Talk:World War II Memorial

message: (Please only post in her if you have visited the memorial)
I've visited the memorial, and I don't really like it as much as I do the Vietnam or Korea.  It just doesn't really have the same type of power that those two have (and I was born well after Vietnam, but that memorial still has an impact).  The gold stars don't have the same impact and sense of loss as the 50,000+ names do on the Vietnam memorial.  It also lacks a personal touch, which the other two major war memorials have (the Korean memorial not only has the statues, but also has faces sandblasted into a basalt wall).  To tell the truth, I'm just not impressed by it.
:I suppose I agree. Not that it's aesthetically unpleasing or anything, but it doesn't seem to have aurora of quiet contemplation of the Vietnam or the Korean. Especially when it's packed with tourists. (Is somebody going to complain about the fact that the talk page is not in fact a forum page?) vLaDsINgEr 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions to the Memorial

message: Does anyone know why the memorial is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places?  Most every other major memorial under the National Park Service is automatically listed on the day of its establishment/dedication, such as the Korean War Veterans Memorial in 1995.  — Eoghanacht talk 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it not on the Nat'l Register?

message: Received email in reply to suggestion that star count be placed on WWII Memorial website:
:Sir
 
:I'm glad the information was what you needed.  You can quote me as an official source.  I am the Director of Public Affairs and spokesman for the American Battle Monuments Commission, the agency that built the memorial, and I served as the agency's Associate Executive Director and spokesman of the memorial project through its completion.
 
:You might want to consider putting in your article that ABMC transferred the memorial, in accordance with public law, to the National Park Service in November 2004.  The memorial is now part of the National Park System.  Although this information is on the memorial web site, many people still believe we operate and maintain the memorial.
 
:Best wishes,
 
:Mike
I note that the information he suggests is already in the article; but can this count as an official source? Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the books of Wikipedia policy, I don't think e-mails can be sources.  But, we can certainly reference this discussion on the talk page, should the number be once again questioned at some point.  Thanks for pursuing this.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the reference to include a link to this discussion, and added a photo that I took that shows all the stars. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars citation

message: I removed the mention under controversy that cited two editorials.  The point is that the author of the editorial isn't even mentioned and the thoughts of two (assuming they were two separate editorials and not just one syndicated one) random people don't matter.  If I wanted to I could write into my local paper and probably get and editorial printed if I tried hard enough.  What matters as far as controversy are the thoughts of the larger group of people and not one single guy or girl that I've never heard of that got an editorial printed?  If the wiki is going to have the individual words of one or two people printed then it needs to be a noteworthy person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:70.129.153.181 (talk • contribs) 
:I've added proper citations to the references. These are not isolated comments by random people. They are a small representative sample of comments by a variety of professional critics. See http://www.savethemall.org/press/wwii_critics.html . If this criticism were coming from a single crank, I'd agree that it doesn't belong, but these are common criticisms by professionals writing in major daily newspapers. It belongs here.--dm (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial stuff removed

message: While visiting the Memorial again today, I was unable to discern an explanation for the order the states are presented around the Memorial.  In some places, geography seems to be the rule (such as North Dakota and Montana being next to each other), while in others there seems to be no such relation (North Dakota and Minnesota are on opposite halves of the Memorial).  There is also not a correlation to date of statehood, as North Dakota and South Dakota are very far apart (opposite halves, again) although they were admitted to the Union on the same day in 1889.  Does anyone know how the states are ordered? Ari 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very appropriate day to visit... anyway, I asked a ranger there when I last visited and he told me it was alternating left/right order of the 48 states being admitted to the Union. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of States

message: I read in the paper this morning that some people are upset that "so help us God" was removed from one of FDR's quotes on the memorial: "With confidence in our armed forces, with the abounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God."  It is probably worth mentioning.  The article is here: http://hollandsentinel.com/stories/041307/opinion_20070413057.shtml, I think registration is required, you can use hatereg/123456 for the username/password. --24.11.104.84 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "So help us God" controversy?

message: We need more discussion of the reception the memorial has received, specially regarding favorable reviews. Currently, there are all of two sentences that mention people liking the memorial, while critics of the memorial have been given a very lengthy (though mostly unreferenced) section of their own.  Assuming that there are, in fact, many people who like how it looks, we need to add some of their comments to appropriately balance things out.   
The article mentions that "many veterans came" but says nothing about how they responded to it.  Do veterans like it?  That information needs to be in here. Funnyhat 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public reception

message: The article states that a "total of $197 million was raised." Assuming that US-$ are meant, where did the money end up? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Costs?

message: A minor contribution, I know, but I would like to know if anyone knows the day groundbreaking started.  Right now it says "September 2001" but I was wondering if anyone knew the exact date.  9/11's proximity to the date may hinder the finding of these results, but I would like to know, all the same.  Thanks! The Pokémon Fan (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundbreaking date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on National World War II 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/20080531165728/http://www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=design.asp&subpage=memorialdesign to http://www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=design.asp&subpage=memorialdesign
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226102047/http://www.savethemall.org/updates/20040624.html to http://www.savethemall.org/updates/20040624.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407152929/http://www.carnegiemellontoday.com/article.asp?Aid=83 to http://www.carnegiemellontoday.com/article.asp?Aid=83
*Added  tag to http://knol.google.com/k/stephen-r-brown/wwii-memorial/3g98ta32adgw9/2?locale=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504055606/http://www.savethemall.org/wwii/index.html to http://www.savethemall.org/wwii/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928120323/http://www.savethemall.org/media/senateok.html to http://www.savethemall.org/media/senateok.html
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) 11:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The official name of this site, per NPS, is World War II Memorial, and this article should be moved there. That page can be moved to World War II Memorial (disambiguation). It does not appear there are other sites that use that exact name. Reywas92Talk 00:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no objections, I have moved the page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: The monument is pillars in a semi-circle? Looking at photos, it sure looks like either two semi-circles, or one oval.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: I noticed that the article does not mention something I was curious about: why the Northern Mariana Islands is excluded from the pillars. Other than the Minor Outlying Islands, this is the only U.S. Territory not represented. I added a brief note to the article to hopefully help. If anyone knows anything more about why the pillars have not later been updated, do add to the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; good idea. I've moved the explanation from the body of the article into an endnote. PRRfan (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  absence of northern mariana islands