Talk:National monument (United States)

Colorado National Monument
This article attributes the creation of Colorado National Monument to Teddy Roosevelt in 1911...but Teddy Roosevelt had been out of office for three years by that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.184.231 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Should the article title be "...Monuments?" Slrubenstein


 * No. With the singular we can simply link to this article without using pipes. See Naming conventions (pluralization). --mav 01:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Uh, okay, Slrubenstein

Edited the sentence "...although wilderness areas managed by the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management often allow hunting" to include "and grazing". Mwehman (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"The proclamation authority was not used again anywhere until 1996" The table in List of National Monuments of the United States doesn't seem to support this. There are many monuments established between 1978 and 1996. 2620:0:1000:1704:8579:B235:17A9:F5C4 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * National Monuments can also be designated by acts of Congress. Ethelred unraed (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Americentricism
This article - National Monument, despite being a relatively ambiguous term, explicity discusses only the US concept of a National Monument. In Ireland, we also have a concept of a "national monument" (it's in the news at the minute because they are building a motorway over one - remains of a castle in the path of Dublin's M50 motorway). It's hard to see how to insert general information (non-US) into the article without spoiling it. Perhaps this should be moved to US National Monuments instead, with a more general article at this location?

Do any other countries have a concept of "National Monuments"?

zoney &#09619; &#09608; &#09618; talk 20:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The article has since been renamed. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed the following from the article because it is unreferenced, possibly original research, and it seems likely to be incorrect. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The island of Guam was a Unincorporated Territory of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) was in Political Union with the U.S., but not a Incorporated Territory as well. Since neither were Incorporated Territory meaning eventually they were to be de-colonized per the UN Charter, the Presidential Proclamation laying Federal claim to National Monument status permanently makes those Territories Incorporated Territories of the United States. The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories which was created in 1946 pursuant to Article XI of the United Nations Charter, listed the CNMI as a area to be decolonized until 1990 when the U.S. agreed to release them as their own entity in Political Union with the United States. Guam is still listed as an area to be decolonized by the UN, but in light of the National Monument status both appear to be permanently Incorporated into the United States per Presidential Proclamation. Insular Court cases viewed by the Supreme Court such as Rasmussen v. United States states only Congress can Incorporate Territory to the United States, but this Presidential Proclamation creating this National Monument does so without Congress and permanently ends Guam's Commonwealth status goals that were attempted in Congress for over a decade. Also it ends the CNMI supposed de-colonization and makes them permanent Incorporated Territories of the United States, pending Supreme Court rule and United Nations protests. The Antiquities Act as codified contains provisions that could evict the residents of the Marianas Islands under its National Monument status. With the Marianas Islands military complex being constructed currently, National Monument status for the Marianas is mute seeing how it is and will increase to be a live fire military training complex.

National Monuments not same as Protected areas
Places designated as National Monuments by the U.S. President are not always natural areas like Devils Postpile. Completely different from that are historic, non-natural sites, like the African Burial Ground in downtown New York City and a Lincoln cottage/memorial in Washington, D.C. Those historic sites are "protected" if you wish, but they are not "Protected areas", which is a defined term meaning areas of 6 types defined by the IUCN International Union of something or another. This has recently been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas. Editors, please stop making incorrect, unsupported assertions by category changes or editing the lede or otherwise, along these lines! :) Please discuss if you wish at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas discussion. doncram (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your statements are a personal point of view, not supported by the US legislative fact. As such, your statements are useless.  IUCN has nothing to do with US law. Hmains (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doncram, I respect your view, but these are indeed protected areas. They are areas that receive protection from the US Federal Government. While some are not completely natural and therefore do not fit the IUCN's definition, nothing here implies that we are following this unrelated NGO's terminology. I am somewhat disappointed the IUCN has such such definitions that do not take the generality of the terms into account. Perhaps the link to protected area should be removed, but they are still protected areas. However, that article should also be expanded. It should clearly define that the IUCN decides to only classify those concerning nature, but that there are many other types of protected areas. Reywas92 Talk  22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link
This external link is dead and should receive a replacement: http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl/ Leitmotiv (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

National Monument (United States) → National monument (United States) – As a general term, "national monument" is not a proper noun and thus should be given in sentence case rather than title case, exactly as is done for national parks in (for example) List of national parks of the United States. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question I am not going to pretend to be familiar with U.S. law, but this does not strike me as being used as a general term ("Lots of countries have legislation protecting national monuments" is an example of the term being used in a general sense). This is an official designation.  I would have thought it was being used as a proper noun (National Monuments are a specific type of national monument).  The same issue with National Historic Sites. The two sentences "This park is a National Monument" and "This park is a national monument" mean very different things.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that being officially designated makes something a proper noun. For example, state birds are officially designated, but we don't treat the term as a proper noun. "National monument" is a general term in that it refers (in this case) to any member of the class of U. S. national monuments, numbering about a hundred, not to one specific national monument. WolfmanSF (talk)
 * I actually disagree with you on that. "National Monument" and "national monument" are two very different things.  A "national monument" is any type of monument, in an any jurisdiction, which the writer suggests has some national significance or pertains to the national government in some way.  That's the general term.  A "National Monument", on the other hand, is an official designation pertaining to a protected area in the United States declared by the President.  It's a proper name referring to a specific class of entities considered as unique. Your "state birds" comparison is apples and oranges.  While many (all?) states have designated an official state bird, there all do so in their way, as do countries, provinces, regions and other jurisdictions the world over.  There is no single state or official bird designation, representing a separate and unique class of bird. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not about a United-States-centric concept of "national monuments"; it is about topics in the United States that are called National Monuments.  As such, the article title should either remain as it is, or move to a title such as United States National Monuments or national monuments in the United States.  Powers T 17:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. As the nominator, I would like to ask those opposing to distinguish whether they believe "national monument" is a proper noun, and if so to explain why, or whether they believe it is a common noun for which the normal rules of typography and Wikipedia policy should not be followed. Also, I'd like to point out a few links that support my position, in Britannica online, the National Parks Conservation Association web site (2nd paragraph, 2nd to last line), and Encyclopedia.Com. WolfmanSF (talk)
 * My opposition is irrelevant to whether or not I feel the phrase is a proper noun or not. Powers T 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but whether something is capitalized in formal prose is generally based on the application of rules, not on someone's preference or a vote. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you even read my opposition? I specifically tried to make clear that I was not addressing the issue of whether or not this should be treated as a proper noun or not.  I oppose the change if it's a proper noun, and I oppose the change if it's not, because neither title is, IMO, correct.  Powers T 16:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Useful distinction from things like the National Monument to the Forefathers, . The NPS sometimes uses as well: "designated as a National Monument in 1924". Rmhermen (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the typographical distinction could be useful if there were a lot of examples of non-Antiquities Act-based "national monuments", and if there was also a general practice outside Wikipedia of maintaining this distinction. However, I doubt the former is true and I have already shown the latter isn't true, which undercuts the usefulness of trying to maintain this distinction in Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, it will probably be necessary to explicitly discuss the difference when the issue arises, as is done in the National Monument to the Forefathers article, or perhaps to use wording similar to what I just used. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

National Monument (United States) → United States National Monument – Alternatively, National monuments in the United States. As per my comments in the above section, this is not an article about a different concept of national monuments unique to the United States, but rather a subarticle of the National monument article; the title should reflect that, using our usual titling conventions, rather than using the disambiguation convention. Powers T 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but National monument (United States) might be a good choice. My reasoning:
 * 1) Contrary to the nominator's assertion, U.S. "National Monuments" are not the same as what's described in National monument. That article says "A National monument is a monument constructed in order to commemorate something of national importance". The great majority of National Monuments in the US are protected areas (e.g., natural areas or archaeological sites); they are not constructed and they generally don't "commemorate" anything. Furthermore, the term has a very specific meaning, in that "National Monuments" are specifically authorized by the Antiquities Act of 1906 and can only be established by Presidential proclamation.
 * 2) The proposed proper-noun term "United States National Monument" would be a Wikipedia neologism, and thus is inappropriate for an article title.
 * 3) The form "National Monument (United States)" is consistent with Wikipedia convention for titling articles about named entities that have different meanings in different countries.
 * 4) The general term "National Monument" sometimes is treated as a proper noun (as in the article title), but in recent usage is often rendered in lower case ("national monument"), so National monument (United States) might be appropriate. However, because this article describes a specific legal concept rather than a list of entities, the title National monuments in the United States is undesirable. (Note that List of National Monuments of the United States exists as a separate article.) --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We just had the discussion on the name you propose, and it was rejected. Powers T 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this suggestion, for reasons stated in the move discussion above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment "United States National Monument" is not a neologism. (1978). (2010), (2007), (1957) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is, in fact, an article about a different concept of national monuments unique to the United States.  I adopt the reasoning of Orlady's point no. 1 above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV issues
I added the POV tags and started the cleanup. This article needs a lot more work. It was written as a largely-uncited critique of the national monuments creation process. It didn't have a NPOV. Nearwater (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotes
Mbierman... I'm unaware as to why you restored quotes around the names of national monuments. They aren't direct quotes from anywhere, they're proper names, and stylistically, there's no reason for the quotes. Could you explain why you think they need to be there? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I removed them. Our edits simply passed each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbierman (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, no worries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge Antiquities Act into this one
Is there a reason why this and Antiquities Act are separate articles? it seems to me that we can merge that article into this one and have a more complete, more encylopedia-like article. Most of the history is the same.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Antiquities Act page has lots of nice detail in the infobox that I think we should keep. The reverse, i.e., merging this national monument article into the Antiquities Act article, might work if there are no national monuments that didn't come from the Antiquities Act. Is that true? Nearwater (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You raise a good question. I await others to answer it.
 * I think that we can keep the infoxbox and indeed create a section here with the heading "Antiquities Act", highlighting that act and giving something for people to link to (e.g. National Monument (United States)), while merging the history section.  I think that "National Monument" being the WP:CommonName should remain the title of the resulting merged article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep them separate. The topics are distinct (National Monuments are places and the Antiquities Act is a statute) and both could be expanded productively. The fact that the two articles are very similar right now does not mean that they couldn't be developed in different directions, but merging them is likely to prevent further development. --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How can they be developed in different directions? Does the Antiquities Act do anything else but create National Monuments? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge this page with Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act page is about a specific federal law establishing the authority to create National Monuments; this page defines what National Monuments are.  I don't think we need both; the page on the Act can define them.  We also have List of National Monuments of the United States which should remain as is. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Antiquities act seems to have been the legal basis for prosecuting looting on all federal lands, not just in monuments. I think. Rmhermen (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Antiquities Act article contains references to the expansion of presidential power and Supreme Court cases that have created this power. This would not be appropriate as part of the National Monument article, particularly because national monuments can be established in other ways and too much emphasis on this Act would be out of place.Moonboy54 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE. The Antiquities Act is a piece of legislation that has many potential applications. The designation of National Monuments may be the best known of these, but it is certainly no the only one. Enabling legislation is important enough to deserve its own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.46.58 (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate of info on List of National Monuments of the United States not needed
I removed from the history section a few paragraphs that just said On XX date Pres. Obama created XX national monument, commenting "Removed list of recent additions. There is a List of National Monuments of the United States article". User:Rmhermen undid my changes commenting only "(restore recent history to history section)". I see no reason to duplicate information that already exists at List of National Monuments of the United States. This article should encyclopedic and not a WP:Laundry list. We should mention only substantial and historical creations not each and every one and leave the list article for Pres created XX national monument on XX date listing. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's nix the redundant laundry list stuff. If there's been some important recent trends (that sources back up), that might be worth mentioning. Additionally, it might be helpful to add the presidents as a separate column to the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States Nearwater (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: The list article contains only current National Monuments. It only has a brief discussion on the numerous former National Monuments, which are properly in the scope of this article. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)