Talk:National World War II Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Typo

Right now the article says the memorial opened in both 2004 (officially) and 2003 (unofficially). Is this true?

That was a typo. It should have said April 2004, not april 2003. →Raul654 03:31, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Design & location controversy

Should there be some mention of the critics of the design and location of the monument? Many local residents thought the monument clutters the National Mall and spoils the vista between the Washington and Lincoln memorials. Also, others have called the design uninspiring, "banal", and ironically reminiscent of fascist monuments. Polynova 00:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Criticism is a perfectly legitimate thing to add. Go ahead and add it. →Raul654 00:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've now added a "Controversy" subheading under "History."Polynova 01:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions to the Memorial

(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)

May not be a talk page, but, as there are two negative comments, I just want to say I WAS impressed by the memorial. The Korean memorial is quite impressive, with the faces etched in the wall, and the platoon of men working their way through the area, along with the notation of the countries that fought in the war along side of the US. I'm less impressed by Viet Nam. To me, it's just a colection of names, and not that inspiring, IMHO. The inclusion of all 50 states in the WW2 memorial reminds us that the entire nation pulled together for the War Effort. The seperate towers for the Atlantic and Pacific theaters reminds is this was World War. Not confied to one or two countries, but the entire world was at war. I've spoken to several WW23 vets that like the open atmosphere, and quite a few note that the pool (with splshing kids, etc.) was the reason they went to war in the first place. I think it's perfectly fitting.Bigrafa (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number the Stars

I saw the Memorial today. Blech. Ugly. Also, I counted the stars. There are 4048, not 4000 of popular conception. Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

According to [1], there are 4000 stars. Counting them yourself is original research and prone to error so I reverted your change. --dm (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, sorry then for violating policy. Funny though that even the official website thinks there are 4000. There are twenty-three panels, and on each there are sixteen stars vertical and eleven horizontal. You do the math...that's definitely not 4000. :-) Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel so inclined, go ahead and contact the people behind www.wwiimemorial.com. If you get them to update the number of stars on their website to 4048, then we can make the change here, as well. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
A google search[2] shows at least two articles listing it as 4048. -- Dodo bird 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You might very well be correct. But there are a great many more sites that say 4000. ([3] [4] [5] and many others). It could be that they are rounding to 4000, or the number from the official website stuck and others are incorrectly referencing it, or some other explanation. I think this is worth a query to the official website. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I sent them an email; this was their reply. "There are 4,000 stars. The field of 4,000 Gold Stars honors more than 400,000 lives lost during the war. If you require further assistance, please call us at 1-800-639-4992. Our hours of operation are Monday through Friday 9am until 10pm Eastern time and Saturdays 9am until 8pm Eastern time." So I sent another email asking them to confirm it. Perhaps someone else can call the number. Incidentally, the number of US World War II casualties seems to be closer to 404,800 rather than 400,000 (the number is 407,300 military and 11,200 civilian according to our article. Strange that they appear to be leaving out three stars...) Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The first result[6] from my google search has the following...
"Why are there 4,048 stars on the wall? The designer says each star represents about 100 soldiers killed in the war. But the arbitrariness of this assignment of multiplication renders it meaningless. Worse, it vitiates the memorial's most profound purpose.
A grim total of 405,973 members of the U.S. Armed Forces died in World War II. You do the math. More than a thousand have gone missing from the Freedom Wall. For so grave a fact in oso momentous a setting, "close enough" isn't good enough. Imagine if a couple of dozen names had been left off the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for the sake of symmetrical design economy.
The LA Times article, argueing that the 4048 stars reprensenting 404 800 soldiers, left out the 1000+(10 stars) to keep symmetry in the design. Did you question them on the 4048 stars reported in some articles or was it just a general question on how many stars there are? Given that the actual number of stars is a key issue in the article, I would side with 4048 being the correct number. While the 4000 can be attributed to rounding off and all other news report using that number from the original source. The article also mentioned 23 bronze panels, with 11 by 16 stars on each, which is what anon up there claims -- Dodo bird 05:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just called the Memorial. I had a ball with it, LOL. "Hello, this is Timothy Merkel; I represent the online encyclopedia Wikipedia." "Um...OK..." "I would like to know how many stars there are on the memorial wall?" "Umm.....exactly??" "Yes, exactly." "Ummmmm......" In essence they were unable to tell me anything beyond the fact that their website says there are 4000. Which we knew already. So, we're in the same boat we were in before. My email has gone unanswered. What do we do now? Call a Congressman?
My original query specifically was "Everybody seems to say that there are 4000 gold stars on the memorial wall of the WWII Memorial. I was there today; I counted; there are 4048. Who is correct?"
Incidentally, for the record, I am the same as the 70.17.x.x posts. My IP is somewhat dynamic. (Edit from later. Changed to Timotheus4. I registered, woohoo! Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be willing to stop by the memorial, check in with the visitor center, and try to clear this up. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured a way to "count" it from the picture[[7]]. Alternate columns are staggered. The first and last row are both staggered down, meaning that there is an odd number of columns. 16 x 250 = 4000, 16 * 253 = 4048.

---

Does the place have a visitor center? And, would they know? Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The place has now sent me three emails insisting the number is 4000. Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I was over at the memorial a couple times during the weekend and counted the 23 panels, each having 11 columns and 16 rows of stars = 176 stars * 23 panels = 4048. I couldn't see any panel which differed from 176 stars. In talking to different people at the visitors center (located behind the Pacific side) and they don't insist on 4000. Rather they tell me that while it says 4000 on the website (and official National Park Service brochure), they really mean "about 4000". And that each star represents "about 100" that died in the war. The reason for "about" is that we don't know for sure the exact number that died, due to those unidentified, missing, etc. They also suggested writing to the National Park Service, as they do update the brochures from time to time.
As for Wikipedia:Verifiability, this still borders on original research. But, the fact here is that anyone can visit the memorial and verify it themselves, or look at the photo linked above (I took a few also, without people standing in front) and count the stars. If we link the number, 4048, to a footnote giving explanation and link to the photo, then I think we can change the number stated in the article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the article accordingly, with references to the LA times article, and the photo. I'll also upload my photos. Though, I'm still inclined to write to the National Park Service. Instead of saying "4000 stars" they could either say "about 4000 stars" or "4048 stars". -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad I am of it. Thanks. :) Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for being persistent and insisting the correct number of stars. If you can think of anything else to add, improve, ... to this or other articles, please go ahead. I'm thinking that the controversy section needs expansion, as the number of stars (as well as the aesthetics of the design) seems to be yet another issue of contention. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Received this email from WWII Memorial as of 4/1/06.
Mr. Merkel
Your inquiry regarding the Field of Stars at the WWII Memorial was brought to my attention. Yes, there are more than 4,000 stars on the wall; I forget the exact number but I will trust your math that there are 4,048.
Originally, our intent was to have the exact number of stars on the wall that would represent the exact number of Americans who gave their lives for freedom at a ratio of one star for each 100 deaths. We know that there were more than 400,000 who died (not all of whom were in the military services), but our research made us realize that there was no way to quantify an exact and defensible number. We decided, therefore, that the Field of Stars would be a symbolic rather than exact tribute to those who died. We wanted at least 4,000 stars, but the exact number was determined by the space available on the wall.
Once that decision was made, we also knew that if we focused on the exact number of stars we inevitably would receive countless inquiries as to the significance of the number 4,048, and of course there is none. Thus, our reference to a field of 4,000 stars that symbolically honors the more than 400,000 who died, an approximate ratio of one star for each 100 deaths.
I hope this clarifies the discrepancy in numbers for you.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Conley
Director of Public Affairs
A fitting conclusion to the matter, I should think. Could this be sourced for the article? Timotheus4 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it not on the Nat'l Register?

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)

[edit] Stars citation

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Editorial stuff removed

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)

[edit] Order of States

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)

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)

[edit] "So help us God" controversy?

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)

[edit] Public reception

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)


I know this is OR, but I was there over the weekend of March 28, 2008, and the WW2 vets I talked to liked it a lot. The main comment was it was too long coming, why was Korea and Viet Nam honored before WW2? WW2 ffected the entire nation (Rosie the Riverter wasn't such a big deal in Korea or Viet Nam for several reasons). Meaning WW2 changed our society. Further, they were not a generation of self-promoters, they saw a job and did it. No thanks or congratulations were needed. Lastly, every WW2 vet I spoke with said they just wished "(insert buddy's name here)" that had survivied the War, but didn't live to see the Memorial, could have seen it. Far too long in coming, this one was.Bigrafa (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)