Talk:Peace Monument/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead

It was spray-painted during the George Floyd protests and became a meeting place during the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

I'm not convinced this is accurate. See the later history section below. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cited source (Tucker 2021) does not support the idea that the monument "became a meeting place" on January 6; my guess is that the nominator is alluding to other sources that do say this, but the problem is that those sources don't list it as a "meeting place" out of context, they say it was a meeting place for militant groups like the Proud Boys (and others) to plan their attack on their Capitol, so the context and framing is all wrong here. In any case, Tucker 2021 says: "During the insurrection this past January, somebody slung a scarf around Victory’s neck and a guy wearing a cowboy hat and holding a bullhorn loomed over baby Mars, god of war." Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that anyone involved in the George Floyd protests was responsible for the spray-painting. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

Memorial plans and installation

His father, Commodore David Porter had also led a movement to honor United States Navy sailors who fought in the Barbary Wars.

Comma or no comma after Porter? I read it as "His father, Commodore David Porter, had also led a movement to honor United States Navy sailors". You use this style in the next sentence: "His father's memorial, the Tripoli Monument, was originally placed in the Washington Navy Yard". Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was there in 1865 that he began making serious plans for the Civil War monument.

Commas or no? "It was there, in 1865, that he began making serious plans for the Civil War monument." Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a competition to design the monument because Porter selected Franklin Simmons, whose other works in Washington, D.C., include the equestrian statue of John A. Logan in addition to busts and statues in the Capitol, to sculpt the work.

This sentence is a bit clunky. It would be nice if you could rephrase it, perhaps as two sentences? Here's one example, although there are many ways to do it: "No competition to design the monument was held, as Porter directly selected Franklin Simmons to sculpt the work. Simmons was known for his works in Washington, D.C., including the equestrian statue of John A. Logan and his many busts and statues in the Capitol." Just an example, as I'm not sure that's even accurate. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After the fundraising ended and the commission was being carved by Simmons in his Rome art studio, the Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles was angry that he was not consulted on the matter. The two men had a tumultuous relationship and Porter knew Welles would have rejected the idea.

I think it's easier to read and flows better if you write it like this: "After fundraising was complete, Simmons began carving the commission at his art studio in Rome. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, was angry that he was not consulted on the matter. The two men had a tumultuous relationship; Porter knew Welles would have rejected the idea." Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be in part to the bad blood between Porter and Welles, or the fact the monument wasn't actually finished.

MOS:CONTRACT. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later history

The monument was vandalized during the George Floyd protests with spraypainted messages like "BLM," "all pigs will die," and "capitalism must fall." The monument was power washed by Architect of the Capitol employees afterwards. During the January 6 United States Capitol attack in 2021, the monument was a focal point for protesters, where they could gather and assess the event. The monument was shown many times on videos during the televised riot. The monument is also where flowers and flags were left after the death of United States Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick. In 2022, art and architecture critic Philip Kennicott called for a national memorial to victims of gun violence in the United States. He said the best location would be at the foot of the Capitol, between the Peace Monument and James A. Garfield Monument.

I see a lot of issues with the way this information is presented. For one, according to multiple studies, more than 90% of BLM protests were peaceful. We know that some violent incidents were, according to the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement authorities, the result of infiltration by "white supremacist extremists" and "anarchist extremists" unaffiliated with BLM who were attempting to discredit the movement.[1] There are an enormous amount of incidents like this,[2] with police tracing one perp to the Aryan Cowboys white supremacist prison gang. This group was responsible for riots, looting, and arson during the Minneapolis George Floyd protests.[3] Knowing this, it is therefore suspect to directly connect the George Floyd protests with spraypainted messages. Furthermore, the proceeding material is even more suspect, as it indirectly contrasts the alleged property damage associated with the George Floyd protests with a "focal point for protesters" who could peacefully gather and assess things with the January 6 attacks. However, that is not exactly what happened. Our article on the January 6 attempted insurrection says that the attack on the Capitol began near the Peace Monument with 300 Proud Boys marching near it, where they coordinated their attack. So this artificial dichotomy presented here, between the "violence" of the George Floyd protests and the "peacefulness" of the January 6 protesters is highly suspect, if not outright dubious. As if that wasn't enough, it appears that Brian Sicknick just happened to die, with no known connection to the "peaceful" protests on January 6. I'm not sure what the immediate answer is here, but this material, combined with the January 6 image, creates a false narrative that is loosely rooted in the facts. I should also note, that one of the reasons I feel strongly about this is from direct experience. I was part of the peaceful protests in the aftermath of the 1992 Rodney King decision (and I appeared, along with a group of other people, on international news feeds). Many people might be laughing right now, because history failed to record that there were any peaceful protests at all, as the entire event was overshadowed by what became known as violent riots. However, I was there when it happened and I saw who started much of the looting, arson, and property damage. These were people who were not part of the protest movement, and who arrived in cars and vans from out of town, many of whom looked like they were ex-police or ex-military, with the stereotypical crewcuts, black clothing, and what I will never forget, the shiny black boots. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the supporting citation Tucker 2021 for the J6 material, I don't think it directly supports the content and it appears to be used selectively. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at citation Givhan 2020 for the George Floyd material, this is an op-ed piece by a former fashion editor. Given the highly charged topic, circumstantial evidence, and documented interference by white supremacists and anarchists, it isn't good enough. This was a common accusation and theme by right-wing media and the Trump admin at the time, particularly Fox News, who claimed peole on the left, particularly antifa and BLM, were vandalizing property.[4] Multiple researchers have disputed these allegations. In addition to the evidence up above, NY police uncovered outside agitators not connected to the protests engaging in vandalism to discredit the movement.[5] This was extensively documented by photojournalists in Rochester NY, where white people unconnected with BLM were driving into the peaceful George Floyd protests to vandalize property. In one example, press photographer Jamie Germano captured an iconic photo of a "white man in a cowboy hat about to smash a car window with a tire iron".[6] Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Givhan isn't just a former fashion editor, she's the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning "senior critic-at-large writing about politics, race and the arts." I think she's more than qualified to write about controversial topics, but I'm happy to get other's opinions at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN if you like. How about I clarify with "unknown assailants" spray-painted the monument since the source doesn't specify who did it? Regarding the 1/6 content, I never described the 1/6 as "peaceful" and mentioned it was a riot and an attack. How about "During the January 6 United States Capitol attack in 2021, some rioters were arrested at the monument, since it is on the Capitol grounds. The monument was shown many times on videos during the televised riot. The monument is also where flowers and flags were left after the death of United States Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died from two strokes after the attack." APK hi :-) (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make your proposed edits to the article so I can see them? That might be the easiest way forward. I could debate the rest of the points, but that's a waste of both of our time. It sounds like you see a way to make this work so if you could make those edits first, then I can get a better idea. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how does it looks now? APK hi :-) (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great and addresses my concerns. I have now passed the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Location and design

History has a stylus and a tablet which says, "They died that their country might live."

Which "says" or which "reads"? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"Spray-painted" in the lead and "spraypainted" in the body. Needs consistency. Other recommendations regarding prose listed above.

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Earwig detects nothing of interest.

No explicit original research per se, but the selective use of Givhan 2020 and Tucker 2021 presents a slanted view, perhaps entirely unintentionally. This is more of a NPOV issue, but the use of sources here is also an issue. I recommend the nominator revisit Tucker 2021, particularly the framing of J6 and its claimed use of the monument as a "meeting place", which lacks the context. As for Givhan 2020, there is zero evidence that anyone in the George Floyd protests committed these acts of vandalism, so drawing the connection between the two events needs to be clarified.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No mention of the Vietnam protests at the monument noted by Tucker 2021 and others.

I only saw the one sentence mentioning the Vietnam War protests in one of the sources, but I've done some more digging and found these: a photo caption and a mention of a WaPo article covering the 1971 protest. I don't have access to WaPo articles from that timeframe. Do you think it's worth mentioning? APK hi :-) (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is worth mentioning, however the congressional testimony you link to from John Rarick is probably not neutral. The April 24, 1971, anti-war demonstration in question is discussed extensively in the literature. WaPo covers it on April 25, but it was a series of five separate articles.[7] An AP photographer took the famous WaPo photo in question, however it does not appear in their online collection.[8] Other photos are available from that protest, however, as well as one from December later that year. Wikipedia covers the protest in some detail in the article Vietnam Veterans Against the War, but it appears to be far from complete. Lucy G. Barber, formerly of the National Archives and Records Administration discusses it in her book Marching on Washington: The Forging of an American Political Tradition (2002). Although she mentions the Peace Monument in the context of previous protests, she doesn't mention its use in 1971. My point in citing Barber here is merely to show that it was a significant demonstration. Aside from the AP and WaPo, another image from the same protest can be found in the Patrick Frazier Political and Social Movements Collection,[9] as well as later in the year,[10], and another from the Three Mile Island protests in 1979.[11] Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I also put in a request for two of the five articles. I think this will yield some fruit. We will see. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Lead ("It was spray-painted during the George Floyd protests and became a meeting place during the January 6 United States Capitol attack") and Later history section depicts the monument as the subject of vandals by violent protesters in BLM, with an unusual contrasting dichotomy of "peaceful" January 6 protesters using the monument as a meeting place. I don't think this is accurate or neutral. See my partial rationale in the review up above.

Looking further at the cited source (Tucker 2021), I see a number of issues with how it used to selectively support the material in question. I would invite the nominator to go back to Tucker 2021 and read it again, or to find additional sources.
Now fixed.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable and untouched since February.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images check out, but I can't help but have my left-wing, progressive feathers ruffled (like a cat having its fur stroked backwards) with the incongruous placement of Trump-supporter, January 6 protester images in an article about a peace monument. This, in my mind, is like having a photo of neo-Nazis marching in an article about the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I don't think the photo belongs, but I do see the historical value of it.

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Concerns have been adequately addressed by the nominator. Primary issue preventing this article from becoming a Good Article is the perceived NPOV issue in the third paragraph of the "Later history" section, as well as its representation in the lead. The easiest way to solve this is to 1) revisit the sources and to review additional sources, 2) indicate that there is no direct connection between those who vandalized the Peace Monument and the George Floyd protesters, a connection that right-wing media sources and the Trump admin tried to falsely promote; 3) rewrite the January 6th material such that it more closely follows the sources (the cited source does not describe it as a meeting place); and 4) eliminate the implied false dichotomy between the so-called "violence" of the George Floyd protests which resulted in vandalism (experts who have studied the protests note that the majority were peaceful and vandalism was often performed by bad actors unconnected with the protests) and the "peaceful" January 6 protesters who "only" used the monument as a meeting place (not according to the sources). Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.