Talk:National Monument (United States)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
Should the article title be "...Monuments?" Slrubenstein
- No. With the singular we can simply link to this article without using pipes. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization). --mav 01:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Uh, okay, Slrubenstein
Edited the sentence "...although wilderness areas managed by the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management often allow hunting" to include "and grazing". Mwehman (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This article - National Monument, despite being a relatively ambiguous term, explicity discusses only the US concept of a National Monument. In Ireland, we also have a concept of a "national monument" (it's in the news at the minute because they are building a motorway over one - remains of a castle in the path of Dublin's M50 motorway). It's hard to see how to insert general information (non-US) into the article without spoiling it. Perhaps this should be moved to US National Monuments instead, with a more general article at this location?
Do any other countries have a concept of "National Monuments"?
The island of Guam was a Unincorporated Territory of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) was in Political Union with the U.S., but not a Incorporated Territory as well. Since neither were Incorporated Territory meaning eventually they were to be de-colonized per the UN Charter, the Presidential Proclamation laying Federal claim to National Monument status permanently makes those Territories Incorporated Territories of the United States. The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories which was created in 1946 pursuant to Article XI of the United Nations Charter, listed the CNMI as a area to be decolonized until 1990 when the U.S. agreed to release them as their own entity in Political Union with the United States. Guam is still listed as an area to be decolonized by the UN, but in light of the National Monument status both appear to be permanently Incorporated into the United States per Presidential Proclamation. Insular Court cases viewed by the Supreme Court such as Rasmussen v. United States states only Congress can Incorporate Territory to the United States, but this Presidential Proclamation creating this National Monument does so without Congress and permanently ends Guam's Commonwealth status goals that were attempted in Congress for over a decade. Also it ends the CNMI supposed de-colonization and makes them permanent Incorporated Territories of the United States, pending Supreme Court rule and United Nations protests.
The Antiquities Act as codified contains provisions that could evict the residents of the Marianas Islands under its National Monument status. With the Marianas Islands military complex being constructed currently, National Monument status for the Marianas is mute seeing how it is and will increase to be a live fire military training complex.
National Monuments not same as Protected areas
Places designated as National Monuments by the U.S. President are not always natural areas like Devils Postpile. Completely different from that are historic, non-natural sites, like the African Burial Ground in downtown New York City and a Lincoln cottage/memorial in Washington, D.C. Those historic sites are "protected" if you wish, but they are not "Protected areas", which is a defined term meaning areas of 6 types defined by the IUCN International Union of something or another. This has recently been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Are U.S. National Monuments "protected areas"?. Editors, please stop making incorrect, unsupported assertions by category changes or editing the lede or otherwise, along these lines! :) Please discuss if you wish at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas discussion. doncram (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your statements are a personal point of view, not supported by the US legislative fact. As such, your statements are useless. IUCN has nothing to do with US law. Hmains (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Doncram, I respect your view, but these are indeed protected areas. They are areas that receive protection from the US Federal Government. While some are not completely natural and therefore do not fit the IUCN's definition, nothing here implies that we are following this unrelated NGO's terminology. I am somewhat disappointed the IUCN has such such definitions that do not take the generality of the terms into account. Perhaps the link to protected area should be removed, but they are still protected areas. However, that article should also be expanded. It should clearly define that the IUCN decides to only classify those concerning nature, but that there are many other types of protected areas. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This external link is dead and should receive a replacement: http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl/ Leitmotiv (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Requested move 1
New requested move
I added the POV tags and started the cleanup. This article needs a lot more work. It was written as a largely-uncited critique of the national monuments creation process. It didn't have a NPOV. Nearwater (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Mbierman... I'm unaware as to why you restored quotes around the names of national monuments. They aren't direct quotes from anywhere, they're proper names, and stylistically, there's no reason for the quotes. Could you explain why you think they need to be there? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Merge Antiquities Act into this one
Is there a reason why this and Antiquities Act are separate articles? it seems to me that we can merge that article into this one and have a more complete, more encylopedia-like article. Most of the history is the same.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Antiquities Act page has lots of nice detail in the infobox that I think we should keep. The reverse, i.e., merging this national monument article into the Antiquities Act article, might work if there are no national monuments that didn't come from the Antiquities Act. Is that true? Nearwater (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- You raise a good question. I await others to answer it.
- I think that we can keep the infoxbox and indeed create a section here with the heading "Antiquities Act", highlighting that act and giving something for people to link to (e.g. National Monument (United States)#Antiquities Act), while merging the history section. I think that "National Monument" being the WP:CommonName should remain the title of the resulting merged article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep them separate. The topics are distinct (National Monuments are places and the Antiquities Act is a statute) and both could be expanded productively. The fact that the two articles are very similar right now does not mean that they couldn't be developed in different directions, but merging them is likely to prevent further development. --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merge this page with Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act page is about a specific federal law establishing the authority to create National Monuments; this page defines what National Monuments are. I don't think we need both; the page on the Act can define them. We also have List of National Monuments of the United States which should remain as is. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Antiquities act seems to have been the legal basis for prosecuting looting on all federal lands, not just in monuments. I think. Rmhermen (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Antiquities Act article contains references to the expansion of presidential power and Supreme Court cases that have created this power. This would not be appropriate as part of the National Monument article, particularly because national monuments can be established in other ways and too much emphasis on this Act would be out of place.Moonboy54 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
OPPOSE. The Antiquities Act is a piece of legislation that has many potential applications. The designation of National Monuments may be the best known of these, but it is certainly no the only one. Enabling legislation is important enough to deserve its own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of info on List of National Monuments of the United States not needed
I removed from the history section a few paragraphs that just said On XX date Pres. Obama created XX national monument, commenting "Removed list of recent additions. There is a List of National Monuments of the United States article". User:Rmhermen undid my changes commenting only "(restore recent history to history section)". I see no reason to duplicate information that already exists at List of National Monuments of the United States. This article should encyclopedic and not a WP:Laundry list. We should mention only substantial and historical creations not each and every one and leave the list article for Pres created XX national monument on XX date listing. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, let's nix the redundant laundry list stuff. If there's been some important recent trends (that sources back up), that might be worth mentioning. Additionally, it might be helpful to add the presidents as a separate column to the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States Nearwater (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)