Talk:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020

2188:

previous statue was removed by a third party (i.e. the Jess Reid statue was placed there after the Colston statue was removed by George Floyd protestors). Why the initial statue was removed by said third party in the first place is ultimately less relevant and is an additional details not immediately needed to understand the article. The message behind the Jess Reid statue would've been the same whether it'd been placed on that plinth or at any place. Otherwise, the subject of the article should be about the plinth or the location, rather than the Jess Reid statue. A big reason why I can understand how just including Colston's involvement in the slave trade in the abstract/introduction, to the exclusion of everything else he did, would be inappropriate, is that it gives the impression to the reader that he has a statue commemorating him BECAUSE of his involvement in the slave trade. Which is at worst factually untrue and at best a highly contentious claim not universally held by the general public.

1358:

Colston had been a SMV-member for almost 40 years and left huge trusts in their care. Most gruesomely, they keep Colston’s hair and nails as relics in their meeting hall. Disgusting. During the Victorian era SMV were a key part of the project to launder Colston’s reputation building what local historian Rev HJ Wilkins called “the Cult of Colston.” This was an ideologically-driven campaign to represent him not as a bloodthirsty slave trader but as “one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city” as was written on the statue’s plaque. The aim was to inspire the workers of Bristol into adopting his values to make them more "productive employees" and not to revolt against exploitation. There should be no place for this sort of organisation, a typical elite body that uses philanthropy to launder reputations and assert undemocratic control.

2565:@SchroCat Having mulled on the issue further, I thought I might expand on my issue for added clarity. The problem isn't whether the detail can be found in Knowledge (XXG) but rather whether the article as presented biases the view of the reader towards a particular perspective or interpretation by selectively including certain facts and excluding others. Singling out Colston's involvement in the slave trade as the only detail about the man gives the impression that his statue is there, insofar as the introduction is concerned. If then including additional details about his life in the background is sufficient to provide the context relating to Colston's role in the Jen Reid statue, then I would think that the inclusion of his involvement in the slave trade in this section would be similarly appropriate. 918:) WikiProjects. As I'm not a part of, or affiliated, to either group I'm not sure if I'm actually in a position - or have the authority - to remove those designations. Am I right in thinking that the reason for the designation (at the moment) is with thehopes that it would reach the original sculptor's attention and/or a third party to obtain a better quality image? Similarly, I'm quite new to the whole editing process and so don't know the precise protocol with regards to what to do about an article if I feel it's been published too early (i.e. does not pass the notability criterion) aside from first raising it up in the Talk page to discuss with the relevant contributors. Ultimately, that's my main issue - as long as it's determined that it's passed the notability muster (particularly: 2507:

would be a very contentious claim to make. I feel it would be better if the paragraph was restructured to instead show that the George Floyd protestors were motivated by his role in the slave trade when they removed the statue. At least that way, it makes clear that this was why it was removed without intimating that it was why his statue was placed there in the first place. So, for instance: "It was erected surreptitiously in the early morning of 15 July 2020, on the empty plinth originally occupied by the 19th-century statue of Edward Colston after it was toppled by George Floyd protestors the previous month due to Colston's involvement in the slave trade."

3808:

he would point out that it was there permanently overnight. The fact of its removal by those other than the artist, shows the authority who contracted its removal had considered it permanent (too permanent for their liking) It wasn'transiently getting onto a tram on the arm of a politician. It was there permanently because the police didn't instantly remove it. You see the law has to be intrepreted- Barristers are experts in case law, and none has been quoted here. I wrote this yesterday, previewed but was interrupted- I am posting it now as these issues do need to be discussed further.

3629:) says: "(1)This section applies to ... (b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." There is no mention of intention. Since there doesn't seem to be a specific statutory definition of the word "permanent", you then have to go either to a dictionary, in which case the definition varies depending on which dictionary you choose -- some mention intent, and others don't -- or to case law. Either way, it's an extremely grey area. -- 700: 682: 1368:: "During the Victorian era SMV (Society of Merchant Venturers) were a key part of the project to launder Colston’s reputation building what local historian Rev HJ Wilkins called “the Cult of Colston.” This was an ideologically-driven campaign to represent him not as a bloodthirsty slave trader but as “one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city” as was written on the statue’s plaque. The aim was to inspire the workers of Bristol into adopting his values to make them more productive employees." 345: 324: 654: 2035:- and this is just for the lead - is the connection with the slave trade (it explains 'why that statue, why that plinth'). In other words, we don't need to know - in the lead - why the statue went up, we need to know why it came down. Outside the lead we can give a more complete description that includes why it was raised, but the lead is supposed to summarise the key points as to how and why that piece of art exists, which the current version does. - 434: 413: 774: 1278:

today. Disgusting. The Society of Merchant Venturers helped set up and run many of the institutions and charities that still bear his name. They are accused of continuing to "celebrate a slave trader". He was promoted as a local benefactor in Bristol, but his charities supported only people aligned with his political and religious views. The wording should be amended so as to avoid describing him as a "philanthropist". --

750: 1881:

years it will be mystifying for people who want the potted version a lead is supposed to carry. A reader needs to have the context (ie. that the statue of someone involved in the slave trade) was torn down in protests and replaced by someone involved in the protests. If you take out the reason for Colston's statue being there, you remove the reason for the protest and the reason for Reid to have stood on the plinth. -

276: 896:

and Jen's idea that Knowledge (XXG) should not have a good image of this sculpture? I suspect Marc's statement that is "isn't permanent" is self deprecation ... and he would'nt object if it was made permanent and doesnt intend to remove it (ie not "temporary"). He may not realise that his statement that it is temporary is causing Knowledge (XXG) to delete pictures of it (I hope he will help).

596: 572: 4043:, this isn't a sculpture in the traditional sense though - it was not crafted by hand from a solid block of stone or clay. It sounds more like this is a 3d 'photo copy' of the live 'sculpture' that Reid created by posing her body. If the same digital process was used to create a resin copy of, say, an original sculpture by Michelangelo, who would you expect to be credited as the artist? -- 2621:

phrasing of the paragraph. Because - and as I highlighted as my main concern, for which you have not addressed - is that singling out that specific detail, and burying every other detail about him to be searched either in other sections of the article or in entirely different articles, gives readers the impression that Colston has a statue as celeberation for his being a slave trader.

219: 606: 293: 504: 2551:@SchroCat My comment was in regards to the introduction/abstract where the discussion is the most divisive on. @Gah4 If the motivation behind the removal of the Colston statue is unclear, then it is even more reason for the comment on his involvement in the slave trade be excluded in the introduction of the article as it would be editorialising. 522: 3792:, and we can dismiss that rubbish about intention unless you have a reference that passes all our tests. Do we delete all the commons images of Stonehenge because it is temporary, at least in intention. The intention here was that it remained. It would be profitable to discover whether 'temporary' is 'permanent' or 'transitory'. 2492:

also wonder, just a little bit, how notable a statue should be to have an article. More specifically, why didn't it have one before? If something is notable enough to build a statue for, should it be notable enough for an article? (I suppose that goes in the page on notability.) Otherwise, it seems about right to me now.

3784:

and you are liable to be charged and face a jail-sentence. If that had happened: Bristol would have been torched. :Protest organisers can attempt to lead, but cannot control them or stop them from going too far. Marc Quinn was using exactly the right language to prevent arrest. Of course it was permanent- the opposite is

1293:

considered worthy causes - as anyone who gives money to charity does. The very reason he has a statue is largely down to this philanthropy - without it there would have been no statue to pull down. We can't ignore that part of his character or history if we are to address the subject in a neutral manner. -

4066:

Quinn credits Reid as a Co-artist in the literature produced with the sculpture. It's certainly unsual, and there's actually some text in the 'reactions' section about one commentator calling this a loophole for Quinn to deflect charges of exploitation. Nevertheless, it seems both Quinn and Reid both

3783:

We have a case of two nations separated by a common language. You really needed to have spoken to someone experienced in UK Criminal Damage Law before committing such an egregious error of judgement. To say this was a temporary art work means you are not liable for criminal damage- any other wording

3343:

was included, but it is. If your local public library doesn't subscribe it's worth trying to join another library - Lancashire wasn't fussy about residence when I joined it years ago before moving here. Public library digital services are a fantastic resource, paid for out of your Council Tax, so use

3320:

This seems to be a contradiction. I can't access the Times article but if it factual and has been summarised correctly in the article it would seem that Quinn used the word "formal" in an obfuscatory way - if there were discussions with the Mayor beforehand then permission was effectively sought, and

2718:

Well it seems that it was made in 1895, and I suspect that by today's standard the people of Bristol were racist. But it isn't fair to judge them by today's standard, and even more, it isn't up to the context section of the article to do that. But okay, would it be reasonable to put philanthropist or

2506:

I disagree with the current version; mainly due to the phraseology. By simply describing Colston in terms of his involvement in the slave trade without his other roles in history, it gives the readers the impression that the statue commemorates him BECAUSE of his involvement in the slave trade; which

1551:

Why are you trying to stir up trouble nearly three weeks after the last comments here when there has been no grief or aggravation on this page since then? Disruptive attempts to stir more dramah? Making such vacuous comments say nothing useful about anyone but yourself. Don't bother replying, I'm not

958:

If that's the case and consensus, that's fine by me. The reason I originally raised it was mainly because none of his other works appeared to have sufficient notability as to warrant their own individual articles and so wondered why this particular work warranted one within hours of it being erected;

3797:

OK I will say it- there is a race issue here. The Colston statue was toppled and desecrated because he was a slaver- Jen Reid was a hero fighting the remnants of that racism that are still present today. Knowledge (XXG) is above all that, unbiased, and nonpolitical. That deletion was a political act

3685:

statue could be regarded as retroactively invalidating the copyright exemption granted in the Act. It is indeed complex, and I can see your reasoning, and I appreciate that taking a cautious position in an ambiguous case is in the best interest of Commons, but I don't think it's necessarily the last

3213:

I am unsure whether the connection is close enough for it to be included, and the article in not very strong, though the reference is certainly is. Both Jen and the Dealer have done something 'wrong in the eyes of the law' and are being celebrated by the artist. Both statues were removed immediately

2997:

The current location of the statue has no significance - the council's storage area could be anywhere. But the location of the plinth for which the statue was designed, and where it stood in its brief public exposure, is central to its story, and I support the reintroduction of a map which shows the

2187:

Might it be a workable compromise if we simply took it all out (Colston's philantropy, political career and involvement in the slave trade); leaving it all in the background instead? Ultimately, the key points that the abstract needs to cover is that a statue was placed on a vacated plinth after the

2063:

Except that what you wrote to Ghmyrtle is flawed. The lead contains enough information to explain 'why that statue, why that plinth'. The lead covers the key point of why the statue came down, and that is because he was involved in the slave trade. We do not need, in the lead, to know why the statue

1838:

You need the context to understand why that statue, that plinth. Disembowelling the key points of the reason behind 'why that statue, why that plinth' is not the way to get people to understand. And you need to remember that studies of reader habit show a high proportion of people will only read the

1460:

OK, now to discuss it. The article is about the new statue. (Well, for a short time anyway.) How much discussion of the previous statue in its place is needed? I suspect not very much, but lets fairly discuss it, and not remove things without discussion. It took me much longer to figure this out,

895:

High importance?? Nearly every thing is assessed as "low" ...the "top" division is rarely used. If you want to amend it then I'm sure very few will challenge it (including me). What I am hoping is that MARC QUINN will SEE THIS MESSAGE and help us solve the issue of pictures of the statue. Is it Marc

880:

I agree (in relation to a better time being about a week from now to determine its suitability as a standalone article). Hence, why I originally raised it in the first place. I do believe it's not within Knowledge (XXG)'s usual practice to release an article first and THEN determine its notability a

3807:

A good barrister would rip holes in your 62-1-b argument. That says that FOP applies to sculptures, ( model and works of art) if located permanently... (it is a question of where the comma is placed).A good barrister would point out that this is a sculpture so that is enough. If an argument ensued

3586:

the extraordinarily legalistic deletion discussion for one of the deleted images; it focuses on whether the sculpture was "permanently" affixed to its plinth. Which is a bit curious; it was certainly placed in such a way as to be fixed in place by its own weight and thus stay in place indefinitely,

3088:

I know we say that 'anyone can edit Knowledge (XXG)- and start a new page. That may have be true 13 years ago when I started, but there is now a steep unwelcoming learning curve- a sort of institutional cliquism. Yes studies have been made- acknowledged- and it has just got worse. That doesn't mean

2697:

section. Colston's involvement is similarly mentioned in the background section and so, by the standards you've established, mentioning his involvement in the slave trade in the background section (as opposed to in the introductory section as well), would be sufficient as well in terms of providing

2536:

It seems that the slave trade was very lucrative, so we shouldn't be surprised that he might have been rich. Also, however, we don't know in detail the thoughts and motivations of those who removed the statue. (Some, at least, have been removed for less obvious reasons.) Those who want to know more

1880:

I don't see how that conclusion can be reached. It's certainly no sub-article, and the main focus of the text is on the new artwork. But there has to be the context of how that artwork came into being - an explanation of 'why that statue, why that plinth'. It's obvious to us now, but in five or ten

1819:

There is an entire section - "Background" - in the article, giving detail of the statue of Colston that was toppled, and about Colston himself. There is absolutely no need for that detailed information to be in the opening paragraph as well. The opening paragraph should summarise the article as a

1737:

it needs to describe who/what Colston was. It needs to be understood by someone who only reads the lead who the statue was of and why it was taken down. That's the context. If a reader who is only half interested reads a couple of lines, and clicks on a link to find out more, they may not come back

2802:

I see that the map is now labelled "Location in Clifton, Bristol where the sculpture is now held by Bristol City Council", which seems pretty pointless: the location of the council's museum storage area is not of significance to the reader. I'd have thought that a map showing its original position

2491:

the other article went away, that this one would need more context. I don't know at all if that is likely. I do believe that the discussion here should stay, even though I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. (We can't discuss it not going in the article if there is nothing to discuss.) I

2305:

Normally artists' subjects are not credited as artists (a question more common in the field of photography), and news organisations seem to generally describe this as Quinn's work. However if Quinn and Reid agree this is a collaborative work, then it seems this should be reflected in this article.

1719:

job description for Colston, nor does it need to say anything about the Colston statue (defaced, thrown into harbour) other than its removal from the plinth. Neither of these are specifically about the statue that is the subject of the article - ledes should focus on the subject of the article and

1277:

Was Colston a philanthropist? That slave trader? Colston made his fortune through human suffering. How many human beings were branded like cattle with the company initials RAC? In the 19th century he was promoted by rich and selective group of Bristol businessmen. Controversial than, controversial

3868:

great start! I can contribute the new mural on stokes croft. Again, the wikimedia copyright police may say "not allowed", because of UK copyright rules. But I've just looked at the Banksy collection and there are no concerns about the Banksy street mural there being put up with a CC-licence. It's

2905:

in storage at the museum — if it was moved or collected from there I doubt that would have made the news. As Pam says, where the statue is/was in storage is not really of interest to the reader. Personally I'd be happy with just a pointer to the plinth, or no map at all. This map was added to the

1361:

It is recognized that Colston’s statue was erected around the same time as monuments were being erected in the US retrospectively glorifying the Confederate cause, and so paving the way for the introduction of Jim Crow (segregationist) legislation. In the same era, statues proliferated throughout

1292:

Yes, the trade he was involved with was disgusting - a stain on the historical conscience. But we don't make such value judgements in the articles, we go by what the sources say. Although the source of his money was tainted, he acted with the proceeds as a philanthropist by giving away to what he

1119:

There has been an attempt to speedy delete, with an option of nomination this for deletion. The is a nonsense as this image is legit, and a debate needs to be had to decide help WP to understand fop. I fear that the existing fop may need to be clarified by UK case law. I am no lawyer but it seems

1357:

No, I cannot emphasise how important this is, and as I already wrote, and please educate yourself: the very reason he had a statue is because 170 after his death a bunch of extremely powerful and wealthy group (SMV - Society of Merchant Venturers) were frightened by growing working class unrest.

1895:

Maybe it's just me but - perhaps in our push for brevity - the paragraph does read a touch clunkily. Might I suggest "It was erected surreptitiously in the early morning of 15 July 2020, on the empty plinth originally occupied by the 19th-century statue of Edward Colston after it was toppled by

3707:

a temporary installation, even if it hadn't already been removed, and even if it was there forever. If it was declared as a permanent installation when it was installed, then it would have been "permanently situated in a public place", even if it was removed, for some reason, after an hour. --

2620:

of the topic in the introduction. At most, the part that is actually pertinent is that the protesters removed his statue because of his involvement in his slave trade, not his involvement itself; a nuanced difference but a significant one. Hence, my earlier suggestion above about changing the

2352:

Does replacing the lost image with one of these solve the problem? If using, please can you ensure that each image with the title that they have been given in the Drive, and be sure to include ‘Copyright Marc Quinn studio’? You can also read Jen and Marc’s statements here if you’d like to add

1935:

The key point (about the slave trade) is in the lead - in terms of the statue, the slave trade is the pertinent piece of information. The more complete background description of Colston's career is in the Background section. We have the core information in brief form in the lead, and the more

1920:

The lead should be a concise, but also an accurate and neutral summary of the pertinent content of the article. Removing all but one of the elements in the brief summary of Colston's career leaves a very one-sided POV of him. That's not acceptable, especially as the main reason for the statue

2602:. Without that, the lead is misleading, second rate and substandard. I don’t know why that should be our aim here. As I’ve said above (and has been ignored by defacto), I think it best if the noisier voices (yes, especially mine) are a little quieter to allow others to have their say. - 1592:

Does it make a difference? Ultimately, it was the city council who requested and were responsible for the statue's removal. Hiring third party contractors is pretty much par the course when a government body needs to do a non-routine task that requires specialised skills and knowledge.

4015:

Actually looking at the sources (1 and 11) I'm not really 100% convinced that she is "artist" rather than "inspiration", but I'll stay out of it. Possibly she's "artist" of the installation which comprised putting the sculpture up onto the plinth, though not of the sculpture itself.

3321:

whether these discussions were "formal" or not is not really important. If the Times article is correct I think we should remove the latter statement as it misleads more than it informs. Please could someone who has access to the full Times article comment here and/or act on this. --

3331:

I've added a quote from the paywalled Times article, and corrected the title of that article. Later on it says "Mr Quinn said that he had not asked for formal permission to erect the statue and that it was always meant to be temporary.", so both versions seem correct though perhaps

1496:

IP, I'm sorry you cannot write, spell or put a coherent argument together, but apparently some people think your drivel is worth keeping here. What I will point out to you - as I have done on your talk page - is that if you actually read what has been written in the discussion

3959:

The article says "making the same raised-fist pose she struck on the plinth shortly after the Colston statue's removal"... in my mind (Yes OR) she and her husband created all the art and a team of technicians used a 3d printer to create an "installation" based on their work.

2933:

I think the site for which the statue was created has significance, even if it was only there for just over 24 hours, so a map showing that spot would be useful, appropriately labelled, something like "Site of the plinth on which the statue was installed on 15 July 2020".

1536:

irrelevant should be be deleted then your comment above should have been deleted by you as you wrote it. It is uncivil and its says nothing useful about anyone but yourself. I would delete it, but I think you should consider it as it undermines any of your future comments.

3823:

Maybe we need an article on Jen Reid herself. That could pull in the new mural of her on Stokes Croft, Bristol, her actions during the Colston statue iconoclasty, and add more context, as well as recognition that her actions have become symbolic in Bristol and elsewhere.

1149:

I'm convinced, but we have our over keen rule keepers to deal with. I think WMUK/WMF should exercise their legal judgement to establish de facto case law. The WMF are surprisingly bold in some of their legal pronouncements, ignoring the infamous precautionary principal.

865:

I'm sure that with the international coverage this statue is notable in its own right. However there are other Quinn statues that are notable but that do not have their own article. Maybe a better time to raise this is in a week or so when the dust settles (or doesn't).

3136:

I am not so sure why this is here, but it might be a popular page for new editors. Yes there isn't very much to tell new editors how to start. I suspect it is best to start making small edits to a page, but there might be some cases for whole new pages as a first try.

1968:

No, that's only one of the key points. The others, and the reason for the statue in the first place, is that he was a trader, a philanthropist and an MP. Leaving out any of those could give a distorted view of him to the readers (remember those?). Now let's follow

1768:. We can expand on this in the Background section. This article is about a statue of Jen Reid, and it is not appropriate to devote more space in the lede to the man who was the subject of a different statue than to the woman who is the subject of this one. -- 2030:

article, I would agree that a more complete description of Colston is necessary (one that gives enough context to say why it was erected and why it was torn down), but this is the article on a piece of artwork. The part of Colston's history that is relevant

2958:

The first question that a general reader asks is where is it- the general reader in much of the UK doesn't know Bristol- it is just Wikipedians that wish to be picky. Maps are more informative than prose for some of us. There seems to be a general fear of

1574:

As shown in footage of the removal, the workers & the vehicle they used are from a company called ETM. The article should be reworded, as it makes readers believe that council workers removed the statue, as opposed to contractors hired by the council.

2009:

If we are to describe what he did, then we shouldn't describe just the one, and most controversial, aspect of that. We should either give due weight to each aspect, or alternately describe none at all. For now it badly fails the NPOV and DUE tests. --

1505:

who suggested an alternative version that was in place for most of yesterday and was only changed this morning. Your drivel is best directed at the person who wants the full description of Colston in the article, not at me, who has trimmed it down to

3084:

Good morning to you all- well it was morning when I started this post! I was thinking that we must have a lot of dedicated sincere folks who are looking at a Knowledge (XXG) talk page for the first time- and watching a Knowledge (XXG) page develop.

881:

week (or longer) down the line. I thus feel its addition is somewhat premature at this stage; especially for it to be listed as "high importance" within the BLM and Bristol WikiProjects, and since there's so little information about it even as is.

1037: 2843:. I have editted the page with a map showing the plinth, and the storage location. I have been playing with maps as I couldn't understand the documentation and need maps for each school article I destub. I have some blank matrices on my 2149:

I disagree, given the subject of this article, and I don't see anyone else supporting that position at the moment. Perhaps it's best if we leave the question open for others to chip in to see if a different line of thinking comes up. -

1738:

to this page, and the point of all the information below the lead is for people to read - but you have to tell the whole story in a nutshell in the lead. Gutting it as you have done tells readers nothing about the background at all. -

153: 1254:

Presumably the use of the word "philanthropist" as a descriptor. Given that was the reason the original statue was raised, and given the word is used on the other related articles, I don't think there is an issue using it here too. -

1020:

It wasn't necessary to create it in the first place, but now that it's here, I suppose it's significant enough to remain for about a month, after which (I guess) everyone's going to forget about it. That is when it should be deleted.

2698:

context. The introduction to an article sets its tone. My concern is that all including his involvement in the slave trade specifically in the introduction achieves, particularly the way the parapgraph in phrased, is that it frames

959:

and so thought it odd, premature and potentially agenda-driven (i.e. biased). However, at this juncture, there looks to be enough material on the subject for a standalone article separate from the artist's article to be worthwhile.

2202:

Sounds like a good compromise to me. Like I said above, we need to restore all the context in the lead, or remove the rest of it. Having no context is better than the current misleading and non-neutral selected partial context. --

1781:

the background to understand the context of why this particular statue (with a black woman and the black power fist) replaced it. I understand there is the question of the word "philanthropist": if we trim the description down

2521:

No, the article body makes clear his life and career, the lead makes no reference to the reason behind the statue's erection. We have an article abut Colston and one about the statue, where there is a lot more information. -

3214:

by the authorities. (July 2020 and October 2019) Their causes were however different- and Holmquists work has a lower profile in the Anglophone world. The pose that Holmquist used is remarkable similar to the one adopted in

3841:

That's a great idea! On a quick look now one year on there are multiple reliable sources establishing notability related to the statue but also a book project and various other things, so I've created a draft to work on at

1623:

I'm not sure it's worth the difference. The council made the decision and paid for it to be done. The fact they sub-contracted it out (as is the norm nowadays) doesn't seem to matter: the council were the ones behind it. -

3766:

has all the photos and more (Tesco riot aftermath, random political graffiti, Colston statue deposition aftermath etc). Take/upload what you want. Black Lives Matter; Bristol's history matters more than copyright nuances

3511: 3173: 3344:

them: in Lancashire they include the Times archive from 1785, British Library Newspapers 1730-1950, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the full Oxford English Dictionary in all its 12-volumed glory, and much more.

1797:", would that work? It has all the main points of the context as to why the statue was removed and by who. I think the lead will be massively lacking without some description of Colston and why the statue was removed. - 2339:

Thank you for getting in touch, we’re glad to see the Wiki page and thank you for all of your hard work and effort! We have a selection of press images which have captions, were taken by the studio, and are available

2977:

I've removed the map for now. A pointer to the plinth may be interesting in the article at the right point, but for the infobox I don't see it appropriate to put on a location when we can't be certain where it is.

3338:

If you have a UK public library ticket you probably have access to NewsBank, which includes hundreds of local, regional and national UK newspapers, last 5 to 25 years of each, right up to date: I wasn't sure if

3608:, it was the intention that was the key. It was always meant to be temporary, and that's all that matters IMHO, whether it ultimately stayed for an hour or a decade, so photos of it were therefore copyvios. -- 2579:

I agree with IP 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 on this, any context, whether in the lead or elsewhere in the article, needs to give a neutral portrayal of Colston. There is an ongoing discussion above at

3925:

The second sentence of the lead reads: "Both Quinn and Reid are credited as artists". This is a summary based on the sourced content in the article. I'm not sure why Reid was removed from the infobox again by

268: 1115:

The Bristol Mayor has stated, that the statue will be moved which he can't do if it is a transient work. He said what goes on the plinth is for the people of Bristol- he can't do if it is a transient work.

3748:

As one of the people whose photographs will apparently be deleted from wikimedia, I am distictly unimpressed that my photograph is being taken offline *on the anniversary of the Colston statue's removal*

2333:

For newcomers there are two copyrights to consider: that the photographer releases them as CC-BY-SA works, but also whether the artist agrees to the images of their 3D non-permanent work being CC-SA free.

2838:

Knowledge (XXG) has a vast array of alternative toys. The mapframe parameter in the infobox is not one I use- it makes too many decisions for you and wont let you mark multiple points. For that one uses

395: 3974:

OK, fair enough: it seemed unlikely but on reading to the 5th sentence of the "Description and creation" section I see that she is credited, sourced, as artist. Have self-reverted. Sorry about that.

2616:

I grasp your concept of context. My argument is that Colston's role in the slave trade is immaterial for a basic understanding about the statue and event, which is the function of the abstract/brief

2100:

You're right that the context is important, but only why the statue was taken down. There is nothing inherently non-neutral in not covering why the statue was raised in the first place. The subject

1112:

Marc Quinn said in radio interview that the installation was done in such a way that it was designed to make it difficult to remove- thus showing the artist intention to protect its permanance.

2675:

I expanded the context to reflect notoriety in previous years prior to its toppling. This is important as it reflects the fact that anger was the statue was present prior to the Floyd protests.

2357:

I will write back to morrow and see what sort of copyright Marc wants us to include. Personally I would prefer to include an image from Marc's set, if they are open enough, as they are clearer.

3763: 2331:

I emailed Marc Quinn's studio about him issuing a statement to say our existing photograph was OK, in effect whether images of his 'temporary work' were free to use; as FoP is being disputed.

927: 882: 833: 147: 2703: 2622: 2566: 2552: 2508: 2189: 1897: 1594: 1006: 960: 2376: 2118:

It is blatantly non-neutral to use a one-sided description of Colston in the lead, and it means casual readers will get a distorted context. We need to restore it all or remove it all. --

1706:

level of detail is OK in the Background section and too much in the lede. With appropriate wikilinks the full articles on Colston and his statue are only a click away for the reader. --

44: 828:

I'm just curious if this art piece meets the standards required for it to have its own article, or if it would be more appropriate to instead remain wholly in the artist's own page (

3548: 1036:

I had wondered why the original statue didn't have an article until recently. The decision is that it was notable enough to have one, but no-one got around to writing it. There is:

4184: 3788:. (as explained earlier in this page) It was permanent long enough to get the relevant press coverage in the papers that are not WP:RS as well as those that are. So what is the 4119: 385: 3466: 2337:

I got an answer to the email but not to the question. They sent a press pack saying we were free to use an image from there, as an alternative. Simplest, if I just quote,

3587:

unless someone with some serious heavy lifting equipment had come to move it, and if you have suitable equipment, or a sufficient number of sufficiently annoyed people,

3504: 3166: 2068:

article, it is the article on "A Surge of Power (Jen Reid)", and it deals with the context in an appropriate manner when viewed from the point of view of the artwork. -

1991:

This article is not about the statue of Colston, it's about the statue of Reid. We don't need to give every snippet of background information in the lead - readers use

1720:

not tangential details about other subjects. These details are adequately covered in the Background section. If anything, we should be putting more in the article about

3300:

Quinn initially asked Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees for permission to erect the statue, but was refused as Rees thought it was “not the correct next step for the city”.

1820:

whole, and the article is about the statue of Reid, not about Colston or his statue. So, the info about Colston in the opening paragraph should be removed or (as in

1690:

We don't need to go too far into detail on Colston the person, in terms of both positive and negative descriptions. This article is two removed from Colston himself (

780: 760: 361: 4076:

I suggest that the lead is clearer if we combine the first two sentences, for readers who expect the first sentence to be a summary of key info, so I've tweaked it.

3739:

I've sent a message to the deleting admin on Commons. I should be able to upload one of the files locally this week with a fair use license for use in this article.

3681:, yes, but if intent or expectation (and by whom?) is not part of the actual legislative definition then (a) is irrelevant, and if (b) applied, then the removal of 1090:, in the sense that it is not transient like a performance artist. It is 'claimed not to be permanent, in the sense that its final location is in dispute- like the 190: 663: 582: 2656:

which gives three things besides the slave trade, and even at that doesn't say how involved he was in the slave trade. Seems that could have been a wide range of

3250:

OK- Describing statues is outside my competence! There is no mention in the :de:page. We need an expert here. The reference is solid. Thanks for being decisive.

3303: 3272:

Is this the first unauthorized replacement statue related to George Floyd protests? Is it the first related to any protests? First for any reason? Do we need

79: 2086:, if we have the one, we must have the other. And even if you disagree, you should revert your removal of that balance until a consensus is achieved here. -- 4174: 4114: 2295: 4189: 4169: 2458: 1792: 4109: 3108:

to join. There are hundreds of little tasks to do- correcting typos- rewriting my appalling English- matching photos with articles- checking references.

2399:

OK, start a new discussion, (leaving the one above), on how much context discussion on the previous statue is needed. Since there is now a whole article,

2377:

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bristol-skulptur-der-black-lives-matter-demonstrantin-jen-reid-wird-entfernt-a-eec46bd1-2f2c-43c3-b00e-522b287809c8

486: 352: 329: 2230:

2: How high is the plinth (3m?): this makes the stealthy installation the more impressive. Can't see it in the Colston statue article or NHLE listing.

3273: 1041: 4164: 2259: 1666:

LukeSurl, Can you explain why you keep removing the context from the lead? It only tells part of the story without the information you've removed. -

628: 264: 4129: 476: 168: 85: 4144: 3650:"permanently situated in a public place". This is clear because: a) when it was placed it was only expected to be there temporarily - i.e. it was 3499: 3161: 3093:. If you have got an idea, talk to me on my talk page-- or any of my sympathetic friends who have posting here. We will gently get you started. 538: 135: 1040:(and I presume ones for other countries). I suspect that this one will stay notable, being the first one. If so many are built, we might need 4149: 4134: 2463:" is fine for the lead: it gives enough context, concisely, and interested readers can follow any of those three links for more information. 990:

by a mile, because of the world-wide mainstream media coverage about it. We have large numbers of articles about far less famous statues. --

3104: 785: 755: 452: 4154: 3846:. SteveLoughran or indeed anyone else feel free to throw in more links or indeed collaborate on writing the article together. Please edit! 3756:

I've uploaded a new image, which focuses on the crowd surrounding the statue. This is documenting the installation and immediate reaction.

1388: 1374: 1279: 1188:

Could someone please take a photo showing the sculpture more clearly, like the second one in Guardian article (ie against sky, not trees)?

30: 1764:

is not the subject of the article. The necessary context is that a plinth was made vacant by the protests, leaving a space for the statue

1387:

It is not "soapboxing", as we have once again, two time in a row "philanthropist" in the article. By your doing. Do you want to insult? --

619: 577: 2353:

anything further. We appreciate your time on this matter and watched with admiration as the Wiki page has grown over the past 24+ hours.

910:

Maybe I'm reading it wrong (I probably am), but the Talk page does appear to be listed in the "high importance" sections of the Bristol (

4179: 4139: 3757: 1493:("Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal"), which means I'm within the guidelines to archive or delete. 1609:

If it isn't too hard, I think the article could make it more obvious. When I read it, I did tend to believe that they actually did it.

716: 129: 1419:

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection

931: 886: 837: 529: 509: 99: 4124: 3533:

was closed with the comment "Can be uploaded to local wiki as fair use, probably." if anybody wants to look into doing that here. --

2707: 2626: 2570: 2556: 2512: 2193: 1901: 1598: 1010: 964: 2700:

the city and people of Bristol are a bunch of racists because they erected a statue to honour someone for selling and buying slaves

104: 20: 1839:

lead, not the rest, so the lead has to give sufficient information for understanding. There is an alternative suggestion above. -

1699: 251: 125: 24: 3798:

to the black kids I taught- and the white kids wouldn't understand what the fuss is about. That deletion is seen as evidence of

441: 418: 74: 3583: 3530: 3112: 2803:

would be the only relevant map to include, but I'm not a maps technical expert so can't offer to produce one , and the map in

1044:

but I suspect it won't be that many. It is the installation in place of the original that makes it notable, as that is rare.

304: 2654:

18th-century Bristol merchant, philanthropist and Tory Member of Parliament who had been involved in the Atlantic slave trade

3426: 790: 707: 687: 175: 65: 451:-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 4159: 3519: 3181: 1221:

here too. Some say one ,some say something the other. Isn’t it sufficient for this discussion to take place around the

2300:“Jen created the sculpture when she stood on the plinth and raised her arm in the air ... Now we’re crystallising it.” 1026: 3758:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:A_crowd_celebrates_the_arrival_of_A_Surge_of_Power_(Jen_Reid)_(July_15,_2020).jpg

2719:

parliament in context instead? I suspect that his slave dealings are the reason for the toppling, but do we have a

1489:

Fuck me ... you think Colston's toenails and the "Confederate cause" are relevant and worthy of consideration?? See

3478: 2787: 915: 185: 3312: 2283: 141: 109: 2960: 2680: 2403:, on the previous one, it seems to me that minimal context is needed here. Unless that one doesn't stay around. 949: 3309:

The statue was neither commissioned by the local authorities, nor was formal permission sought for its erection.

2292:

I contacted Jen via social media to discuss the idea of the sculpture and she told me she wanted to collaborate.

199: 3843: 3495:

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

3157:

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

2804: 2450: 2400: 2345: 2065: 2027: 1868: 1784: 1761: 1757: 1695: 1392: 1378: 2227:

1: There's no description of the sculpture: nothing tells us it's of a black woman in contemporary clothing.

1283: 310: 2906:

article when the location of the statue was a significant thing, and now it sits awkwardly in the article. --

1640:

I think you are right, but when I first read it I was imagining the council members going out and doing it.

3874: 3829: 3772: 3515: 3177: 2385: 2963:. If you want to add another 30 or so markers it would be possible. Changing the marker label is trivial. 2064:

went up. Instead we cover that in the body. There is absolutely no failure of NPOV or DUE. This is not the

848: 3538: 2233:

I can't do much today: broken internet connection and only feeble data signal to phone, so can't SOFIXIT.

1362:

Europe and the British Empire which championed colonialist figures such as Cecil Rhodes and King Leopold.

1022: 699: 681: 2170: 1974: 923: 919: 55: 3965: 3471: 2799: 2780: 2294:). I can't see any text from Quinn where this work is presented as solely his own, in fact the Guardian 1580: 1542: 1245: 1155: 901: 871: 715:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

627:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

537:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

360:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

234: 3102:

project where Wikipedians world wide try to address the gender bias, register a user name and click on

3026:

I've put a map in with a pointer to the plinth in the section about the statue's temporary location. --

70: 3813: 3799: 3255: 3223: 3124: 2968: 2855: 2676: 2454: 2362: 1788: 1137: 945: 911: 292: 3691: 3634: 3596: 2748: 1230: 1222: 995: 161: 4044: 4002: 3945: 3709: 3678: 3663: 3622: 3609: 3401: 3384: 2920: 2585: 2204: 2174: 2119: 2087: 2050: 2011: 1978: 1922: 1853:

I think it's still unnecessarily long, but it's certainly an improvement on the current version.

852: 3870: 3869:

almost as if some of the wikimedia editors have an objection to a specific statue. I wonder why.

3825: 3768: 3116: 2660:, and we don't need to make an assumption either way. Would it be better to say that in context? 2607: 2527: 2436: 2381: 2267: 2155: 2109: 2073: 2040: 2000: 1959: 1941: 1886: 1858: 1844: 1829: 1802: 1743: 1671: 1629: 1557: 1515: 1365: 1326: 1298: 1260: 611: 357: 257: 204: 1921:

existing was one of the things removed. Our job is to serve the reader, not our own bigotry. --

218: 4095: 4071: 4052: 4035: 4010: 3993: 3969: 3953: 3908: 3878: 3855: 3833: 3817: 3776: 3743: 3717: 3695: 3671: 3654:

expected to be "permanently situated in a public place", and b) it has now been removed, so it

3638: 3617: 3600: 3570: 3542: 3523: 3485: 3453: 3438: 3410: 3392: 3363: 3325: 3285: 3259: 3245: 3227: 3203: 3185: 3146: 3128: 3065: 3030: 3017: 2982: 2972: 2953: 2928: 2910: 2890: 2859: 2826: 2794: 2770: 2732: 2711: 2684: 2669: 2630: 2611: 2593: 2574: 2560: 2546: 2531: 2516: 2501: 2482: 2440: 2422: 2412: 2389: 2366: 2320: 2310: 2271: 2252: 2212: 2197: 2182: 2159: 2127: 2113: 2095: 2077: 2058: 2044: 2019: 2004: 1986: 1963: 1945: 1930: 1905: 1890: 1875: 1862: 1848: 1833: 1806: 1772: 1747: 1728: 1710: 1685: 1675: 1649: 1633: 1618: 1602: 1584: 1561: 1546: 1519: 1470: 1453: 1425: 1396: 1382: 1330: 1302: 1287: 1264: 1249: 1234: 1207: 1173: 1159: 1141: 1053: 1030: 1014: 999: 968: 953: 935: 905: 890: 875: 860: 841: 4067:

publicly agree this is a two 'artist' work, and that's sufficient for the lead and infobox. --

4048: 4006: 3949: 3904: 3851: 3713: 3667: 3613: 3534: 3449: 3434: 3388: 2924: 2589: 2208: 2178: 2123: 2091: 2083: 2054: 2049:

This leaves the lead lacking balance, as I just wrote in reply to Ghmyrtle directly above. --

2015: 1982: 1926: 1169: 856: 51: 3380: 1896:

George Floyd protestors the previous month due to Colston's involvement in the slave trade."

1490: 3961: 2104:

is the artwork, not Colston, his career and statue, so I think we have the right balance. -

1576: 1538: 1241: 1151: 897: 867: 203: 201: 3376: 2418:

Both statues seem evidently notable to me. I can't envisage either article being deleted.

1970: 1415: 1318: 1314: 987: 3809: 3383:. We can compare and contrast them, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusion. -- 3251: 3234: 3219: 3215: 3196: 3120: 3115:

but its a great title. This could be the first article. I do think we need one to embrace

2964: 2866: 2851: 2844: 2358: 1133: 3470:. Would any editors be interested in nominating this article for Good article status? --- 2720: 653: 344: 323: 4086: 4026: 3984: 3700: 3687: 3643: 3630: 3605: 3592: 3561: 3354: 3281: 3142: 3056: 3008: 2944: 2881: 2817: 2761: 2728: 2665: 2542: 2497: 2473: 2408: 2243: 1753: 1691: 1645: 1614: 1466: 1449: 1226: 1218: 1198: 1049: 991: 1867:

Better, but it seems to belie an assumption that this effectively is a sub-article of

1414:- please stop deleting/archiving comments by others in this active discussion. As per 4103: 4068: 3938: 3753:

ClemRutter: thank you for re-uploading my photo under the fair use category. I concur

3740: 3491:

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

3407: 3370: 3322: 3242: 3200: 3153:

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

3041: 3027: 2979: 2916: 2907: 2848: 2603: 2523: 2432: 2419: 2317: 2307: 2286:

made on Quinn's website both Quinn and Reid describe the work as a collaboration (R:

2263: 2151: 2105: 2069: 2036: 1996: 1955: 1951: 1937: 1882: 1872: 1854: 1840: 1825: 1798: 1769: 1739: 1725: 1707: 1682: 1667: 1625: 1553: 1529: 1511: 1422: 1411: 1352: 1322: 1294: 1256: 1091: 3119:

issues- but even if we want to, we can't achieve much without an influx of editors.

433: 412: 3900: 3847: 3445: 3444:

It's currently on the mainpage in the "Did you know?" section. Nice one everybody!

3430: 3098: 3077: 1165: 944:

would have guaranteed this article's notability even without its temporary citing.

1936:

complete in the body. That is pretty much how it should be done in any article. -

239: 2173:

version pending any future consensus supporting your removal of that content. --

1444:

Yes please leave it so we can fairly discuss the applicability to the article.

1038:

Actions_against_memorials_in_the_United_Kingdom_during_the_George_Floyd_protests

773: 749: 624: 3626: 941: 789:

project from July to December 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please

601: 3089:

that the regular editors are unfriendly- just battle scarred. In fact we are

916:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:High-importance_Black_Lives_Matter_articles

4077: 4040: 4017: 3998: 3975: 3927: 3552: 3345: 3277: 3138: 3047: 2999: 2935: 2872: 2833: 2808: 2776: 2752: 2724: 2661: 2538: 2493: 2464: 2404: 2346:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1871OhRS-NP_pbnwt5Yy0ddtoD9sqHG2Z

2234: 1871:

rather than an article about a sculpture that has independent notability. --

1641: 1610: 1462: 1445: 1189: 1045: 534: 229: 1164:

Yup, ridiculous - the legal definition of permanent is being misunderstood

3375:

we shouldn't remove either - to pick one above the other would contravene

2807:

shows that statue's journey to the water, not just its original location.

2427:

I don't think Gah4 is suggesting that. S/he seems to be talking about the

2082:

That context is important though, if we interested in NPOV. IMHO, and per

595: 571: 3896: 3295:

We currently have two somewhat contradictory statements in the article:

1992: 605: 3233:

I have removed this, as per my comments in the section above. Also the

1313:

The reference to Colston as a "philanthropist" has been discussed at a

521: 503: 447: 2919:, we do not need the map as we no longer know where the statue is. -- 2779:, Has this been resolved? Curious if this section can be archived. --- 3427:

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Queue_6:_A_Surge_of_Power_(Jen_Reid)_2020

3218:

forthcoming Hackney sculpture. Can I share the problem with you all.

3425:

Hiya, there's some last minute tweaking of the DYK hook going on at

3199:, particularly as there is no article for the specific sculpture. - 3591:

is really "permanently" mounted, no matter if it's bolted down. --

3195:

I do not see sufficient connection to justify the see also link to

2372:

A short report (video) on a German site. With interviews in English

2457:, had been toppled, defaced and pushed into the city's harbour by 1791:, had been toppled, defaced and pushed into the city's harbour by 912:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:High-importance_Bristol_articles

712: 269:

Template:Did you know nominations/A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020

3274:

Statues replacing toppled statues installed without authorization

2747:

Doesn't seem to indicate location correctly: compare with map in

1042:

Statues replacing toppled statues installed without authorization

1461:

having to follow all the delete/restore, than to just read it.

2598:

Of course you do, but both you and the IP miss the concept of

286: 213: 205: 15: 3802:

within WP. WP needs to report the story not become the story.

1501:- and engage your brain when you do so - you will see it was 2693:

section, where as my issue is specifically in the article's

2449:

It was placed on the empty plinth from which a 19th-century

1317:(closed as "deadlock") and is now again under discussion at 652: 274: 3464:

WikiProject Black Lives Matter is hosting an editathon for

3237:

article currently currently has no detail at all about the

829: 3549:

commons:File:Statue "A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020".jpg

3316:"No formal consent has been sought for the installation.". 3703:, no. It was declared to be a temporary installation, so 1532:

is uncivil and self contradictory. If comments that are

1005:

Agreed. At this point, there's been plenty of coverage.

3941: 3934: 3930: 2166: 1821: 1703: 1507: 267:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at 160: 3551:

and copy it into en.wiki before it too gets deleted?

2847:. I was particular proud of this transparent overlay. 2288:

I’m collaborating with Marc Quinn on this project...

793:

regarding their contributions before making changes.

711:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 623:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 533:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 445:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 356:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1128:while Marc uses the word to mean he expect that it 174: 847:That would depend largely on whether it meets the 1373:Stopp adorneding Colston’s toe-nail clippings! -- 779:This article was created or improved during the 3406:good point. I've made an edit to this effect. -- 2901:I don't think we can be sure that the statue is 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1977:until a consensus to change it is achieved. -- 926:), I'm satisfied and have no further problems. 3510:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 3505:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 15th July 2020.jpg 3172:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 3167:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 15th July 2020.jpg 370:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Black Lives Matter 3662:"permanently situated in a public place". -- 2327:Copyright status of the available photographs 8: 4185:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 173 articles 3899:(which previously redirected to this page). 3627:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48 1954:, per my comments further up this thread. 1064:I commented on one of the targetted photos: 265:Knowledge (XXG):Recent additions/2020/August 3937:, with explanation, its earlier removal by 3625:, section 62 of the relevant legislation ( 3304:this paywalled Times article of the 20 July 1105:which has nothing to do with copyright law. 4120:Low-importance Black Lives Matter articles 3429:if anyone is interested to comment on it. 744: 676: 566: 498: 407: 318: 3113:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Taking a knee 1724:, who is the subject of the sculpture. -- 1217:Do we really need to have this debate on 1086:This in the terms of the UK fop law is a 242:). The text of the entry was as follows: 3105:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women in Red 2165:Fair enough, but don't forget to revert 799:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women in Red 1760:is not the subject of the article. The 1756:is not the subject of the article. The 1552:interested, and don't ping me again. - 1240:umm, which debate here about Colston?? 832:) which already references the statue. 746: 678: 637:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Visual arts 568: 500: 409: 373:Template:WikiProject Black Lives Matter 320: 290: 275: 3308: 3299: 2840: 2448: 2351: 2338: 2299: 2291: 2287: 1783: 1715:To be precise, the lede does not need 1418: 4110:Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles 3658:only temporarily there - i.e. it was 2537:about Colston know where to find it. 1681:See my comment two sections above. -- 928:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:C448:35CE:D6A4:C3A0 883:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:C448:35CE:D6A4:C3A0 834:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:2128:8153:9A7E:3ABD 547:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sculpture 263:A record of the entry may be seen at 7: 2704:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 2623:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 2581: 2567:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 2553:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 2509:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 2190:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 1898:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF 1762:removal of the Edward Colston statue 1595:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF 1498: 1007:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF 961:2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF 705:This article is within the scope of 617:This article is within the scope of 527:This article is within the scope of 439:This article is within the scope of 350:This article is within the scope of 4175:All WikiProject Women-related pages 4115:C-Class Black Lives Matter articles 2258:I've added "young black woman" per 1766:which is the subject of the article 830:https://en.wikipedia.org/Marc_Quinn 781:BLM/Anti-discrimination edit-a-thon 461:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bristol 309:It is of interest to the following 256:was inspired by a raised fist at a 23:for discussing improvements to the 4190:All WikiProject Women in Red pages 4170:C-Class WikiProject Women articles 3500:A Surge of Power (50115756351).jpg 3162:A Surge of Power (50115756351).jpg 824:Does this require its own article? 14: 1120:like our confusing definition of 802:Template:WikiProject Women in Red 725:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4165:WikiProject Visual arts articles 3313:the statement on Quinn's website 1700:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020 1130:will be been moved several times 772: 748: 698: 680: 640:Template:WikiProject Visual arts 604: 594: 570: 520: 502: 432: 411: 343: 322: 291: 252:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020 226:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020 217: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 25:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020 4130:Low-importance Bristol articles 2453:, who had been involved in the 1787:, who had been involved in the 1124:; this is a case of us meaning 481:This article has been rated as 390:This article has been rated as 4145:WikiProject Sculpture articles 3762:My public google photos album 2447:I think the current sentence " 2316:I've edited to this effect. -- 761:BLM/Anti-discrimination (2020) 550:Template:WikiProject Sculpture 353:WikiProject Black Lives Matter 228:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1: 3076:Welcome to new editors & 2841:|module= {{OSM Location map}} 719:and see a list of open tasks. 661:This article is supported by 631:and see a list of open tasks. 541:and see a list of open tasks. 455:and see a list of open tasks. 364:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 4150:C-Class visual arts articles 4135:WikiProject Bristol articles 3790:wiki definition of permanent 3486:17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 3091:desperate for you to join us 1213:Slave trader, philanthropist 464:Template:WikiProject Bristol 4155:C-Class public art articles 3454:09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2487:Yes. I was suggesting that 376:Black Lives Matter articles 4206: 4180:WikiProject Women articles 4140:C-Class sculpture articles 3524:09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 3439:21:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 3191:See also - Scott Holmquist 3066:11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 3031:08:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 3018:08:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 2983:12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC) 2973:09:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 2954:19:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 2929:09:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 2911:09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 2891:06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 2860:21:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 2827:18:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 2795:17:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 2431:needed in this article. - 1562:08:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 1547:08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 731:WikiProject Women articles 728:Template:WikiProject Women 487:project's importance scale 238:column on 12 August 2020 ( 4096:11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 4072:08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 4053:08:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 4036:07:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 4011:07:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 3994:07:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 3970:07:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 3954:07:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 3909:13:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC) 3844:User:Mujinga/DraftJenReid 3411:11:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC) 3393:20:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 3364:20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 3326:20:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 3286:18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3260:12:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3246:11:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3228:19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3204:19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3186:03:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3147:19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 3129:18:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2771:23:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2733:12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2712:09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2685:05:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2670:04:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2631:01:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2612:00:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2594:21:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2575:19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2561:18:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2547:18:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2532:18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2517:18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2502:18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2483:11:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2441:10:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2423:10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2413:09:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2390:08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2367:19:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 2321:14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 2311:14:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 2272:14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 2253:13:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 2213:21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2198:17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2183:15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2160:15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2128:15:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2114:14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2096:14:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2078:13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2059:13:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2045:10:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2033:for this piece of artwork 2020:13:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 2005:10:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1987:10:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1964:10:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1946:10:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1931:09:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1906:22:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1891:15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1876:14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1863:14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1849:14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1834:14:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1807:14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1773:14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1748:14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1729:13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1711:13:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1686:13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1676:13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1650:17:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1634:11:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1619:09:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1603:21:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1585:12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1520:09:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1471:09:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1454:09:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1426:09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1397:08:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1383:07:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 1331:13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1303:13:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1288:13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1265:10:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1250:07:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1235:05:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1208:05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1174:00:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1160:23:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 1142:17:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 1054:18:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1031:16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1015:22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 1000:22:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 969:22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 954:10:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 936:15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 906:15:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 891:14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 876:09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 861:09:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 842:09:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 767: 693: 664:the public art task force 660: 589: 515: 480: 427: 389: 338: 317: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 4125:C-Class Bristol articles 3879:18:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC) 3856:08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC) 3834:23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC) 3818:18:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC) 3777:22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3744:20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3718:19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3696:19:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3672:18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3639:18:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3618:15:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3601:15:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3571:15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 3543:11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 2998:location of the plinth. 2805:Statue of Edward Colston 2451:statue of Edward Colston 2401:Statue_of_Edward_Colston 2066:Statue of Edward Colston 2028:Statue of Edward Colston 1869:Statue of Edward Colston 1785:statue of Edward Colston 1758:Statue of Edward Colston 1696:Statue of Edward Colston 3531:the deletion discussion 3421:DYK nomination tweaking 2459:George Floyd protesters 1793:George Floyd protesters 1366:The Slaver’s Protectors 620:WikiProject Visual arts 3547:Or can someone rescue 1075: 657: 299:This article is rated 280: 75:avoid personal attacks 3209:Kreuzberger Standbild 2652:Ok, background says: 2584:relating to this. -- 1824:) severely trimmed. 1319:WP:DRN#Edward Colston 1101:That is permanent in 1074: 849:notability guidelines 805:Women in Red articles 656: 530:WikiProject Sculpture 303:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 278: 100:Neutral point of view 3800:institutional racism 3046:Thanks, looks good. 2871:Looks good, thanks. 2689:@Gah4 That's in the 2455:Atlantic slave trade 1789:Atlantic slave trade 1508:what it currently is 1060:Transient- permanent 643:visual arts articles 248:... that the statue 105:No original research 4160:Public art articles 3895:That's now live at 2961:OSM map markup code 2749:The Centre, Bristol 2461:the previous month. 1225:and not here too?-- 442:WikiProject Bristol 3646:, yes, but it was 3516:Community Tech bot 3178:Community Tech bot 3117:Black lives matter 2278:Reid as co-artist? 2223:Missing content x2 1795:the previous month 940:The importance of 658: 612:Visual arts portal 553:sculpture articles 367:Black Lives Matter 358:Black Lives Matter 330:Black Lives Matter 305:content assessment 281: 258:Black Lives Matter 86:dispute resolution 47: 3764:Bristol Political 3686:word on this. -- 2429:amount of context 2169:, to restore the 2084:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 1491:WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE 1023:HalfdanRagnarsson 821: 820: 817: 816: 813: 812: 791:assume good faith 743: 742: 739: 738: 708:WikiProject Women 675: 674: 671: 670: 565: 564: 561: 560: 497: 496: 493: 492: 406: 405: 402: 401: 285: 284: 212: 211: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4197: 4093: 4084: 4033: 4024: 4001:, fair play. -- 3991: 3982: 3568: 3559: 3481: 3474: 3473:Another Believer 3405: 3374: 3361: 3352: 3311:- referenced to 3302:- referenced to 3063: 3054: 3045: 3015: 3006: 2951: 2942: 2888: 2879: 2870: 2837: 2824: 2815: 2800:Another Believer 2790: 2783: 2782:Another Believer 2768: 2759: 2582:#Context in lead 2480: 2471: 2250: 2241: 2026:If this was the 1973:and restore the 1752:I do not agree. 1499:#Context in lead 1356: 1205: 1196: 807: 806: 803: 800: 797: 776: 769: 768: 763: 752: 745: 733: 732: 729: 726: 723: 702: 695: 694: 684: 677: 645: 644: 641: 638: 635: 614: 609: 608: 598: 591: 590: 585: 574: 567: 555: 554: 551: 548: 545: 524: 517: 516: 506: 499: 469: 468: 467:Bristol articles 465: 462: 459: 436: 429: 428: 423: 415: 408: 396:importance scale 378: 377: 374: 371: 368: 347: 340: 339: 334: 326: 319: 302: 296: 295: 287: 277: 221: 214: 206: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4205: 4204: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4100: 4099: 4087: 4078: 4027: 4018: 3985: 3976: 3923: 3562: 3553: 3512:nomination page 3493: 3484: 3479: 3472: 3462: 3423: 3399: 3368: 3355: 3346: 3293: 3270: 3235:Scott Holmquist 3216:Thomas J. Price 3211: 3197:Scott Holmquist 3193: 3174:nomination page 3155: 3111:We dont have a 3082: 3057: 3048: 3039: 3009: 3000: 2945: 2936: 2882: 2873: 2864: 2831: 2818: 2809: 2793: 2788: 2781: 2762: 2753: 2745: 2677:No Swan So Fine 2474: 2465: 2397: 2374: 2329: 2284:joint statement 2280: 2244: 2235: 2225: 2102:in this article 1702:). I think the 1664: 1662:Context in lead 1572: 1350: 1339: 1223:Colston article 1215: 1199: 1190: 1186: 1062: 946:No Swan So Fine 826: 804: 801: 798: 795: 794: 758: 730: 727: 724: 721: 720: 642: 639: 636: 633: 632: 610: 603: 580: 552: 549: 546: 543: 542: 466: 463: 460: 457: 456: 421: 375: 372: 369: 366: 365: 332: 300: 279:Knowledge (XXG) 208: 207: 202: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4203: 4201: 4193: 4192: 4187: 4182: 4177: 4172: 4167: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4147: 4142: 4137: 4132: 4127: 4122: 4117: 4112: 4102: 4101: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 3922: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3821: 3820: 3804: 3803: 3794: 3793: 3780: 3779: 3760: 3754: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3508: 3507: 3502: 3492: 3489: 3476: 3461: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3422: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3366: 3333: 3332:contradictory. 3318: 3317: 3315:15 July -: --> 3306: 3292: 3289: 3269: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3210: 3207: 3192: 3189: 3170: 3169: 3164: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3134: 3081: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3034: 3033: 3021: 3020: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2785: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2716: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2563: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2396: 2393: 2373: 2370: 2349: 2348: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2279: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2224: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2167:your last edit 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1948: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1865: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1754:Edward Colston 1713: 1692:Edward Colston 1688: 1663: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1638: 1607: 1590: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1494: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1458: 1456: 1442: 1429: 1428: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1389:217.234.68.159 1385: 1375:217.234.68.159 1371: 1370: 1369: 1359: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1280:217.234.67.242 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1219:Edward Colston 1214: 1211: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1096: 1095: 1088:permanent work 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1018: 1017: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 825: 822: 819: 818: 815: 814: 811: 810: 808: 783:hosted by the 777: 765: 764: 753: 741: 740: 737: 736: 734: 717:the discussion 703: 691: 690: 685: 673: 672: 669: 668: 659: 649: 648: 646: 629:the discussion 616: 615: 599: 587: 586: 575: 563: 562: 559: 558: 556: 539:the discussion 525: 513: 512: 507: 495: 494: 491: 490: 483:Low-importance 479: 473: 472: 470: 453:the discussion 437: 425: 424: 422:Low‑importance 416: 404: 403: 400: 399: 392:Low-importance 388: 382: 381: 379: 362:the discussion 348: 336: 335: 333:Low‑importance 327: 315: 314: 308: 297: 283: 282: 272: 262: 261: 222: 210: 209: 200: 198: 197: 194: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4202: 4191: 4188: 4186: 4183: 4181: 4178: 4176: 4173: 4171: 4168: 4166: 4163: 4161: 4158: 4156: 4153: 4151: 4148: 4146: 4143: 4141: 4138: 4136: 4133: 4131: 4128: 4126: 4123: 4121: 4118: 4116: 4113: 4111: 4108: 4107: 4105: 4098: 4097: 4094: 4092: 4091: 4085: 4083: 4082: 4074: 4073: 4070: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4034: 4032: 4031: 4025: 4023: 4022: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3989: 3983: 3981: 3980: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3929: 3920: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3871:SteveLoughran 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3826:SteveLoughran 3819: 3815: 3811: 3806: 3805: 3801: 3796: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3782: 3781: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3769:SteveLoughran 3765: 3761: 3759: 3755: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3746: 3745: 3742: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3706: 3702: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3572: 3569: 3567: 3566: 3560: 3558: 3557: 3550: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3506: 3503: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3490: 3488: 3487: 3482: 3475: 3469: 3468: 3460:Good article? 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3420: 3412: 3409: 3403: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3372: 3367: 3365: 3362: 3360: 3359: 3353: 3351: 3350: 3342: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3324: 3314: 3310: 3307: 3305: 3301: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3290: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3267: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3241:sculpture. -- 3240: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3208: 3206: 3205: 3202: 3198: 3190: 3188: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3168: 3165: 3163: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3135: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3094: 3092: 3086: 3079: 3075: 3067: 3064: 3062: 3061: 3055: 3053: 3052: 3043: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3014: 3013: 3007: 3005: 3004: 2996: 2995: 2984: 2981: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2949: 2943: 2941: 2940: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2915:I agree with 2914: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2904: 2900: 2892: 2889: 2887: 2886: 2880: 2878: 2877: 2868: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2849:Little Venice 2846: 2842: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2823: 2822: 2816: 2814: 2813: 2806: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2791: 2784: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2769: 2767: 2766: 2760: 2758: 2757: 2750: 2742: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2478: 2472: 2470: 2469: 2462: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2394: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2382:Qwertzu111111 2379: 2378: 2371: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2347: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2335: 2334: 2326: 2322: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2309: 2303: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2248: 2242: 2240: 2239: 2231: 2228: 2222: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1950:I agree with 1949: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1918: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1780: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1687: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1661: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1569: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1528:This comment 1527: 1526: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1459: 1457: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1212: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1204: 1203: 1197: 1195: 1194: 1183: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126:not transient 1123: 1114: 1111: 1110: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1092:Elgin Marbles 1089: 1085: 1084: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 970: 966: 962: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 894: 893: 892: 888: 884: 879: 878: 877: 873: 869: 864: 863: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 831: 823: 809: 792: 788: 787: 782: 778: 775: 771: 770: 766: 762: 757: 754: 751: 747: 735: 718: 714: 710: 709: 704: 701: 697: 696: 692: 689: 686: 683: 679: 666: 665: 655: 651: 650: 647: 630: 626: 622: 621: 613: 607: 602: 600: 597: 593: 592: 588: 584: 579: 576: 573: 569: 557: 540: 536: 532: 531: 526: 523: 519: 518: 514: 511: 508: 505: 501: 488: 484: 478: 475: 474: 471: 454: 450: 449: 444: 443: 438: 435: 431: 430: 426: 420: 417: 414: 410: 397: 393: 387: 384: 383: 380: 363: 359: 355: 354: 349: 346: 342: 341: 337: 331: 328: 325: 321: 316: 312: 306: 298: 294: 289: 288: 273: 270: 266: 259: 255: 254: 253: 247: 244: 243: 241: 237: 236: 231: 227: 223: 220: 216: 215: 196: 195: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4089: 4088: 4080: 4079: 4075: 4065: 4029: 4028: 4020: 4019: 3987: 3986: 3978: 3977: 3924: 3822: 3789: 3785: 3747: 3738: 3704: 3682: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3588: 3564: 3563: 3555: 3554: 3535:Lord Belbury 3529:Noting that 3509: 3494: 3465: 3463: 3424: 3357: 3356: 3348: 3347: 3340: 3336:Useful info: 3335: 3319: 3294: 3271: 3238: 3212: 3194: 3171: 3156: 3110: 3103: 3099:Women in Red 3097: 3096:We have the 3095: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3078:Women in Red 3059: 3058: 3050: 3049: 3011: 3010: 3002: 3001: 2947: 2946: 2938: 2937: 2902: 2884: 2883: 2875: 2874: 2820: 2819: 2811: 2810: 2764: 2763: 2755: 2754: 2746: 2699: 2695:Introduction 2694: 2690: 2657: 2653: 2651: 2617: 2599: 2488: 2476: 2475: 2467: 2466: 2428: 2398: 2380: 2375: 2356: 2350: 2336: 2332: 2330: 2304: 2281: 2246: 2245: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2148: 2101: 2032: 1778: 1765: 1734: 1721: 1716: 1665: 1573: 1533: 1502: 1216: 1201: 1200: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1103:common usage 1102: 1087: 1063: 1019: 985: 924:WP:EVENTCRIT 920:WP:SUSTAINED 827: 796:Women in Red 786:Women in Red 784: 756:Women in Red 706: 662: 618: 528: 482: 446: 440: 391: 351: 311:WikiProjects 250: 249: 246:Did you know 245: 235:Did you know 233: 225: 224:A fact from 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3962:Victuallers 2723:for that? 2298:him saying 2260:this source 1577:Jim Michael 1539:Victuallers 1242:Victuallers 1152:Victuallers 914:) and BLM ( 898:Victuallers 868:Victuallers 634:Visual arts 625:visual arts 578:Visual arts 240:check views 148:free images 31:not a forum 4104:Categories 3933:, after I 3810:ClemRutter 3291:Permission 3252:ClemRutter 3220:ClemRutter 3121:ClemRutter 2965:ClemRutter 2867:ClemRutter 2852:ClemRutter 2691:Background 2359:ClemRutter 2171:status quo 1975:status quo 1337:Soapboxing 1134:ClemRutter 986:It passes 942:Marc Quinn 583:Public art 3786:transient 3701:The Anome 3688:The Anome 3644:The Anome 3631:The Anome 3606:The Anome 3593:The Anome 3341:The Times 3239:Last Hero 2903:currently 2845:user page 2395:Context 2 1227:Egghead06 992:The Anome 544:Sculpture 535:Sculpture 510:Sculpture 230:Main Page 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4069:LukeSurl 3939:Keivan.f 3935:reverted 3897:Jen Reid 3741:LukeSurl 3408:LukeSurl 3371:LukeSurl 3323:LukeSurl 3243:LukeSurl 3201:LukeSurl 3042:LukeSurl 3028:LukeSurl 2980:LukeSurl 2917:LukeSurl 2908:LukeSurl 2658:involved 2604:SchroCat 2524:SchroCat 2433:SchroCat 2420:LukeSurl 2318:LukeSurl 2308:LukeSurl 2264:Ghmyrtle 2152:SchroCat 2106:SchroCat 2070:SchroCat 2037:SchroCat 1997:Ghmyrtle 1956:Ghmyrtle 1952:SchroCat 1938:SchroCat 1883:SchroCat 1873:LukeSurl 1855:Ghmyrtle 1841:SchroCat 1826:Ghmyrtle 1799:SchroCat 1777:But you 1770:LukeSurl 1740:SchroCat 1726:LukeSurl 1708:LukeSurl 1683:LukeSurl 1668:SchroCat 1626:SchroCat 1570:Removers 1554:SchroCat 1530:SchroCat 1512:SchroCat 1423:LukeSurl 1412:SchroCat 1353:SchroCat 1323:Ghmyrtle 1295:SchroCat 1257:SchroCat 260:protest? 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4045:DeFacto 4003:DeFacto 3946:DeFacto 3921:Artists 3901:Mujinga 3848:Mujinga 3710:DeFacto 3679:DeFacto 3664:DeFacto 3623:DeFacto 3610:DeFacto 3589:nothing 3467:Q1 2021 3446:Mujinga 3431:Mujinga 3402:DeFacto 3385:DeFacto 3381:WP:NPOV 3080:project 2921:DeFacto 2618:summary 2600:context 2586:DeFacto 2296:reports 2282:In the 2205:DeFacto 2175:DeFacto 2120:DeFacto 2088:DeFacto 2051:DeFacto 2012:DeFacto 1979:DeFacto 1923:DeFacto 1822:my edit 1704:current 1534:clearly 1166:Mujinga 1122:notable 853:DeFacto 485:on the 458:Bristol 448:Bristol 419:Bristol 394:on the 301:C-class 232:in the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3584:Here's 3377:WP:DUE 3268:First? 1971:WP:BRD 1735:course 1698:-: --> 1694:-: --> 1416:WP:TPO 1315:WP:RFC 988:WP:GNG 307:scale. 126:Google 3944:. -- 3648:never 2721:WP:RS 2340:here: 2290:, Q: 1993:links 1184:Photo 851:. -- 722:Women 713:women 688:Women 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4049:talk 4041:PamD 4007:talk 3999:PamD 3966:talk 3950:talk 3942:here 3931:here 3928:PamD 3905:talk 3875:talk 3852:talk 3830:talk 3814:talk 3773:talk 3714:talk 3692:talk 3668:talk 3635:talk 3614:talk 3597:talk 3539:talk 3520:talk 3480:Talk 3450:talk 3435:talk 3389:talk 3282:talk 3278:Gah4 3256:talk 3224:talk 3182:talk 3143:talk 3139:Gah4 3125:talk 2969:talk 2925:talk 2856:talk 2834:PamD 2789:Talk 2777:PamD 2729:talk 2725:Gah4 2708:talk 2681:talk 2666:talk 2662:Gah4 2627:talk 2608:talk 2590:talk 2571:talk 2557:talk 2543:talk 2539:Gah4 2528:talk 2513:talk 2498:talk 2494:Gah4 2437:talk 2409:talk 2405:Gah4 2386:talk 2363:talk 2268:talk 2209:talk 2194:talk 2179:talk 2156:talk 2124:talk 2110:talk 2092:talk 2074:talk 2055:talk 2041:talk 2016:talk 2001:talk 1995:. 1983:talk 1960:talk 1942:talk 1927:talk 1902:talk 1887:talk 1859:talk 1845:talk 1830:talk 1803:talk 1779:need 1744:talk 1722:Reid 1672:talk 1646:talk 1642:Gah4 1630:talk 1615:talk 1611:Gah4 1599:talk 1581:talk 1558:talk 1543:talk 1516:talk 1510:. - 1467:talk 1463:Gah4 1450:talk 1446:Gah4 1393:talk 1379:talk 1327:talk 1299:talk 1284:talk 1261:talk 1246:talk 1231:talk 1170:talk 1156:talk 1138:talk 1050:talk 1046:Gah4 1027:talk 1011:talk 996:talk 965:talk 950:talk 932:talk 922:and 902:talk 887:talk 872:talk 857:talk 838:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 4081:Pam 4051:). 4021:Pam 4009:). 3979:Pam 3952:). 3716:). 3705:was 3683:any 3670:). 3660:not 3656:was 3652:not 3616:). 3556:Pam 3514:. — 3391:). 3349:Pam 3276:? 3176:. — 3051:Pam 3003:Pam 2939:Pam 2927:). 2876:Pam 2812:Pam 2756:Pam 2743:Map 2592:). 2468:Pam 2262:. 2238:Pam 2211:). 2181:). 2126:). 2094:). 2057:). 2018:). 1985:). 1929:). 1782:to" 1733:Of 1717:any 1321:. 1193:Pam 859:). 477:Low 386:Low 176:TWL 4106:: 3968:) 3907:) 3877:) 3854:) 3832:) 3816:) 3775:) 3694:) 3637:) 3599:) 3541:) 3522:) 3452:) 3437:) 3284:) 3258:) 3226:) 3184:) 3145:) 3127:) 2978:-- 2971:) 2858:) 2751:. 2731:) 2710:) 2702:. 2683:) 2668:) 2629:) 2610:) 2573:) 2559:) 2545:) 2530:) 2515:) 2500:) 2489:if 2439:) 2411:) 2388:) 2365:) 2306:-- 2302:. 2270:) 2196:) 2158:) 2112:) 2076:) 2043:) 2003:) 1962:) 1944:) 1904:) 1889:) 1861:) 1847:) 1832:) 1805:) 1746:) 1674:) 1648:) 1632:) 1617:) 1601:) 1583:) 1560:) 1545:) 1518:) 1503:me 1469:) 1452:) 1421:-- 1395:) 1381:) 1329:) 1301:) 1286:) 1263:) 1248:) 1233:) 1172:) 1158:) 1140:) 1132:. 1052:) 1029:) 1013:) 998:) 967:) 952:) 934:) 904:) 889:) 874:) 840:) 759:: 581:: 156:) 54:; 4090:D 4047:( 4030:D 4005:( 3988:D 3964:( 3948:( 3903:( 3873:( 3850:( 3828:( 3812:( 3771:( 3712:( 3690:( 3666:( 3633:( 3612:( 3595:( 3565:D 3537:( 3518:( 3483:) 3477:( 3448:( 3433:( 3404:: 3400:@ 3387:( 3379:/ 3373:: 3369:@ 3358:D 3280:( 3254:( 3222:( 3180:( 3141:( 3123:( 3060:D 3044:: 3040:@ 3012:D 2967:( 2948:D 2923:( 2885:D 2869:: 2865:@ 2854:( 2836:: 2832:@ 2821:D 2792:) 2786:( 2765:D 2727:( 2706:( 2679:( 2664:( 2625:( 2606:( 2588:( 2569:( 2555:( 2541:( 2526:( 2511:( 2496:( 2477:D 2435:( 2407:( 2384:( 2361:( 2266:( 2247:D 2207:( 2192:( 2177:( 2154:( 2122:( 2108:( 2090:( 2072:( 2053:( 2039:( 2014:( 1999:( 1981:( 1958:( 1940:( 1925:( 1900:( 1885:( 1857:( 1843:( 1828:( 1801:( 1742:( 1670:( 1644:( 1628:( 1613:( 1597:( 1579:( 1556:( 1541:( 1514:( 1465:( 1448:( 1391:( 1377:( 1355:: 1351:@ 1325:( 1297:( 1282:( 1259:( 1244:( 1229:( 1202:D 1168:( 1154:( 1136:( 1094:. 1048:( 1025:( 1009:( 994:( 963:( 948:( 930:( 900:( 885:( 870:( 855:( 836:( 667:. 489:. 398:. 313:: 271:. 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index