Talk:The River of Blood (monument)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is there a commentary section? POV[edit]

Why is there a commentary section? Isnt that unencyclopedic & POV? This isnt how it's done. If someone wants to make an entry titled "Historical blunders made by members of the Trump administration" then it should go there. Citing an Esquire magazine editorial as a credible opinion is also a bit dubious. Probablynoteworthy (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of relevant historians is not POV and it is encyclopedic. This is indeed how it's done. There is an article about the Trump administration's historical blunders wherein lie the details; to refer to those blunders elsewhere is legitimate. The Esquire article is not used as evidence of the monument's credibility, but its political context. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen a "Commentary" section in any other article including the one you've linked. This IS a real story and it is important, but we need to present the entry as factual and verifiable.Probablynoteworthy (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three speedily dredged examples; I could go on, but I think the point is made:
* Erich von Däniken: a long commentary section, with a subsection entitled 'logical and factual errors'
* Ancient astronauts: section entitled 'critics'.
* Bosnian pyramid claims: three commentary sections.
* I happen to agree with you on one point; I don't like the word Commentary in this context, which is why I changed it to Reaction (since reverted; see below). If any historian were to provide a reaction of assent, it ought to be included. But none have done so, and no evidence has been provided in favor of the monument despite the opportunity. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like the word "commentary", but I do, esp. since this section contains commentary, that is, well-thought out responses that look at the broader picture, not just immediate "reactions". Drmies (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reaction may still be a well-thought out response that looks at the broader picture. Trump acts in the pursuit of fake history; historians react with derision. The historian who wrote to complain about the monument cannot be said to have provided a commentary, since we don't know exactly what was written. It was a reaction which belongs in a section here called 'Reactions'. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I happen to think it's a commentary that should be listed in a "Commentary" section, even if I don't have the timestamp for the response. I think this is all very unimportant and fail to see why you think this is a big deal. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, even if you won't engage with the points being made. The question of whether I think it is important or not is not pertinent to the matter. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points Cpaaoi. I havent had much time to look at similar articles to get a template, because I guess there hasn't been a president who perpetuates fraudulent hoaxes for personal gain that Im aware of....Probablynoteworthy (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Trump National Golf Club (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

Trivia that doesn't deserve its own article. KMF (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Has received its own coverage; it's almost incidental that the location is a golf course rather than some other property on the river front. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. I'm removing your tag as long as the article is on the front page. You can restore it tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Agree. Would be fine to include in the TNGC article, especially in the shorter and more accurate version I had produced prior to Yngvadottir's reversion. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but your "production" sucked. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a lovely day, Drmies. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I would have treated you with all the courtesy in the world had you not let loose on the article. There's five million articles on Wikipedia, and three months after signing up you run like a wild bull through my carefully designed china shop. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everyone is entitled to courtesy, including yourself. The question of the length of service of any particular Wikipedia account is not pertinent.Cpaaoi (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I mentioned in my own section, this seems like a trivial matter that should be covered by an article with larger scope. The references consist entirely of 4 news articles. While this means it has gotten coverage, it should be noted that there are many 'fluff' articles out there; in other words, being in the news does not necessarily prove significance. In this case, I've seen a pattern of news organizations giving disproportionate coverage to minor issues that disparage President Trump. This brings up political concerns -- is this article about a relevant fact, or does it exist to further a political agenda? The fact that a start-class article like this was linked on the front page raises concerns of partisan bias. Finally, this doesn't have any potential geopolitical significance (unlike eg the Trump-Tsai call). In conclusion, I say merge -- if not with this particular article, then with another. Bigdan201 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF. Sometimes a pattern of facts makes one side look worse than the other. That doesn't make the facts biased. Such an argument is getting dangerously close to a Colbert-esque satire. If you believe that there is undue weight given to a set of facts that make Trump look bad, add other (verifiable) facts that tell the rest of the story. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I generally assume good faith. Nowhere did I say the facts are biased. The facts are what they are, the role of bias is in distortion and selective observation aka cherrypicking. It seems to me that this issue is given excessive attention simply because it reflects negatively on Trump. Such partisan bias is to be avoided. Bigdan201 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It was central to a major news story about a US presidential candidate. Joe the Plumber, Mission Accomplished speech, and Jimmy Carter rabbit incident would be considered just as trivial if not for the involvement of a president, and each has their own article. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think each of those incidents had greater political relevance than this. That said, I'd rather not bog this down with debate, so that's all I'll say. Bigdan201 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The location is incidental; the events themselves are both N and V by RS, with DEPTH and PERSISTENCE, and that's all that's required for s stand alone article, not counting the fact that nothing in WP:MERGEREASON applies. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose reinstate edits reverted by Yngvadottir 01:44, 29 May 2017[edit]

  • 1) Truthfully, 'pseudohistorical' does not have to imply deliberateness, nor the removal of details (see Yngvadottir's edit summary). The lede of the Wikipedia article on pseudohistory suggests mainly that it resembles legitimate historical practice, but is inconsistent with the historical record. This is a pseudohistorical monument.
  • 2) Why has the note about the 5,000 Confederate soldiers safely traversing the river been excised? This was referred to in the given sources, and gives the lie to Trump's seeming principal argument that the great numbers of soldiers crossing the river during the Civil War must have produced lots of bloodshed.
  • 3) All the unnecessary pieces of information about how much Trump paid for the golf course, and all the 9/11 stuff, etc, kick up dust around the central subject and should be removed again.
  • 4) The point about claims of a 'battle' has been reinstated - I have seen no evidence that Trump claims there was a battle there; only that there was bloodshed. Why has this been reincorporated to the article?
  • 5) In sum, The article ought to be largely un-reverted, for it has been returned to a confusing and misleading state. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry--I really don't know what you are trying to argue. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your points, Cpaaoi, although I think you've misinterpreted my edit summary a bit (I often find the space insufficient): I meant the "pseudohistorical" and "removal of details" points separately. I've reinstated the 5,000 soldiers fording the river and made changes to the end of the lede; I agree, the wording of the inscription could apply to more than one occasion of carnage. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough Yngvadottir; thanks for making some compromises; I accept I can't necessarily have it all the way I personally would like to see it. All the best Cpaaoi (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?[edit]

I'm not sure why this deserves its own article, let alone a "did you know?" link on the front page. This seems more like something that should be merged under another article with larger scope. Perhaps there are editors on wiki who are enthusiastic about anything that disparages President Trump, but an encyclopedia should remain non-partisan. Bigdan201 (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above: Proposed merge with Trump National Golf Club (Washington, D.C.) Cpaaoi (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that's what I get for skimming through. I'll report up there. Bigdan201 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
16+ years into the project, the "did you know?" section is basically all trivia at this point. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Everything was much better in the old days. Drmies (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important tangent. The Did You Know? section is generally not what it should be. Why would I know about some guy who invented a typeface in the 19th century, or how a particular actor/actress views a character they played? The content is both arcane and trivial. It's okay for obscure facts to go up, but they should be interesting and stimulating to a broad swath of the readers, rather than a few antiquarians or hobbyists. Bigdan201 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article feels like bullshit[edit]

Seems like a political article not based on fact. At all. Nobaddude (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Nobaddude, it may seem that way to you, but the reliable sources say otherwise; you are welcome to take that up with their editorial boards. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facts about made up things bother some folks I guess. Personally, I think the plaque is another passive-aggressive theft from the coward Trump, who always gets others to fight his battles. 162.194.141.247 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of contextual information[edit]

I admit that events unfold in a messy way and it is possible to differ on what's connected to what, but I disagree with the removal of the information mentioned in relation to this monument by Rob Crilly in The Telegraph. The connection was made by the source, not by Wikipedia editors, and if anything it excuses Trump's pronouncements by showing that he had other matters on his mind at the time the issue was raised with him. Paging Drmies, who largely wrote the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(a) WP:NOR: "The story broke while the Donald Trump presidential campaign was in full swing" -- the source cited did not say when the story broke. Heck, the article does not even say when the plaque was installed and for how time the historians have been amused with it.
(b) WP:UNDUE: at that time he "had more weighty facts to clarify, -- I don't think the journalist has a say about which facts Trump had no clarify. Not to say the ref cited shows Trump was quite insistent on his opinion that there is nothing to clarify at all (and our article already says this).
Conclusion: The disputed text is an opinion piece of insufficient relevance. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't know what you mean with "the disputed text". Are you talking about text in the article, or a source? Cause you removed what appears (duh) to be an RS. If you are conflating two things, perhaps it's best to make such changes in two edits? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Your edit summary: "(Reverted 1 edit by Staszek Lem: Very strange. title says "Donald Trump's 'river of blood' golf course claim is debunked by historians". seems pretty relevant. find consensus on talk page plz. " It seems that you confused ext ref title with article text, due to our pretty poor wikiediting/viewing tool. Please search for text "debunked by historians" both in my and your versions. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    appears (duh) to be an RS - duh back :-) I explained myselves and me. Not everything from RS finds way into wikipedia. We are not copying full newspaper articles into wikipedia, are we? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not. The problem is "the disputed text is an opinion piece..." The first part suggests you are talking about article text, the second that you are talking about the source. You removed both text and a source, and my contention is that the article is relevant and from a reliable source, and the content based on it thus not so easily removed. If you wish to suggest improved phrasing, I'd love to see it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Staszek Lem moved the reference to the first sentence of the section. (It contains material that we are already citing to other sources, including that historians reject the claim made in the inscription.) @Staszek Lem: The article sets the emergence of the story quite clearly in the context of the stage of Trump's campaign, although since he had not yet secured the nomination, I think we should change our wording to "campaign for the Republican nomination", so I don't think your OR point is valid. As to undue weight, that I believe is the important issue here, and as I said, I believe people can differ; however, the whole article is about the monument and Trump's pronouncements on it as an example of his "bombast and hyperbole"—lead paragraph—and "lyrical exaggeration" that the writer says, some regard as "quintessential Trump"—both in the paragraph after the bits we quote. In my judgement, we aren't overstating what this source says, and it's a valid representation of what has been written about this monument, and the context in which it's been set. We could instead quote the judgements I just quoted, but saying a writer in a major newspaper noted the context of other things that were in the air at the time is, I think, more measured and less open to the inference that Wikipedia endorses the viewpoint that Trump characteristically utters "bombast and hyperbole" (etc.). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you almost convinced me. However, once again:
  • The article sets the emergence of the story quite clearly in the context of the stage of Trump's campaign -- nope. The only thing we are allowed to say is some introductory triviality such as: "An attention was attracted to the monument during Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination".
  • There is no need for literal quotation of a frivolous style of a journalist. First, there is no reason for literal quotation at all. Second, Wikipedia must deliver an essence and say something like: "Rob Crilly <and not "Telegraph"> noted other dubious claims uttered by Trump during this time,[1] such as such as repeating a discredited claim claim that Muslims in New Jersey cheered on the day of the 9/11 attacks[2] and people jumping from... [3]
  • It must be merged with the next paragraph, because it speaks about essentially the same: careless handling of truth within Trumpism.
Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything frivolous in that style, by the way, and I'm sorry, but if you propose ungrammatical constructions like "an attention was attracted" and "Wikipedia must deliver an essence) then I can't accept your judgment on style in English. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ungrammatical constructions can be made grammatical. It is not a valid reason for rejection. Whereas the unsupported statements are. And picking on someone's non-native language in lieu of better arguments is rude. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is certain sourced material being deleted?[edit]

There is persistent editing going on on this page to remove factual sourced information and reverse it to unsourced information. The edit that changed "such as his claim that Muslims in New Jersey cheered on the day of the 9/11 attacks – 'an old rumour that is discredited'" to "'an old rumor that is disputed'" is factually correct. There is no source for the claim that the rumor is "discredited" but the edit that the claim is disputed has two sources, New Jersey Online, which is a local news website that has been around for years and has its content republished in several local newspapers including The Star Ledger. The New Jersey Online account of the events in question includes multiple eye witness accounts that mention particular names of witnesses, making it verifiable. The second source provided is The Washington Post, which I can't imagine anyone is going to dispute the veracity of. These edit reversions seem political in motivation. Plain_Information (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE. First, the vase majority of reliable sources say discredited. Second, the sources you provide don't support the fringe view you are pushing.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quote is from Crilly, who uses "discredited". This is the actual word used by Crilly. The refs distinguish between Trump's broad statement and their reportage, and don't refer to Crilly. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the source it is a direct quote that says "discredited". However, upon reviewing the entire paragraph in the context of the rest of the article I don't think it's relevant to this article—the whole paragraph is not actually about the subject of the article. I think it should be deleted. Plain Information (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]

"recorded casualties" in lead[edit]

The lead paragraph ends with "although no listed battle or publicly disclosed event with any recorded casualties took place at this site." But at the start of the Commentary section is Craig Swain- Loudoun Times statement that two soldiers were killed there by citizens in 1861. Should the lead sentence be changed, e.g. "...although no listed battle took place at this site"? Fishlandia (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very quick to dismiss this as false, when a quick Google will say otherwise.[edit]

If wiki had referenced their own article, they would find out this is in fact just downstream of of where "the river ran red". But because no one cares about truth or facts they just want the left to look good and the right to look bad.

It's literally your own article, fact check yourselves.

See article: "The day of the battle is known as "the day Antietam Creek ran red" due to the blood of thousands of Union casualties mixing with the creek waters." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antietam_Creek 156.19.246.20 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits on the grounds that they are not supported by a reliable source. We've got a source stating that the only battle in the area was 11 miles away. Your reference to the river running red appears to be related to the Battle of Antietam which, judging from online maps, was significantly farther away. I wouldn't describe it as "just downstream." It doesn't seem likely to me that the casualties at Antietam would be enough to noticeable change the color of the water dozens of miles away. But that's beside the point. Ultimately, if reliable sources aren't connecting Antietam with this site then it's not appropriate for our article to do so. Squeakachu (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_River_of_Blood_(monument)&oldid=1212174788"