# Talk:Washington D.C. Temple

This looks like a good opportunity for a picture.  Would someone in the area of Washington, D.C. go to where this graffiti is and take a picture to post? Val42 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not there at the current time.  I do hope to take a picture next time it's up, though. --Thisisbossi 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Its not a very encyclopedic addition to the article. Crufty.--Blue Tie 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I like how the current incarnation of the article completely bypasses the obviousness of the joke behind the graffiti (that the DC LDS Temple looks like the Emerald City) and instead seems to suggest the graffiti is some kind of baffling and inexplicable hate crime against Mormonism. I've talked to numerous LDS members in DC and they all at least "got the joke", even if they didn't necessarily like it. What clueless, oversensitive cloister-dweller has been editing this article? Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to make constructive and cited edits yourself rather than criticize and insult the efforts of others. It's part of assuming good faith. I don't see anything that seems to suggest anyone regards it as some kind of hate crime or unexplainable. It simply states the cited fact that some Mormons have viewed it as part of general misconceptions and others have found humor in the whole thing. The article itself is not trying to speculate what the reasons actually were (or are); it simply states verifiable facts of how it has been interpreted. Whether that was the actual reasoning behind why it was placed (or whether or not you or I agree with the interpretations) is irrelevant unless there is some kind of reliable source that mentions those reasons or mentions additional interpretations. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The graffiti generated another bit of trivia when 7 Locks Brewery in Rockville, MD named a beer "Surrender Dorothy RyePA" but soon had to change it to just "Surrender" when the owner of the copyright to The Wizard of Oz threatened a lawsuit. The beer's current label continues to include a cartoon of the temple and bridge with the graffiti being painted over, only the "Surrender" remaining.  The "Beer Advocate" page shows the original can. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please transwiki the images found on this article? -- 159.182.1.4 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a comma after Washington, but before D.C. in the name of the subject? Or is that intentional? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We follow the naming convention for these structures set out by the LDS Church; for more info see: "Temples renamed to uniform guidelines". LDS Church News. October 16, 1999.. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I read a story once in a Time or Newsweek type of publication, saying that a thief in a helicopter tried to steal the statue on top of one of the spires. I find no mention of it here. I can't find anything on other websites about it at the moment (Google isn't my friend at the moment) Can somebody with some time on his/her hands possibly look into it & add a paragraph about it in the "history" section? 75.205.157.33 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an urban legend &/or Mormon folklore. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the intro says that this temple is "the tallest in the United States", which seems to imply that there is at least one temple outside of the US that is taller, but the "Architecture" section says that it is the tallest of all the temples. If there are other taller temples, the architecture section needs to be fixed; on the other hand, if this is in fact the tallest temple, the wording in the intro should be tweaked. DBowie (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington D.C. Temple/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Itsetsyoufree32 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I will take this review. I aim to finish in one week.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
See comments below.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
I have concerns about the overreliance on affiliated sources. See notes below. Sources are cited inline, although headlines in citations do not always match headlines in sources.
C. It contains no original research: 
Several instances where citations do not support facts cited, see notes below.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Some close paraphrasing from TheChurchNews.com (see Copyvio Detector). Please address this before we proceed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Delves into unnecessarily minute detail into a few spots; see comments below.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit warring; no significant changes or back-and-forth since the nominator's expansion of the page.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Excellent image selection; supports the article well. Great to have a photo of the interior model given the lack of access to Commons-eligible interior photography.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Notes on prose
McKay, not Mckay
However, during negotiations for the temple site, a personal connection developed between church representatives and the Jewish owners of the property. Despite a competing offer, the land was sold to the church at a discounted price, motivated by shared respect for religious history and the sacred nature of the temple's purpose. The proprietors, motivated by the significance of the project, considered their decision a significant gesture to a sacred endeavor. This could be expanded a bit from the source and the sellers could be name-checked, since David L. Bazelon is individually notable.
November 19 and 22, 1974 Add comma after year.
During the temple's dedication, one attendee described it as having a special aura.... I am concerned about this paragraph, which to be fair attributes to those who experienced them these beliefs about "aura" and "theophanies." However, the sole source for these claims is affiliated with the Church and thus likely to be more accepting of such supernatural claims. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I'd like to see more robust sourcing than a single Church-affiliated source for strong claims about divine appearances and communion with the dead.
CSX railroad bridge near the temple Note that the bridge crosses the Beltway.
In the early 1970s, a graffito message... The sources indicate that the first message dates to 1974 with the schoolgirl prank of spelling Surrender Dorothy with newspapers on the Linden Lane bridge, not the CSX bridge. Also, the sources ([1]) seem to make clear that the graffito did not appear before the schoolgirl prank.
Afterword Misspelled.
Over the years, other messages have appeared on the bridge... I am not sure how connected these messages are to the Temple, so this sentence might not be WP:DUE.
and a mid-century modern architectural style. This repeats the paragraph above and can be deleted.
Other opportunities for education and community involvement are facilitated through the Washington D.C. FamilySearch Center... This paragraph reads as promotional and non-encyclopedic.
...a press conference was held, with 135 journalists... What was the significance of the press conference? Seems like a mundane detail that is not important to include here.
FN1: The open house has been extended to accommodate tours for all who are interested, and an end date will be defined later. See this announcement for verification. This needs to be updated.
FN55: Scott’s mural is currently being cleaned and prepared for a new location. This needs to updated, removed and/or sourced.


### Source review and spot-check
General comment 1: This article is over-cited. For example, Church members in the temple's district contributed about a third of the cost of construction. has two citations; 18 supports it but 7 doesn't. Citations that don't support the statements they are appended to should be removed, even if other citations present do support them.
General comment 2: This article is heavily reliant on sources directly affiliated with the LDS Church. I count roughly half of the sources coming directly from the church's own websites or PR service Church News. Ten more come from WP:DESERETNEWS, which is reliable for Utah local news but of questionable independence for coverage of the church. Five more sources are from BYU, which is affiliated with the church. Most of these citations are for non-controversial facts, but as noted above, that's not true for all. That's two thirds of the sources that are from more or less affiliated sources. In general, I would like to see a much lower percentage of that in a Good Article. I'd suggest going through and using a non-affiliated source for every possible fact you can validate without it. (That will also address the overciting problem.)
7
Over 40,000 church members attended these dedicatory services. N This statement is not in this source.
Other citations check out or, as noted above, are validated by other adjacent citations if not this one. Y
8 (This source's headline is different from what's written in the article.) Y Cited statements check out.
11
Only 11 acres (4.5 ha) of the site was cleared to give the area a more remote feeling. N The source validates the clearing of 11 acres, but it says nothing about the purpose being to give it a more remote feeling. That statement appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
The interior includes a stained-glass depiction of the Tree of Life, a significant symbol in the Book of Mormon that represents Jesus Christ. N The source says nothing about the Tree of Life representing Jesus, making this an OR statement.
21
The verticality of the temple and its Gothic arches are intended to symbolize the spiritual journey toward the celestial kingdom, culminating in the celestial room Note about "Gothic" -- this is the only source that describes any element of the Temple as "Gothic". Considering all other sources describe it as modernist, I would suggest dropping this. It may be a lack of expertise on the part of the reporter on what characterizes Gothic architecture. (I've seen people describe Romanesque churches as "Gothic" simply because they're stone and look old. Moreover, the source says A Gothic arch motif that is designed to direct eyes upward is prevalent in the altars, carpeting, gold leafing and the stained-glass windows, which does not suggest any Gothic elements are designed to symbolize a spiritual journey that culminates in the Celestial Room. This statement in the article is OR. N
Other uses check out. Y
26 (yet another source where the headline in the WP article doesn't match the headline in the source)
On February 23, 2017, the church announced the temple would close for renovations to upgrade the mechanical systems and update finishes and furnishings. N I'm guessing this source was placed here erroneously because it says nothing about this statement.
36
The temple is considered an iconic local landmark, due in part to its proximity to the Capital Beltway. Y
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan said the temple is an "iconic landmark" and a "beacon of hope" N This does not appear in the source.
41
Although the original message was removed, it soon reappeared as graffiti. Doesn't appear in this source, but it does in the other provided source. Another instance of over-citing.
By the early 1970s, the graffito "Surrender Dorothy" had become a recurring feature on the CSX bridge crossing over the Capital Beltway, near the temple. The Washington Post called it "the single most famous graffito in the Washington area." Y Part of this is validated, but it isn't really necessary since the other source fully confirms it.
54
Dan Wilson, a fine arts graduate from Utah Valley University and an artist inspired by Carl Bloch, was commissioned to create an 8-by-12-foot mural titled His Return, depicting the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[54] Drawing on personal spiritual practices like fasting and priesthood blessings, Wilson devoted over 2,000 hours to the piece, expanding the number of angels from 120 to over 300, aiming to reflect ethnic diversity.[54] The painting replaced John Scott's 1974 mural The Last Judgment in the temple's entryway. N This source does not validate that the painting is called "His Return", and its only mention of diversity is that he spent hundreds of hours in Photoshop just placing the angels so they didn’t create a pattern and where the diversity was not stacked in one section.. The idea that his aim was to reflect ethnic diversity may be true but it's not validated by this source.
81 Y
Comment: @Itsetsyoufree32: I've completed my review. See my comments above. The prose issues should be relatively easy to fix. The sourcing issues are a bigger concern. I would not normally expect to pass a GA with this many X's on the source spot check. However, I'd like to give you a chance to address the problems since this is a thorough article on an important topic and I can see you've spent a lot of time on it. Please ping me if you have questions or when you've had a chance to make changes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over and giving me that chance. I've already done the edits for the prose. I'll go through and fix all I can, and I'll message you when I feel that it is as complete as I can make it. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: I’ve completed the source review and spot check, and did my best to address general comment 2. I added as many third-party sources as I could find and reduced overcitation where noted. I agree there were a lot of Church-affiliated sources, but something important to note is that the WikiProject Latter Day Saint Movement reflects prior consensus: sources like BYU and Deseret News are generally reliable, with Deseret News evaluated case-by-case and BYU Studies considered accurate for topics like history—which I believe applies to temple history. Church News and the Church Newsroom are self-published, so I’ve avoided using them for exceptional claims.
I’ve tried to source from reliable news sources outside the Church as much as possible, though coverage from those sources tends to focus on open houses rather than temple construction or history, which limits what's available. If there are any specific claims you feel still need better sourcing, I’m happy to revisit those. Let me know what else you think the article needs to improve its quality. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
A few things @Itsetsyoufree32:
Source 8 - this source's headline is still different from what's written in the article.
I did a further spot-check and found the following:
Source 10: The statements The property eventually passed hands to Clarence Moore, who was a passenger that died on the Titanic. His widow sold the estate, and the site passed between various companies and investors and In September 1962, plans were underway to transform the site into a shopping center, complete with a supermarket, high rises, and townhomes. are not addressed in source 10, although it is in source 9.
Sources 10 and 20: The landscaped areas feature gardens, walks, fountains, and a reflecting pool is not addressed by either source.
Source 24: dead link
Source 37 Y
More to address before this GA can be passed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I've made the additional edits you noted. I’d appreciate clarification on what you meant about source 8—just to be sure we're referring to the same one, it's the article "The Washington D.C. Temple: Mr. Smith’s Church Goes to Washington." The title in the citation box matches the article title (I’ve adjusted the citation formatting for clarity), and I double-checked the references it cites, replacing others as needed. Was this the issue you were pointing to, or was it something else? Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Itsetsyoufree32 It looks like it's source 10 now. In the article, it says the headline is "Why the Washington D.C. Temple site was 'meant to be'". Deseret News. October 29, 2024." But the link goes to "The Washington D.C. Temple site’s history is as American as the capital city itself," March 20, 2022. Only one of these can be correct. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Itsetsyoufree32 You added a source that does not talk about the Washington DC Temple at all: [2]. Not good. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I went ahead and took care of those edits. Looks like I added that page from the Oakland temple erroneously, I remembered reading an article about photoshoots done on a temple ground, but it looks like I mixed them up by mistake. Both the issues that were mentioned are now corrected. Let me know if you have any other feedback to improve the page. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Completing the review as passed. Thanks for your attention to the necessary fixes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)