Talk:Black Lives Matter Plaza

Merge to 16th Street NW#Black Lives Matter mural and renaming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a case of recentism. There is nothing in this article that needs to be a standalone and can easily be included in the section noted above in the proposal on the street. Games of the world (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Much of the coverage and discussion about the plaza is about the cultural meaning in the current context of the protests and wider civil rights work, it feels out of place and disconnected to the article about the street. While it is a smaller part of a larger road, it is a discrete legally recognised entity and the meaning and significance is independent of its size. It also meets notability criteria, there is also a very large amount of coverage of the plaza in its own right. John Cummings (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Many sections of DC streets carry a separate name for honorifi8c or memorial purposes. Wgewb notable, these are perfectly suitable for separate articles. Such designations are usually permanent, or at least enduring, and so suitable here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How come no other place has its own article. Again just proving the recentism tag and showing that we have precedence for events like this. Games of the world (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: stands on its own as the city's landmark. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Does not meet the definition of landmark. "The definition of a landmark is a building or an object that helps you identify a location or the boundary of a piece of land. ... Landmark is defined as an event that changed history. An example of landmark is a legal case that is very important. Landmark means a location that has historical importance." OR "a building or other place that is of outstanding historical, aesthetic, or cultural importance, often declared as such and given a special status (landmark designation), ordaining its preservation, by some authorizing organization." This is not a landmark by any definition and all your comment does is proves the whole recentism point. Games of the world (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct it's not technically a landmark (as I mentioned below). IMO, only official landmarks should be able to claim that distinction, and so this is just a point of interest. However, it may be notable for other reasons. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Of course not all street renamings need their own article, but this one has been covered extensively in national RS (and not as a part of the rest of the street), is relevant to a historic event, and will remain important as a likely-permanent fixture of the city (near the White House, no less). I believe this article is connected much more to the George Floyd protests than to the rest of 16th Street NW, and in my view the best path is to leave it as its own article. Davey2116 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose. While it's not per-se a city "landmark" (let alone a national monument or a NPS property). However, the honorific name is notable enough for its own article for now, since it's strongly related to the George Floyd Protests and BLM movement, arguably more so than 16th Street. This can be revisited later, though. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, a renamed street must get its own article because it becomes a new street. We have already had this discussion on whether to split the article from 16th Street NW on its talk page. It is not an orphan either -- it is linked to the Streets template. P,TO 19104 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, a renamed street must get its own article because it becomes a new street - This claim is incorrect. If a building is renamed, it does not become a new building. If a train station is renamed, it does not become a new train station. A renamed structure is not required to have its own article, it is evaluated based on whether the standalone act is notable on its own. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  That is true, but I think we can both agree that this event is notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, this topic definitely is notable. I opposed this merge proposal as well. It's just the word "must" I disagreed with. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and snow close. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 15:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can the tag be removed from the articles? Clearly there's not a desire to merge here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I removed the merge tag. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mxn, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

Proposal: Restructure the article to be about the mural, not the renaming

Most of the media coverage has been about the mural, with the renaming more secondary, and the mural more clearly stands on its own (we've had pages for far less significant pieces of public art; an analogous — albeit very different — page might be Fearless Girl), whereas the case for a separate page for two renamed blocks of a street is somewhat dubious. I propose that we rename it to perhaps Black Lives Matter (Washington, D.C. mural) and add sources like these New Yorker articles [1][2] to help contextualize it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This mural has inspired at least two imitations on the West Coast, with a third on the way, and none of the affected streets are being renamed. It would be awkward to discuss something so tangential to 16th Street NW in that article, but it would be straightforward in an article about the original mural. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is about the street which was renamed from 16th Street NW. It's also on the Streets in DC template. They renamed the street -- and it is very much distinct from the murals that came after this one because it was the first. P,TO 19104 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. If the purpose of the page is that the DC government renamed the street, then this should be merged since we can't have two articles on the same topic. That's not the case (it was co-named), and the article should really focus more on the mural rather than the fact that there are locations on the plaza. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Question the plaza is about more than either the mural or the physical location, it has political and cultural elements as well which it seems likely will increase in importance in the coming weeks/months. Are you suggesting that we remove that information or just reorder it? Why can't we treat each aspect as equally important and just have a section on each aspect? John Cummings (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, I agree. It's no coincedence the mayor named the street right in front of the White House "Black Lives Matter Plaza". Both the mural and physical location have significance. P,TO 19104 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Both have significance, but the parts of the article discussing the mural and murals based on it are growing while the parts discussing street renaming are not. At some point, it might start to make sense to call the article List of streets commemorating Black Lives Matter or something to that effect, but we'll have to see how many of these street murals become permanent. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  John Cummings, both the plaza and the mural have significance, but (a) I think the mural has somewhat more, and more importantly (b) the significance of the plaza is very tightly connected to the street itself (for those of you who aren't D.C. locals, keep in mind that what we're talking about isn't a plaza in the traditional sense, but rather basically just two blocks of a street), whereas the significance of the mural is as a distinct entity. Therefore, I think that most of the stuff specifically about the plaza but not the mural can be merged into 16th Street NW. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Street murals and renaming of public spaces

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the article. Found5dollar (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

---

I am proposing a split of Black Lives Matter Plaza#Street murals and renaming of public spaces into a new article. It seems as if more states (and countries) are continuing to rename certain streets after the organization and it may be a bit too much for this article, so I think it should be split into a new article. JE98 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

JE98, Yes, I agree. This article should be focused specifically on the plaza in Washington, D.C., and we should have a standalone list for the others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to make an article specifically about Black Lives Matter street murals, leaving the (relatively fewer in number) renamed streets to be discussed in this article. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer and Mxn: I was thinking along the lines of List of Black Lives Matter murals and keeping every officially renamed street here. If a street were to have a mural and be renamed, they could be included both here and on the new article. JE98 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

JE98, I was coming to this talk page to suggest the same thing. Per WP:UNDUE, the majority of this article is now about street murals that are not in "Black Lives Matter Plaza" in D.C. so it should be split. I would suggest splitting the list to List of Black Lives Matter street murals.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COATRACK. @JE98 and Found5dollar: I would also appreciate your input (if you're inclined) on my proposal above to restructure this page to be primarily about the mural rather than the renaming. It looks like it has some possiblity to gain consensus, and if we're going to be doing a major restructuring, we should ideally take care of both things in one go. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support split to List of Black Lives Matter murals. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

As there was only support for this split i was bold and did the split myself. I'm sure there is alot of clean up to do on the articles and I will do some, but please feel free to flesh out a new paragraph here about all the mural that were influenced by this one with out havign to list them all.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Found5dollar, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous Name and Relation of New Name to Other Named Places

The text of the introduction reads: "The plaza was renamed...". I was unable to determine from reading the article what the name of the plaza had been prior to renaming (or if it was previously specifically named at all - if not then the wording "renaming" is confusing and I would suggest inappropriate; perhaps "designated" would be better?). I think the article should contain a clearer explanation of the actual substance of the name change, and whether the plaza is considered part of, or distinct from, 16th Street Northwest, Lafayette Square, President's Park, or any other named location in the immediate vicinity. As I do not know any of this information I cannot make such an amendment to the article. I cannot gain a clear understanding from the currently listed sources, either: articles referenced in footnotes 3 (Deadline), 5 (Digital Trends), 10 (USA Today) and 12 (Al Jazeera) describe "renaming" without giving sufficient detail for my misunderstandings to be resolved (thought Al Jazeera also uses "inaugurate" which suggests not "re-"naming but naming of something previously unnamed); the article referenced in footnote 9 (NBC Washington) says "renamed" in the URL but omits the "re-" in the title and text of the article; and the articles referenced in footnotes 4 (The Guardian) and 11 (Reuters) do not mention "renaming" at all.122.148.227.2 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarity Regarding Painting and Naming and the Coordination Thereof

As the article is currently written and organised, it seems to me that a valid interpretation is that the DPW painted on the ground and that Bowser subsequently, having made a decision separately to the DPW, announced the name of the plaza in response to the painting on the ground. This seems unlikely. If it is indeed the case that the DPW took the initiative and Bowser followed, then it would be helpful for this to be stated more explicitly; if that is not the case, then parts of the article should be rewritten or reorganised in order to reduce ambiguity and make that interpretation invalid.122.148.227.2 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)