Talk:Battle of Liberty Place

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Liberty Place article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: North America / United States / Classical

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

United States: Louisiana Low‑importance

	United States portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).

Separate article for monument?

Resolved

Especially given the recent debate over the monument's removal, I think it may be appropriate to have a separate article about the monument. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Another Believer: I agree. Can you please do it?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: Done. Feel free to take a look and make improvements to either article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessed

Article assessed as Start-class. Large paragraphs of the article are missing citations these will need to be addressed in the future. Simultaneously fair portions of the article need to be reworked and restructured for grammatical issues and two to develop a standardization of writing, MOS will help. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example of the grammar issue; "The governor refused to meet and considered the committee as representing now armed masses a menace." took me twelve re-reads to figure it out, what it actually should say is, for example; The governor refused to meet the committee, considering the committee to be a menace for representing the now armed masses. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Procedings

This article has popups but also has a bit more info: http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/politics/article_db2818ac-045e-11e7-b65d-1311ddf0e635.html John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Title? Current Title Euphemistic?

Shouldn't this article be called something like "1874 Louisiana Coup Attempt"? Is the current title and common name of "The Battle of Liberty Place" a neoconfederate euphemism?

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of “terrorist”

Does the adjective “terrorist” add anything to “paramilitary”?

I note the contemporary Fenian Brotherhood is not called a terrorist paramilitary organization on this site but engaged in comparable actions. 134.41.86.115 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

This article appears to be largely sourced by contemporaneous newspaper articles. Newspapers in this time period were intensely partisan, and as such cannot be counted on for accurate, neutral information. The article should be re-written using modern books and journal articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Beyond My Ken, I question the decision to change the title of this article from Battle of Liberty Place to Battle of Canal Street. I did a search in Google Scholar for "Battle of Liberty Place" and received 431 results. I did one for "Battle of Canal Street" and got 37. Non-scholarly sources also overwhelmingly prefer he former to the latter. As Wikipedia editors, we are obliged to follow the sources, and it is clear which term they use. Therefore, I am changing the article back. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name is totally an ex-Confederate invention, promoted in connection with the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. There is no "Liberty Place" and the battle took place on Canal Street. We don't allow terroristic insurrectionists from defining the names of their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, even if that is true (which I have no way of knowing because you haven't provided any sources), it is irrelevant, as it would not change the fact that we are beholden to what the sources say, and it appears to me that the sources overwhelmingly call it the Battle of Liberty Place. If we cannot agree, I suggest starting an RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "1874 New Orleans White League insurrection" seems totally contrived and is to me therefore actually a downgrade from Battle of Canal Street. I believe that the ideal thing would be to keep the article as Battle of Liberty Place, but even Battle of Canal Street would likely be better than the current title. Display name 99 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that a different editor has filed a request to move the article back to the original title, which was accepted. No further attempt to change the title of the article should be made without first attaining consensus. Display name 99 (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]