Talk:National Monument to the U.S. Constitution

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Article cleanup

So before I added the deletion tag I did a cursory Google search, and I could not find anything about the monument. Can you provide some references to the existence of this monument? --Mad Pierrot (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be renamed to "National Monument to the U.S. Constitution"? Or "National monument to the United States constitution"? I'm not sure what the policy is on including the word "the" in article titles. (Cross posted from deletion discussion.) [mad pierrot][t c] 15:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution

HelpMe: Please see below article from the LA Times. The monument was actually visible during TV coverage of President Reagan lying in state at the library and museum.

Constitution Monument to Be Unveiled Friday March 11, 2003 in print edition B-3

A monument to the U.S. Constitution will be unveiled at 10 a.m. Friday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Warren E. Burger, former chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, commissioned artist Brett Livingstone-Strong in early 1987 to design and create a monument commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Constitution’s signing.

President Reagan dedicated the 8-foot monument in 1988, at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. It will be on loan from the American Monument Foundation for the next few years.

The library is at 40 Presidential Drive, near Simi Valley. Admission fees are $5 general, $3 for seniors 62 and older and free for children 15 and younger.

For more information, call (800) 410-8354.

--Lawrence Creeger (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Here is the link for this article: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/11/local/me-vnbriefs11.1[reply]

Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this page for speedy deletion for unambiguous copyright infringement. Most of the article has been copied word for word from the website. Also, I don't believe this subject is notable enough to merit it's own page, due to the lack of media coverage that I could find. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break for ease of reading

HelpMe Are you the one who removes the speedy deletion of the article? Obviously I own the WEB site your refer to: WWW.spiritoffreedomtour.org. I have now sent the email giving Wikimedia permission to use our material. Please advise. Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 9:27 pm, Today (UTC−6) [1]

Unfortunately, the fact that you own that website does not help your case. There are several Wikipedia policies that strongly discourage writing this sort of article:

If you still believe the National Monument merits its own article, you can request for its creation, but be sure you declare an interest. Thanks -- Mad Pierrot (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMe This Monument represents the ONLY Monument dedicated to the United States Constitution by the United States Government. It is a symbol of America's protected freedoms and certainly deserves a place in Wikipedia. While the author of this article is also President of The American Constitution Spirit Corporation who owns the WEB site www.Spiritoffreedomtour.org, a 501c2 foundation, every effort is being made to just give the facts concerning this American Heritage art and symbol.

Additional links for your review: http://www.fineartinvestors.com/about.html http://www.fineartappraiser.com/credibility.htm http://www.google.com/search?q=constitution+bicentennial+monument&hl=en&start=60&sa=N http://www.peterfpaul.com/2005/02/the_original_complaint_that_no/ http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/11/local/me-vnbriefs11.1

Thanks for your assistance. Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Larry, I don't see how this article can be salvaged. No matter what your intentions are, the fact of the matter is you are the sole contributor on an article about a monument that your organization owns:

Finally in the fall of 2007, the non-profit foundation, American Constitution Spirit Corporation took possession of both national monuments which will serve as the center pieces of the Spirit of Freedom Tour. [2]

Also there are large portions of the article that are taken directly from your website. This violates copyright policies, original research guidelines, conflict of interest policies, notability guidelines, and it could be considered advertising.

I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia, just that writing articles about something that you are closely involved with is strongly frowned upon. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMe So what you are saying, is that the article needs to be re-worded to paraphrase the history that is shown in our WEB site, since history is history after all. Or we should remove the history of the monument from our WEB site, which until now would have been the only source for that information. The article would then be resubmitted by any one of the numerous individuals who are historians, art dealers, and educators who are familiar with this and huge fans of this monument and the U.S. Presidency Monument. I understand perfectly the concerns of the Wikipedia organization as it relates to marketing and advertising, self promotion etc. In reality, those who write articles have an interest in what they write. So an art dealer who writes about a piece of art could very well be interested in selling "like" pieces of art. However, I write as a scholar not as a promoter and have no intentions of promoting or even mentioning our organization or the potential future for these monuments. Historical significance is not in the future, but only in the past. Accurate history can only be written by those who are familiar with that history and in some cases that boils down to a very short list of individuals. These are extremely important pieces that have for many years been in hiding. Not only are they great pieces of art, but more importantly incredible American symbols. If it makes sense, I am sure that within the next couple of days I can get two or three other contributors to add to and change the article so that it does not reflect so closely our written history. Your further comments and suggestion are requested as I am absolutely committed to making sure that this article is eventually accepted into Wikipedia. I must say that having thrown myself into this endeavor, I have learned a lot about Wikipedia. I have found almost every article that I have visited concerning this period and subject, have inaccurate dates and facts. Interestingly, I have rarely visited subjects that I am intimately familiar with and therefore never had the occasion notice these occurrences. Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the page, and I suggest you look at the requests for article creation page. I would first edit your user page to declare your interest (state your role in your company, etc), then carefully review the guidelines listed in the article request page, and then submit a request if you feel your article meets the criteria. [mad pierrot][t c] 07:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry I still believe there are serious problems with this article, and I still have concerns about whether it should be deleted or not. [mad pierrot][t c] 22:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It reads to me like the artist's effort to promote his work. Uucp (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions? I'm unsure how to proceed, other than starting a WP:AFD discussion. Thanks for your input. [mad pierrot][t c] 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMe: Gentlemen, I am returned from three day trip. The artist can rarely be reached and I'm quite sure has no interest in the article. I will be working on this over the next few days. Hopefully it will improve dramatically during that period --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]