Template:Did you know nominations/River of Blood (monument)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

River of Blood (monument)[edit]

(
)

Created by Drmies (talk) and Yngvadottir (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

  • It's an interesting story but it seems to contravene a DYK rule, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Taken literally, the hook seems rather implausible, as it seems unlikely that Trump would do the physical work of erecting the monument himself. Maybe it was the idea of one of his staff as a creative piece of faux history like, say, the way that Tower Bridge was built in a medieval Gothic style to match the nearby Tower of London. If the Trump organisation is not going to reveal the details of exactly who did what, then it seems too speculative to suggest that it was all Trump's personal idea and doing. Compare, for example, the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Andrew Davidson, I tweaked the hook: I used "erected" somewhat loosely, and I tightened it up. I did not mean, of course, that Trump was out there pouring cement and stuff. But to say that, if we don't see the contract and the video of who ordered what when, we can't say that the man who is in charge is in charge, that's too far-fetched. Our reliable source, the New York Times, says "Mr. Trump installed a flagpole on a stone pedestal overlooking the Potomac, to which he affixed a plaque purportedly designating “The River of Blood.”"--I think that's clear enough (it's actually the kind of wording I had in my hook), and that the NYT reported on this makes it altogether different from the Washington story. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The entire piece seems to rest on the work of one journalist -- the other sources just recycle the story. The journalist interviewed a few people including Trump, who wasn't very forthcoming. It seems too thin and one-sided to pass muster and I reckon it should be merged into Trump National Golf Club (Washington, D.C.) which has the same story as a single paragraph. I'm not passing this but we can get more opinions to establish a good consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I'd like to ask for a different reviewer, please. I think Andrew Davidson has had enough conflicts with me and we don't need another one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I had already suggested that we get more opinions and placed a {{DYK?again}} marker to request a new reviewer. My involvement in this was just due to wanting a QPQ review before nominating another topic. I've run out of time for that topic now and so don't expect it to advance to DYK. Sometimes that's the way it goes at DYK; it's not always successful. The topic we have here is controversial and so needs care and consensus. I'm going to be busy with other things now this weekend and others are welcome to pick this up. Andrew D. (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Second reviewer. The article is new enough, long enough and within policy (which is to say that it reflects the available reliable sources). That the monument exists has been widely reported (several reports in a news database search and a photograph exists), so that is not an issue. The only point is about the hook. The subject of the article is the monument; the subject of the hook seems to be Trump. Could this be slightly reworded to make the monument the subject and give Trump slightly less prominence? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

third comment if the article etc. meets policy, may I suggest a different wording:

ALT2 ... that on the links at the Trump National Golf Club in Virginia a monument commemorates a Civil War massacre that never happened? —or:
ALT3 ... that the Potomac never ran red with blood at Lowes Island, Virginia in the Civil War, but the monument at the Trump National Golf Club says it did?

Many thanks to all three for comments and suggestions. My personal choice would be for ALT2, with Auntieruth55's suggestion a close second (if the disambiguating bracketed term is piped). It depersonalises the Trump connection, which removes the "negative aspects of living individuals", while still mentioning him; it also keeps the focus a little more on the monument, the article's subject. I've signed it off in the hope that everyone is OK with that, but is someone feels strongly enough to re-open it, I won't take it to heart. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

* FYI, there's a detailed investigation of the issue at The day the Potomac ran red with blood at Lowe’s Island This suggests

In his defense of the plaque, Trump gave something like a “my people talked to other people” response. I will add that back when I first became aware of the plaque, my line of inquiry lead me to the names of two local historians who were said to have provided services to Trump’s business. That does square with the narrative – Trump’s people discussed this with some local authority. That authority provided the customer what he wanted to hear… and what would sound really nice on a plaque. At a minimum, an authority who was unwilling to correct a mistaken appreciation for the facts.

This reminds me of an article that I worked on for DYK – Colonel Johnson. He featured in a tall tale about the tomato which was promoted as history by the local authorities, published in books and broadcast on the radio. The word "apocryphal" is useful when working on such topics. :) Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you: an interesting extension to the story. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
ALT4 ...* ... that Donald Trump's Washington D.C. golf course has a monument, the River of Blood, commemorating an apocryphal American Civil War encounter? Source: In Renovation of Golf Club, Donald Trump Also Dressed Up History auntieruth (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the associated bluster from the owner of the golf course about the monument, I think "apocryphal" is giving him too much credit: "fictional" is still my preference. Either way, my thanks to all parties who have commented here--you too, Andrew. I do not mind being part of a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, can you move this DYK forward, with whatever hook you like? I like ALT2 fine enough. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/River_of_Blood_(monument)&oldid=781620101"