. It was an evil that we had inherited and that we wanted to get rid of." is a little odd in that his family owned something like 7 or 9 slaves and it took the defeat of the Confederacy to free them. Also his Memoirs do not mention that at age 15 or so he fathered a child with one of those slaves. Mostly relationships such as that are now called rape in that the woman involved really has no say in what occurs. All of this posturing by Ezeliel falls solidly into the "Lost Cause" revisionism.Carptrash (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "It was an evil that we had inherited and that we wanted to get rid of." Those are his words quoted from his memoirs, and how He felt. Our interpretation is irrelevant. The rest of your comments are incorrect, nonfactual opinions. I'm not asking to add opinions to this article, just the facts Sirs: this is Wikipedia, a place to get real facts, right? His memoirs have been used as a source throughout this article. Its how he saw things and his feelings. Again, our opinions about it, any of it, is irrelevant. Odin1919 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're failing to find consensus for this change. Ezekiel's own self-apologizing does not exonerate him from his support of the "Lost Cause" movement, which is made blatantly clear in his artwork. Quoting his words in an effort to clean up his reputation, without any historical interpretation of those words by a reliable third party, would fall under the purview of WP:Primary sources, which we eschew except in certain limited cases. (This is not such a case.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well Sir, I hear you, Loud and clear. However, my only intentions is to find facts per research, and let the Facts take me where they will, without placing judgement during the process. Out of fairness and respect, for any historical figure I never met, nor lived in their time, I would never choose to misrepresent or prejudge them with malice. I look at every thing, It's a code I don't break. So far, with the present evidence I've seen, and I'm not done, I'd say Sir Moses was a complicated artistic Southern man, who seemed to be a bit of a rebel in his time, had a difficult life in many respects, but managed to forge a better life in Europe. He, like all of us, was an imperfect human being, in a very complicated tumultuous time. He was true to himself, and had a mind of his own, per his Memoirs. As a passionate artist and a man, I don't see him in a prefabricated box. He had many nuances and contributions during his life. Any artist who's work is public, is subjected to public criticism. He did his best to write his thoughts in his memoir. His Memoir is his Voice. Many long-term American families have Southern roots and history that diametrically go against today's morals and values, as graphically illustrated in the comments above. But I prefer facts in this setting. Thank you. Odin1919 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is a fairly well established wikipedia policy that we do not just blindly accept a person writing about their own lives as being "facts." I also do not find any examples of "to misrepresent or prejudge them with malice" anywhere here.  Feel free to point out what I have missed. Carptrash (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your first nonfactual attack(is a little odd in that his family owned something like 7 or 9 slaves and it took the defeat of the Confederacy to free them. Also his Memoirs do not mention that at age 15 or so he fathered a child with one of those slaves. Mostly relationships such as that are now called rape in that the woman involved really has no say in what occurs. All of this posturing by Ezeliel falls solidly into the "Lost Cause" revisionism)  Your 2nd nonfactual attack: Odin1919 (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your 2nd nonfactual opinionated attack: (I think you're failing to find consensus for this change. Ezekiel's own self-apologizing does not exonerate him from his support of the "Lost Cause" movement, which is made blatantly clear in his artwork. Quoting his words in an effort to clean up his reputation,) Odin1919 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per--I think it is a fairly well established wikipedia policy that we do not just blindly accept a person writing about their own lives as being "facts."
 * I disagree-His memoir about how he felt is a Fact about how he felt--You are blocking his voice with your own nonfactual narrative as quoted above. cause it doesn't fit in your own personal ideology. And that isn't professionally appropriate in this setting. The Memoir has been used many times as a source on Sir Moses page. You now seek to nullify his memoir as a lie. Odin1919 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you quoting Ezakiel's Memoirs as long as you are prepared to have someone, if it is in order, coming along and pointing out (with a reference) that this is typical Lost Cause reasoning. Carptrash (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Why do I need a source for a source? You need proof Sir Moses wrote his memoir? A bit redundant:) Odin1919 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be another reference or add-on per his individual Memoir statement. The statement stands by itself. The public or researchers can interpret as they wish, just like the rest of his Memoir. Upon reading all sir Moses page with references, I don't see any add-ons. When stating a factual statement straight from a Memoir--any Memoir, there doesn't need to be any directed opinions about it-especially in this Wikipedia setting. Unless you are turning this page into an opinion piece. and so far, per your responses, all I see are your opinions. I'm here only for the facts Sir. Thank you Odin1919 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all you need for the preface:
 * (Ezekiel's thoughts about why he fought for the South:)
 * Add the Memoir source: "Moses Jacob Ezekiel, Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian", edited by Joseph Gutmann and Stanley F.Chyet,1975
 * 2nd source:
 * Source: https://www.historynet.com/moses-ezekiel-hidden-plain-sight/
 * Then his quoted statement:
 * "Ezekiel later explained in his memoirs that He didn't espouse slavery: "In reality no one in the South would have raised an arm to fight for slavery. It was an evil that we had inherited and that we wanted to get rid of. Our struggle…was simply a constitutional one based upon…state’s rights and especially on free trade and no tariff."
 * And add just after the first paragraph of the Virginia Military Institute and the Civil War section,
 * + per WikiDan61 original suggestion Odin1919 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You might want to add Ezekiel's statement while discussing the Arlington monument, (Memoirs p. 441) "Upon the shield I wrote 'Free Trade' and 'State's Rights' those being the two reasons the South had gone to war" thus giving the Lost Cause folks one more chance to put him and his opinions in perspective. Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just the facts Sir. That attachment, per your suggestion, is again, an opinion piece. I wouldn't take his Statement out of context from the memoir from another page. Again, his statement is a stand alone Factual piece only in and of itself. Thank you Odin1919 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You might want to add Ezekiel's statement while discussing the Arlington monument, (Memoirs p. 441) "Upon the shield I wrote 'Free Trade' and 'State's Rights' those being the two reasons the South had gone to war" thus giving the Lost Cause folks one more chance to put him and his opinions in perspective. Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just the facts Sir. That attachment, per your suggestion, is again, an opinion piece. I wouldn't take his Statement out of context from the memoir from another page. Again, his statement is a stand alone Factual piece only in and of itself. Thank you Odin1919 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)