Talk:The Promised Land (sculpture)

Image
File:Defending Portland (34294028953).jpg has been uploaded to Commons. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal
Sourcing needed, but I can confirm the artwork has been removed:

--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Can a single page be whitelisted from change.org? It is now a matter of fact and historical record, that essentially alters the subject matter of this page in particular. It is also of material interest to those following the George Floyd protests. Its not a case of soapboxing at this point. I think that it should be permitted at least on the talk page.
 * Nope. We're not here to promote petitions, however good the cause. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Copy?
Mention of Hot Lake Springs: --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.oregonlive.com/terryrichard/2011/09/hot_lake_springs_restored_open.html

Proposed improvements to the page, reverted without explanation. Please discuss or restore
- Included a link to Promised_Land, you know, the original one. Since the subject matter itself might be relevant to some people, beyond its mere aesthetics.

- Added links to Treaty with the Kalapuya, etc and Grand Ronde Reservation, to give some context to this subject matter.

- Included a link to Anti-Judaism and Supercessionism, the christian doctrines on which this artwork is aesthetically concepted.

- Restored a link to the Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument on the adjacent park block because that shares a similar artistic theme to this statue.

-Restored quote from T.Jefferson that is inscribed on monument's pedestal: Undid revision 848528557 by Another Believer (talk) Another Believer had earlier reverted a third editors improvement to the article, without explanation, which I restored

These improvement were made by me, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The reversions were made by Another_Beleiver

[] Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?

In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea.
 * Jaredscribe, your "context" and "improvements" involve your interpretation of United States & Oregon history. Please rely only on reliable sources, not your own understanding of what you think is relevant to this sculpture. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The statue itself is an interpretation of US & Oregon history. To fail to mention this fact, is to mistake that interpretation as "neutral", and the article makes this error, and violates the neutrality policy.  See the section below for discussion. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor has been blocked. Do you think we should archive any of these talk page discussions and/or remove the tag on the article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Set ablaze
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/10/president-trump-confirms-he-sent-homeland-security-officers-to-crack-down-on-portland-protesters-the-locals-couldnt-handle-it/

Another source
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.opb.org/article/2020/12/28/portland-oregon-statues-protest-black-lives-matter-elk/

Monumental Inscription
A monument emplaced so that the public can see it, is, so to speak, published, and serves as an implicit source for its own inscription, just as a novel serves as a source for its own plot. No further citation is required. An volunteer IP added this, and after reverted it, I added it again, whereupon he reverted it again. I will add this quote again, and if he reverts again, it is disruptive. He expresses the same misunderstanding of WP:Sourcing on the article about the related monument Spanish–American_War_Soldier%27s_Monument. I live in Portland and have confirmed that this quote accurately reflects what is inscribed. If an editor is unable to do this, (s)he should refrain from discussing the matter. WP:Competence is required "It is so long since our forefathers came from behind the great water, that we have lost the memory of it, and seem to have grown out of this land, as you have done. We are all now of one family, born in the same land, and bound to live as brothers. The Great Spirit has given you strength, and has given us strength, not that we might hurt one another, but to do to each other all the good in our power. &mdash; Thomas Jefferson" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the inscription being added, though ideally a source would be provided to readers for verification. However, I have disagreed with some of your other edits to both articles. Feel free to add back inscription. Also, no need to worry about my incompetence; I've written 5 Featured articles and over 100 Good articles, so I generally understand how this works... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Jaredscribe: please refrain from personal attacks, including passive-aggressive personal attacks. tedder (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I will do so. Personal attacks are basic fallacies of argument in addition to violating WP:Civility.  Other users are free to question my own competence if demonstrate lack of it, just as I have questioned that of, but we should leave race, gender, religion etc. out of it.  We should also avoid terms of abuse and stick to criticism of content or of each other merely in our roles as editors, as I've done.Jaredscribe (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But are you saying,, that I've personally attacked him, or is that merely a passive-aggressive (and false) insinuation that I've done so? Consider staying out of this one, unless you have something constructive to add.Jaredscribe (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning and interpretation of the statue
This statue offers an interpretation of United States and Oregon Territory settler history.

This is where other sources can be cited describing what the statue represents; I will only include the sentence above, acknowledging that it has a meaning, while leaving it to outside sources to analyze and interpret. The statue itself expresses a POV on history. To deny that it does so, and reduce it to mere aesthetics as the article currently does, is it adopt either the POV:everything is meaningless, or to adopt the POV of the statue itself. I assert that the POV of the statue is Supercessionism and White Supremacy, but I'll leave that out of the article for now until we can find sources. Jewish and Indigenous groups have been saying this for decades, but there voices are systematically ignored. Obviously, this is why the city (belatedly) removed it following the protests and the petition. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm flagging this article as violating the neutrality policy until then. The unwillingness by to acknowledge the bias or even the meaning of the statue, is a manifestation of this same bias. To assume that white supremacy is simple normative and defining it as "Neutral", while insisting that my description of it is merely an "interpretation" that requires sourcing - as has done, is how WP:Systemic bias here in wikipedia forms. We should be ashamed of ourselves, and seek to rectify this rather than settling in comfortably with it. Guess what, OREGON IS NOT THE PROMISED LAND. White American Christians ARE NOT THE CHOSEN PEOPLE. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll back off and let others take over from here. Happy editing, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another Believer : I have removed the template, because the above message doesn't describe a cognizable point-of-view case. You added the update template in August; what did you think needed updating? I'm having trouble finding sources about the statue, anyway, from that time; the "Promised Land" is too generic a phrase. Jaredscribe: I have removed the point-of-view template which you added, because you do not state a case about why the article is biased, other than that the statue is biased. It does not follow that an article on a biased subject will be similarly biased if it does not list all objections to said subject. The sentence you provide is more biased than the article; linking "City on a hill" under "United States" and "settler colonialism" under "settler" is clearly pushing an anti-statue point of view. The sentence you mentioned should not be included, as it is highly contentious and without any source. The city is removing the statue, according to cited sources, because of riot-caused vandalism, which is already mentioned; not because of any protests, which were not (to my knowledge) directed at this statue. Your sole contribution to discussion (which is needed to maintain the point-of-view template over the third condition) was to accuse another editor of incivility; ignore the edit summaries of reverting edits; and shout loudly on unrelated topics. If you have another objection to this article's point of view, or wish to state your current case more clearly, please do so on this page, without restoring the point-of-view template. [I just realized, as well, that you already were engaged in unproductive disputes with other editors. Your reference to another editor mischaracterizes her statement. Your proposed Wiki-links in the section above do not relate to this statue at all. The "Promised Land" article relates the religious sentiment primarily, and the statue does not, as it concerns itself with the earthly delights of new-found and new-founded Oregon. The Indian treaty (which is Treaty with the Kalapuya, etc.) and the reservation you mentioned are irrelevant to this article, because this article is not about the Oregon Indians (Kalapuya or otherwise). The doctrines you propound as integral to the statue's meaning would recognize a definite point of view, and thus require sourcing. The other monument is, in fact, not related to this statue; it recognizes those who died in the Spanish–American War.] TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"Arts board says statues toppled during Portland protests should not return to original sites"
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-toppled-statues/283-322173ca-87c9-4951-9db3-6842172d1895

Public help
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.opb.org/article/2021/10/21/portland-commissioner-carmen-rubio-wants-public-help-on-future-of-toppled-statues/