Jump to content

Talk:National Garden of American Heroes

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

Sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of names

[edit]

Should we break up the list of names by occupation, etc, or would a single list sorted by last name be most helpful? I'm leaning towards the latter, unless we start to see sources grouping names by title/field/etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each list is already sorted by last name. I see no reason to combine the two lists, if that's what you're suggesting. NedFausa (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine as is, and many of the people were active in more than one field of endeavor. If the garden itself is organized by specific descriptors that might be the time to think about segmenting. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be one list as per the executive order. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are separating into sections, there should be more, like, founding fathers, military, abolitionists, suffragists. etc 69.116.73.107 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was this decided or separated by bold edits. In any case, with sections now usng descriptors, if this sticks the "Names marked with § were included in the original executive order" has become distracting and the symbol should probably be removed. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are these categories like "government", "athletes", "military", etc, being chosen based on editor preference or based on sourcing? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original executive order gives a list of categories so should probably be as close to that as it can. "Sec.(c)(iii)Statues should depict historically significant Americans, as that term is defined in section 7 of this order, who have contributed positively to America throughout our history. Examples include: the Founding Fathers, those who fought for the abolition of slavery or participated in the underground railroad, heroes of the United States Armed Forces, recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, scientists and inventors, entrepreneurs, civil rights leaders, missionaries and religious leaders, pioneers and explorers, police officers and firefighters killed or injured in the line of duty, labor leaders, advocates for the poor and disadvantaged, opponents of national socialism or international socialism, former Presidents of the United States and other elected officials, judges and justices, astronauts, authors, intellectuals, artists, and teachers." 69.116.73.107 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of categories. What's the benefit in breaking up a single list as such? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I believe it should stay as one list as in the executive order, just if it is broken up it should reflect the executive order categories and not some arbitrary categories. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is to show at a glance what type of heroes the National Garden honors. We see, for example, more athletes than people who have influenced our country through religion. More show business personalities than scientists. And the largest single category is military. This breakdown says something significant about how President Trump views our nation. NedFausa (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your partisan opinion, and if that is the reason you are doing it than it should be reverted per npov. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, But can't we just say which groups are represented based on sourcing? Do we really need to break the list up into a bunch of chunks? I wouldn't be surprised if we create something along the lines of List of statues in the National Garden of American Heroes one day, similar to List of sculptures in the National Statuary Hall Collection. A single sortable list may be most helpful to readers. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An unsorted list of 200+ names isn't useful to readers. If someone wanted a list of all names in the format given in the EO, that's what Wikisource is for. The categorization system is invented by editors, so that should be noted, but there isn't an official way to divide the list. Mcrsftdog (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mcrsftdog, IMO, your comments here suggest editors should not subjectively categorize/subdivide. I've made my preference for a single list known, but I will let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]

Please confirm your preference for a single list or a subdivided list:

Single list
Subdivided list
  • ---NedFausa (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subdivided list is much more useful for readers because it conveys more information about the names and makes it easier to analyze patterns. After reading this earlier in the day and noticing some interesting points (all the religious figures are Christian, for example), I was dismayed to return to this article and see that the categories had been removed. They should be restored. --Albany NY (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal

[edit]

@Neutrality: I completely disagree wth removing the list of names. I've added the list back. Happy to discuss further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof:? Neutralitytalk 22:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§

[edit]

User:Randy Kryn said the § symbols are distracting. Shall we use asterisks? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those symbols are perfectly fine and more visible than asterisks. --Albany NY (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more visible. That's the point. Whatever that thing is called it is not commonly used on Wikipedia as a differentation marker. Asterisks would be much better and make the same point in a less obtrusive way. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, asterisks are used more often. That'd be my preference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced with asterisks, which I agree are less distracting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"is" or "was" ?

[edit]

This "is" or "was" a proposed monument? User:NorthBySouthBaranof and I can't decide. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This project has no basis in law - only an executive order declaring that it should happen. The Biden administration is not going to pursue it, there is never going to be funding appropriated, and Trump's administration expires in a bit over an hour. It's dead, Jim. It will never be. It has expired. Kaput. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, OK, but don't we need a source confirming the project's cancellation? I follow your reasoning but Wikipedia is based on sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may never be a source which explicitly says it is canceled, is the thing. It's just going to disappear. There was never an actual proposal to make this happen, because as the sources discuss, no request for appropriation was ever submitted to Congress - it was just another Trump publicity stunt to make it look like he was doing something. And now he's gone, and this thing will never be heard from again.
The "source," so to speak, is that this was a Trump administration proposal that never happened and the Trump administration will cease to exist as of approximately 90 minutes from now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BenMcLean: Putting this discussion on your radar, given your recent edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed in 1789 and then was ignored for 202 years before being adopted in 1992. Nothing is cancelled until it's cancelled. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...by which I mean that this ***is*** and continues to be a proposed monument. The proposal exists in the present tense. Use the present tense. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the multiple edits but I thought of another thing to say: I think if the Biden administration actually announces that the project has been cancelled then using the past tense would be appropriate until some further action happens on this. If they just let it quietly disappear, then it continues to be a proposal and should continue to be referred to in the present tense indefinitely. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this remains a proposed monument in the present tense. Being proposed and being likely to happen aren't synonymous. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that there was a discussion on this subject. I edited the first sentence of the article to replace "was" with "is" because it is a proposal, and will remain a proposal, until it is either built or it is officially canceled. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a {Disputed inline} template to alert editors to this discussion. I believe the word should remain "is" pending consensus to substitute "was". Personally, I support "is" until the Biden administration disowns Trump's project. NedFausa (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the {Disputed inline} template to the main article; I had edited to change "was" to "is" prior to realizing that there was an ongoing discussion, and was trying to figure out what to do to signify to readers that there is a discussion going on.
As I stated above, I think that the sentence should say "is" unless and until the proposal is officially canceled by the Biden Administration and is not picked up by some other body with authority to propose such a monument. I do not believe that if, for example, a spokesman for the Biden Administration states that such proposed monument is "not a priority" or that President Biden won't seek funding for its construction in the next budget that it would represent a cancelation of the proposal. Likewise, if President Biden formally repeals President Trump's executive order but another group (perhaps a congressional caucus or a 501(c)(3) organization) picks up the mantle of proposing the monument, it still would constitute a live proposal and the present tense "is" should continue to be used. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a "live proposal" is questionable - the administration which proposed it is gone, and there doesn't appear to be any private group agitating or lobbying for it. It's WP:CRYSTAL to speculate that such a thing might happen - if and when it does, we can discuss that, but as of now, it's dead. At the very least, we should be clear about the likelihood of this happening - slim to none, and Slim just bought a ticket out of town. Also, this page should not be included in categories which are for things that actually exist. It is neither a hall of fame nor a sculpture garden, because it's nothing more than a few pieces of paper in the previous administration's archives. "Proposed monuments" is fine, of course. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well make sure to go out of your way as much as possible to express as much political hostility as you possibly can. After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to read into my statement whatever you like. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American system of government, but the simple fact is that without codification into law or appropriated funding from Congress, this proposal effectively died with the Trump administration. There is no self-executing, self-perpetuating system which will keep it going under a Biden administration. That's the problem with thinking you can do everything by executive order - the instant you're out of office, they can be reversed or ignored in a nanosecond. Now if Trump had managed to convince Congress to enact this idea into law and given it appropriated funding, we'd be in a different situation. But he didn't.
The fact is that Trump didn't build a constituency for this idea, he didn't try to create a legislative coalition, he didn't propose legislation for Congress or work with them to get it enacted. He just signed a piece of paper at a publicity stunt and then walked away to go watch One America News and tweet some more. If you want political hostility, here's your political hostility: Trump's total disinterest in doing the hard work of governance is one major reason why his long-term political legacy is essentially limited to some pieces of fencing along the Mexican border. Name one other significant, long-term governing achievement of the Trump administration. You can't, because he wasn't capable of doing it. Maybe in two weeks the Office of the Former President will release Trump's health care plan, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol if this is "hostility" I'm looking foward to seeing some actual animus about these criminals! Since the second EO instructs the task force to submit an annual report, I'd change this to "was" on January 20, 2022 if there isn't one out yet and we can assume this is ignored and going nowhere. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, this right here is exactly why Wikipedia, ***all*** of Wikipedia, is complete bullshit. If I went on a partisan political tirade like yours against any left-leaning cause or in support of any right-leaning cause then I'd be at least topic-banned if not banned outright. You get away with it scott-free, because there's nothing neutral about any of this. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BenMcLean, If you think WP is complete bullshit, you don't have to contribute... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/05/14/executive-order-on-the-revocation-of-certain-presidential-actions-and-technical-amendment/ ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G7 all those redirects then? Reywas92Talk 23:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jackie Robinson (statue) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Garden_of_American_Heroes&oldid=1241039281"