Talk:George Washington Masonic National Memorial

message: The Memorial is not a government recognized national memorial -- it is a Masonic National Memorial-- that is built by all the Freemasons in the United States. It is not listed on any national register. We are not funded by any government grants-- only private donations.
The GW anamatronic "robot" was removed from display in August 2007. The various dioramas on GW life were removed from the first floor in Spring 2007. Send more questions to me please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.5.105 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's great, Mark.  Too bad that this sort of information is not published in the Memorial's newsletter, Light.  Wikipedia can only include facts and claims for which there is a published, unbiased, third-party source.  Light is a great resource for facts about the Memorial, but it doesn't contain that level of detail. (Those dioramas are historic, pretty expensive when made, and pieces of art.  Were they destroyed or put in storage? Will they be returned to display? Without published information, even an eye-witness account such as yours is not acceptable on Wikipedia.) The GWNMMA promised a book about the Memorial's history in 2010, but that book has not yet been published. Too bad, because it would have been great to include citations to it here. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: From Mark Tabbert Director of Collection of the GW Masoic Memorial: Mtabbert@gwmemorial.org

message: Why delete this page? It's a US national monument.
:Or a US national disgrace, depending upon how you like your democracy served. --Tagishsimon (talk)
::I have no idea how old this comment is but I have to throw my two cents in here. Tagishsimon, your opinion does not concern a source of factual information. Keep it to yourself. There are plenty of anti-masonic boards and websites for you to spout your conspiracy theorist/religious bigotry on. This is not one of them. --Nsbendel (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page deletion

message: Oddly, I could not find this building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I wonder if there is a story behind that?  There are a couple of other lodges in Virginia on the register. — Eoghanacht talk 17:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Register

message: I believe this may be an error as the last time I was there it was just a bronze statue. Has anyone actually seen this animatronic statue? Do you have pictures or videos? I would like to see them. --Nsbendel (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me when I say that there is no animatronic anything at the Masonic Memorial.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Animatronic Statue?

message: I undid the change by Warbard, which restored the edit of March 18, 2011. The March 18 text had been removed (by me, on March 31) for several reasons.  The first is that much of the text from the March 18 version was uncited, but made challengeable claims. It should be removed under WP:CITE. Second, the lone citation in the March 18 version was to a self-interested Web site (not a neutral, unbiased, third-party published source, which it should be under the reliable sources guideline on sources as sources on themselves).
The version of April 1, 2011, removed all the cited text added on March 31. There was no justification to remove that text. There were no conflicting claims made by sources; even if there had been, the proper procedure is to discuss the conflicting claims in the article, and cite both claims. The March 31 version also contained much new information, and there was no reason for this to be removed. I must assume (AFG) that the sole reason for removing the text was to restore the claims about Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4's role in promoting the memorial. Those claims should be restored if and only if they can be properly cited (just as any claim should be included if it can be cited).
The version of April 1 does not properly cite these restored claims. First, regarding the claim about Fredericksburg Lodge initiating the memorial push in 1852, it merely substitutes one citation (Walker 2002) for two others (Lichtenstein and Brown) added on March 31.  The Walker cite (assuming it is neutral and unbiased, which I will do here) should have been added, not the revisions and their citations removed. Second, the following claim about constructing the memorial in Fredericksburg is not cited. Third, the following sentence (which begins "This call for support would be documented...") is uncited. Fourth, the last sentence of the first paragraph of April 1 is cited by reference to an original document from 1790. This violates Wikipedia's guideline about use of primary sources. The Grand Lodge of Virginia's charter is interpreted in the April 1 revision, and that goes against the guideline. Fifth, the first sentence of the second paragraph is another citation to an original document, which also violates the guideline about using primary sources. (Furthermore, this document does not say that the suceeding Grand Master of Virginia was a member of Fredericksburg Lodge, does not say he was the first one to make the Grand Lodge of Virginia the sponsoring organization, and does not say he was supported by following Grand Masters. It does document that a call was made in 1908.) This claim was cited using neutral, unbiased, published sources in the revision of March 31 (which were unwarrantedly removed). Sixth, the next two sentences are uncited. Seventh, the third paragraph of the version of April 1 is uncited. (The version of March 31 contained much of this information, but cited it.)
My initial sense was that text from the March 31 version should be retained, with any cited text from the April 1 revision incorporated. But given the problems with the citations outlined above, I would conclude that only one such citation could be retained. Any further discussion about the sources and text is very welcome. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing cited content in the section "Early memorial efforts and Washington Memorial Park" 

message: I'm not at all interested in freemasonry but this article looks fascinating. I've only had time so far to reads bits and pieces but it seems exceptionally thorough and well-written. Cheers to the responsible parties...I can't wait to read more. PurpleChez (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, cool... think we could get it up to GA-class?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, this means you have to trot on down to Alexandria and take photos of the much-renovated Memorial to replace your 2003 ones. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What areas of the memorial were renovated?  Last time I was in there was in 2006, and it looked the same as always.  Will gladly go back to take new photos if it's changed a lot, though.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found it, after, like, reading the article associated with this talk page (what a concept, I know).  Seems worth going back to see, but I don't know when just yet.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *I know they're still working on stuff. We held our annual meeting just four blocks from there in March. It's clear, though, that some things have not yet been upgraded or changed, but my sense was that the first four floors have been significantly upgraded. I might try to get there this weekend if I can... (Ugh, commitment!) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall article

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is going to be a mess.  This was originally nominated by me, closed as keep, and now it's been renominated by the individual who did the original close.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: *If I had time, I'd go to the Library of Congress. I just don't (not this weekend of all weekends!). I'm afraid the discussion will close before the research can be done. This "rush to judgement" that's so common on Wikipedia these days doesn't allow for real-world jobs or lives. Volunteering gets harder and harder... - Tim1965 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the photo in question, so if it turns out that the photo is actually legit, we can re-upload and present our research.  And yeah, near the LOC will be a mess in DC this weekend, because I believe it's Capital Pride weekend, no?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it turns out that the nominator withdrew the nomination.  But we still should do the research anyway.  If/when you get a chance to do that research at the LOC, could you let me know?  I'd like to come along and see how it's done (I'm local, too).  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *According to William Adrian Brown in his History of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial, 1922-1974: Half Century of Construction [1980] (a booklet which I just laid my hands on), the Cryptic Room was unfinished until 1947, when funds were finally donated to furnish that room.  (Prior to that time, there was debate over whether any branch of Masonry should have a dedicated room in the Memorial.)  The room was finished by the end of 1949.  According to Copyright Office Circular 22, if the work was copyrighted or registered at that time, the copyright/registration had to be renewed in the 27th or 28th year (e.g., as early as 1974 or as late as 1977).  These dates should narrow things down a lot. (And yes, it's Pride weekend. Traffic and Metro are both a mess already!) - Tim1965 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Cryptic Room Mural.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 27, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-10-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Provided I'm not an English native speaker, I think there's something weird in the following sentence:
Specifically, it seems to me the first "are" (formatted in Italics as above) should better be removed: am I wrong?
--Filippof (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[George_Washington_Masonic_National_Memorial#About_the_building]] 

message: Under the heading "1950s", it had claimed "The Royal Arch Room was dedicated on April 20, 1957, by Vice President of the United States Richard Nixon (himself a member of the Knights Templar)."  Richard Nixon was never a Freemason, so he could not have been a member of the Knights Templar; that organization requiring not only being a Mason but also a member of the Masonic Appendant Body the York Rite. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to find a source that says "Nixon was never a Mason".  Removing cited text violates WP:ORIGINAL. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus isn't on me to prove a negative; it's on the editor who added the claim to demonstrate that it does indeed have legitimate sources.  You're not new to WP; you already know that.  Posting one citation to a 60 year-old Washington Post article is not a high-quality source since most people have no access to the Washington Post archives to determine if it is being quoted accurately, or indeed, if it even says what the editor claims it does.  As Wikipedia:Offline sources states: "Special care should be taken when using offline sources...Use of the quote= parameter within those citation templates provides some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged."  Nowhere in Nixon's Wiki does it state that he was a Mason, as opposed to the Wikis of Gerald Ford, Harry Truman and every other Masonic president; even presidents who only ever began the process of becoming a Mason, such as Lincoln and Johnson, mention this in their respective Wikis.  And there are a host of sites run by Masonic organizations that list all of the presidents who were Masons, such as the one run by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, or this one or this one.  And yet you expect one inaccessible, alleged newspaper statement from 60 years ago to trump all of that evidence to the contrary?  So again, I'm going to remove the claim as inaccurate.  If you revert it again, I'll apply for protection under WP:3RR which squarely puts the onus where it belongs: on editors who are attempting to support a controversial claim. Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

text: File for that edit-war right now.  Go ahead. I'm using a published, reliable source that clearly makes the statement.  You are challenging that source as illegitimate. Onus is on you. I've solved the problem in the text, which you apparently could not. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim1965 wrote "I've solved the problem in the text, which you apparently could not."WTF are you on about?  All you've done is to remove the same text that I removed, while leaving the citation in place.  I never had any objection to the claim that Nixon dedicated the room.  My explicitly-stated objection was to the claim that he was a Knight Templar.  Try not to lose the plot.  You claimed "I'm using a published, reliable source that clearly makes the statement."  Makes which statement? -that Nixon dedicated the room, that Nixon was a Knight Templar, or both?  Are you now saying that you agree that he wasn't a Knight Templar?  If so, then obviously, reverting is no longer an issue.  And if the Washington Post article was indeed supplied by you, perhaps you could actually quote the relevant passage in the RefList since, as I've pointed out, being hidden behind a pay-wall it's largely inaccessible and thus, less reliable as a source. Occam's Shaver (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon never a Mason 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 25 external links on George Washington Masonic National Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112044754/http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/museums/george-washington-masonic-national-memorial,796854/critic-review.html to http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/museums/george-washington-masonic-national-memorial,796854/critic-review.html#reviewNum1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215709/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215220218/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No4.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215934/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No1.pdf to http://www.gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717073748/http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/truman.html to http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/truman.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519095211/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol06No4.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol06No4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215934/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No1.pdf to http://www.gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215709/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215506/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No1.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519094454/http://gwmemorial.org/lightNewsletter.php to http://gwmemorial.org/lightNewsletter.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215113/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No3.pdf to http://www.gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215709/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215506/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No1.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215220203/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No4.pdf to http://www.gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215934/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No1.pdf to http://www.gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215113/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No3.pdf to http://www.gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol04No3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215506/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No1.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215220218/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No4.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215819/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No2.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215215709/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol05No3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519094851/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol07No1.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol07No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519095104/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol07No2.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol07No2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519094948/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol08No1.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol08No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519094851/http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol07No1.pdf to http://gwmemorial.org/newsletters/Vol07No1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019150431/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/va/va2000/va2095/data/va2095data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/va/va2000/va2095/data/va2095data.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Washington Masonic National Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113051027/http://scottishrite.org/journal/january-february-2010/gwmnm-centennial-celebration/ to http://scottishrite.org/journal/january-february-2010/gwmnm-centennial-celebration/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is simply no way that the cost of $600 million as listed in the infobox is correct, particularly when you consider that the source is a 1942 newspaper article.  Adjusting for inflation, that would be the equivalent of over $9 BILLION today.  By contrast, The Pentagon apparently only cost around $31 million.JCO312 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost