Talk:Silent Sam: Difference between revisions

	Silent Sam was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 10, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

Military history: Memorials / North America / United States / American Civil War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military memorials and cemeteries task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

United States: North Carolina / University of North Carolina Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (assessed as Mid-importance).

Verify legend through a citation please. eGGz 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done so. 68.39.174.238 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobel Prize of Comics"? Is that a real quote? I just wonder if this prize is comparable to, for instance, the Eisner or Harvey Awards. 85.226.122.205 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unfortunately barely more than a Start class and does not fulfill the GA criteria at this time. The reason why I am failing the nomination so quickly and not putting it on hold is because I believe it needs a substantial amount of work in order to fix numerous issues that are holding it back.

It fails criterion 1 (well written), 2 (verifiable) and 3 (comprehensive) and borders on failing criterion 4, which is neutrality. I highly suggest greatly expanding the article, finding additional reliable sources -- four is a good start, but it's not enough -- and perhaps looking into how other, similar articles dedicated to statues are presented. For example, Iron Mike is a Good Article and is dedicated to numerous different statues with a common theme. I also strongly suggest re-writing what is already included in the article in order to avoid possible POV issues; a statue is an "it", not a "he" although it depicts a man, and some of the prose ("So far, it has never fired" and "rifle in hand, to protect the university from any future northern aggression") is not encyclopedic and/or unrealistic in regards to the subject matter. This is a statue, after all. Most of all, however, the article needs more information. Notability-wise, history-wise, even material-wise: what is it made of? Why is it called "Sam"? What does the plaque say? There's so much more to explore! I have seen the statue in person and I know how special it is to the university, so I'm sure that with some dedicated work, contributors here can greatly improve the article for a future nomination. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? 40% of the student body at the time? The sentence is a run-on and unclear. I'd rewrite but I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Ken (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it is mentioned that the United Daughters of the Confederacy collected and paid the amount of $7,500 for the statue. I think it is worthy to note that in today's dollars, accounting for inflation, the equivalent cost would be nearly $200,000. (More precisely, $185,443.94) 70.161.169.134 (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence refers to the statue in the present tense. The statue is gone now. So... "Silent Sam WAS" not "Silent Sam IS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C001:F19A:DC89:82E4:BB9D:580B (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still a statue even in its current state. I think it is too soon to change the tense. The paragraph goes on to say that "It was located..." I think we need to wait and see what comes of it. It may be returned there or some other placement. Since this is a fluid, current event, I think it is best to wait but I see your point. P37307 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "commemorate the 50 year anniversary". Should be "commemorate the 50th anniversary". The word "anniversary" MEANS years. Is this Wikipedia or the Department of Redundancy Department? Would fix that myself but article is locked. 202.81.248.200 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"50 year anniversary" is definitely colloquially used, but I've made the requested change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know people do say this, and it grates. But if there is anywhere pedanticism is justified, it's an encyclopaedia. 202.81.248.53 (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism, as barbaric as it gets. The statue was a historic work of art, erected in 1903 ... Especially by US standards that is old enough to command some respect from decently educated people, who are able to judge it on its merits at the time of erection instead of our current beliefs. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as barbaric as it gets" - ummm... no, I think "horse whipping" a woman, bragging about it, celebrating murder and such qualify as more "barbaric". A little less "barbaric", but still up there is defending such actions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several acts of vandalism towards the statue in the past and the article addresses those. The words "pull down" is the action used by the protestors when they took the statue down its pedestal; this is consistent to other Wiki articles. The editors of this article are not trying to sugar-coat it, but to make it as politically neutral as possible. We want to list just the facts without spin or commentary and let the reader decide for themselves. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were vandals not protestors. Hatteras84 (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions one person arrested and if others are later charged then the article will be updated to reflect that as well. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if most Wikipedians would support posting the names of those arrested when they are announced? Point being, when they see them announced on the news they are going to say, wow, I wonder what I'd find online and if they see the Wikipedia icon in the top right (like I often do when I search for anything) they trust it and click it to learn 'more'. Aren't those EXACTLY the kind of people you want to cater to? Expand your base, build your community. We are talking about public information at that point, not divulging secrets.Mcgyver2k (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“is a clear reference to the terrorization of blacks and white Republicans by the Ku Klux Klan, which worked to restore the dominance of the “ This is incorrect. During this time this statement should read Democrats. The Republicans were working to end racism and promote the African American. Reklisammy (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and not by. At the time, this was true for the reasons you state. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article mention only one? -Topcat777 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Carr one? Prolly cuz it was so fucked up and prolly because that's what reliable sources cover.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]