Category talk:Removed statues

Criterium

It might be difficult to establish a stable criterium for inclusion here. For starters, I propose to include only those "permanently" dishonoured (excluding e.g., paint throwing), and those dishonoured as a WP:NOTABLE event. -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A good help is when the statue has its own article, proving its notability. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder about the choice of name. "Dishonoured" may run into problems with interpretation and WP:NPOV - what differentiates "dishonouring" and "vandalism"? What is dishonour? The naming of Category:Vandalized works of art also seems problematic to me.

Also, there does not appear to be a natural parent category; there is no higher Category:Dishonoured things and the closest I can find is Category:Honor. I wonder if this and related categories should be looking at renaming to things that have been permanently defaced but not destroyed, such as Category:Defaced works of art and Category:Works of art defaced for political purposes. Cnbrb (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV is broken this way; obviously, when a statue is dishonoured that is already sourced in the article, not stated by an (editor's) judgement. And the difference with 'vandalised' is: the political (social, historical, ... broadly speaking) motivation. Just that makes a relevant point re the destruction (NPOV does not require that we remove each and every hint of political controversy that has possible interpretation issues). Of course border cases will show up, but that is no reason to annihilate the main issue. As it happens, for all current category population articles (23) I have found an explicit 'political' motivation for the destruction in the article; no bordercase met. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

But were they just "vandalised" then, or is "dishonouring" something better? It seems to me that "dishonouring" is implicitly more noble than "vandalism" because the cause is noble, which is heading in a POV direction. Why just statues? What else has been dishonoured in history? Is all non-vandlised art therefore still "honoured"? Or is "dishonouring" just the same as labelling an artwork "degenerate"? "Dishonoured" has no framework and it just doesn't fit into anything on Wikipedia right now. It's going to run into problems. 00:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Diffusion, widening

Later on, this category might be fit for WP:DIFFUSE ({{Category diffusion}}). Also, sibling-categories might be welcome, for example "Dishounoured plaquettes". -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why statue-specific?

I'm not sure "statue" should be in the title. There are other removed monuments, memorials, and sculptures which don't take the form of a statue specifically... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the first approach. If there is a wider topic that can be nicely grabbed in the title, WP can handle that. But, since editors including you are questioning the category as a whole, such an early change is not helpful. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at WikiProject Sculpture

FYI, this category is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sculpture#New_category:_Dishonoured_statues ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)