Jump to content

Talk:Daughters of the American Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pkgraham (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 9 February 2015 (→Formal Name of NSDAR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Formal Name of NSDAR

The name of this organization is National Society Daughters of the American Revolution. Unless quoting another source, avoid writing "National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution" or "National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution." This goes for National Society, Sons of the American Revolution as well. Paul K. Graham (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Membership for Women Who Were Adopted: The DAR is a lineage society. As noted below, women who were adopted are welcome to join DAR through the ancestral lines of their biological parents. Please see the dar.org web site for more information on membership requirements.--VolunteerMom (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) VolunteerMom[reply]

Untitled 2

I would like to concur 100% with Ms. Boyle's below stated experience. I was about to meet with my local DAR representative with my family history in-hand, when she verified that adoptees are denied membership into the DAR as they are not linked by blood to their American Patriot Ancestor.

While I can appreciate the "lineage" of American Revolutionary ancestry from a distance, apparently this group blatently disfranchises individuals who, for all legal purposes, are recognized as being a part of that lineage - good, bad or otherwise. As someone who is both adopted and has done my fair share of genealogy research, personal identifying information is not available to the public/genealogists for the past 72 years (so I can't currently locate names, places, relationships for anyone born after 1939)....and a "closed" adoption is exactly that - closed. No information given, even for serious medical purposes. Perhaps the DAR members secretly have access to prospective applicant's biological lineage for their most recent generations (birth parents and biological grandparents) wherein such research can be jump-started and qualifying lineage can be verified?

Ah - this is rather an oxymoron of sorts. A group of women who revere and promote the organization that historically represents a war and related events that established the very equalizing characteristics this country was founded on - only to divisively discriminate against a group of women whose (adopting) female family members have historically belonged to the DAR, yet they are denied membership for a familial legal transaction that they had no control over. DAR's website should CLEARLY state that individuals adopted into DAR families are ineligible for membership, rather than obfuscate their discriminatory membership eligibility criteria. Most adoptees are taught and treated from day one as a family member no different than any other.

One can only wonder what the Founding Fathers and our ancestors must think as they witness from beyond such exclusionary elitism by the DAR. Shameful and very un-American!!

D. PalermoEducatedmom (talk) 11/26/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedmom (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the editors

Note to the editor: The Daughters of the American Revolution extends membership with discrimination today as it did in the past. The group denies membership to those who have been adopted into qualifying families, even in the case when the child is legally said to be born to said qualifying family. In other words, children raised in the system of an old fashioned, closed adoption are barred and denied not only membership, but also the benefits of said membership, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law of the United States of America said individuals are legally recognized as the blood offspring of qualifying families.

Although certainly a rare circumstance, it goes against what the Wikipedia I love so much has published. As an avid user, I believe it to be wrong for you to publish that the D.A.R. extends membership to all of those female descendants of veterans of the American Revolution.

In my case for example, my birth certificate states that I was born to the son of a D.A.R. member. This is a legal birth certificate issued in the state of IL in the USA. It is my only birth certificate. However, as I was adopted by the son of the D.A.R. member at birth, I am not allowed the benefits of membership realized by many of my female relatives.

This is important because the organization, in receipt of federal funding as well as the promotion of American values, acts against the very legal jurisprudence that this country deems vital to American society, that is the protection of the family unit, in this case in the form of the closed system of adoption. In a closed adoption, the value of the blood line is second to the needs of the state. That is, that the family unit, as a building block of society, is more important than the D.A.R.'s geneaological snobbery.

This is the law. Therfore, it is against the legal policy of the United States of America for the D.A.R. to discriminate against me. You see I am not an illegitimate member of a family of descendants of American Revolutionary War veterans--I am legitimate in said family. I deserve to be recognized in this way and it is illegal to do anything but.

This information is not very important. However, it does indeed point out that it is factually incorrect to state that D.A.R. offers membership in these ways. This practice continues the historical pejorative spririt of the D.A.R. More importantly, it bastardizes children already disadvantaged, and this is wrong.

I ask the Wikipedia to edit the D.A.R. entry and reflect their continued practice of discrimination.


Thank you for your consideration,

Colleen M. Boyle c-boyle3@northwestern.edu


Is there a source for this information? Does it appear on their website? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My grandma was refused admission because she couldn't provide enough proof.
-- Al™ 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the main article, NSDAR genealogists evaluate proofs submitted with applications based on accepted genealogical standards. The genealogists also make an effort to find an alternative ancestor for applicants who can't find acceptable proofs for the application they submitted. That may not have been the case when your grandmother applied. I'm a DAR member and I have personally helped applicants successfully find alternative ancestors. Unfortuantely, a lot of ancestors didn't leave the records we would like for them to have left behind.
  • As a SAR member, I'd like to point out that the SAR has the same restrictions. Both organizations are based on blood lines. Even illigitimate "bastard" children can become members, as long as they can prove the blood line. Adoptions which are out of the bloodline are letitimately excluded. It should also be pointed out that these are private organizations. To join the SAR, an existing member must vouch for the applicants "good character", and the applicant must also state that he believes in a Creator. I understand Ms. Boyle's frustration, but maybe she will feel a little better to know that the "benefits" of membership, as far as I can tell, are more about bragging rights than anything of substantial value. Perhaps it is different with the DAR, as they seem to be more well known, and have more policital "clout". Crockspot 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility criteria for DAR membership and information on how to join is on the DAR web site which is linked in the main article. Adopted children are welcome to become members, but they must join through a line from one of their biological parents. An applicant has to prove descent for each generation, starting with the applicant and going back to the patriot generation, just as one does for other lineage societies.. VolunteerMom 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about content

The content of this article starts off nicely but then devolves into a overly-detailed account of a specific incident. Can someone more knowledgeable about the organization add something about what it does? The discrimination part, while important, is probably too long.

As for Ms. Boyle's request: is she unaware that she can--and should--edit it herself? (forgot to sign in: 03 January 2006)

By specific incident, do you mean the Marian Anderson matter? It is quite famous, so deserves special attention. The material from Ms. Boyle has been edited into the article. -Will Beback 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about it being ironic that Eleanor Roosevelt didn't protest barring from a high school. This clearly sounds like synthesis to me. If there is a reliable secondary source making this "ironic" observation, then by all means cite it and revert. I have also found some good sources, including Roosevelt's letter and the DAR response letter at the NARA website, and some information at the MET website. I have to absorb it, and will probably rewrite the Marian Anderson section very soon. - Crockspot 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Why do the edits by 24.54.33.170 not show up in the history? I believe this editor is a DAR member who is attempting to add email conctact info to the article. That may or may not be appropriate, but just curious why their edits have been zapped. Crockspot 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the Church of Latter Day Saints owns/operates or otherwise funds the DAR ? Both are related to some degree, beyond their common interest in bloodlines the Mormon web site FamilySearch.org lists the DAR library in Washington DC as one of their own Family Research Centers. http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/FHC/frameset_fhc.asp

Family History Centers in District of Columbia, United States DAR Library 1776 D Street NW Washington DC, District of Columbia, United States Phone: 202-879-3313 Hours: Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm; Sat 9am-5pm Attention: Microfilms from the Church can be ordered at this library.

Thank you. 96.245.84.238 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Marian Anderson section

I completely rewrote the Marian Anderson section. I know it is a little longer than some would like, but I believe it is a notable part of DAR's history that should be mentioned, and if it is to be mentioned at all, it should accurately and fairly summarize the controversy. It is very well sourced, and I thought I was able to present the material neutrally, in fairness to all parties, and also show that the DAR's relationship with Anderson was very positive after the controversy. Crockspot 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on the public high school part. I could not find a source.

DAR President Robert was, I believe, living in Annapolis, MD. Her son, who is still around, still lives there, and her husband taught at the Naval Academy before death in 1937. I'm wondering about the "indirect control" part. J. J. in PA (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

"In 1932 the DAR adopted a rule excluding African-American artists from the stage at Constitution Hall."

I very seriously doubt that, in 1932, the DAR, or any other organization, was writing rules that excluded "African-Americans" from their locales. The term "African-American" is a relatively recent invention. Chances are they used negro or colored. The author of the article should find out and use the appropriate term. Better yet, a quote, with citation, to the particular DAR rule, would be very helpful. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error or at least Omission

" In 1936, Sol Hurok, manager of African-American contralto Marian Anderson since 1935, attempted to book Anderson at Constitution Hall. Owing to the "white performers only" policy, the booking was refused. Instead, Anderson performed at a Washington-area black high school, and was also invited by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to perform for her and President Roosevelt. During this time, Anderson came under considerable pressure from the NAACP not to perform for segregated audiences.[8] In 1939, Hurok, along with the NAACP and Howard University, petitioned the DAR to make an exception to the "white performers only" policy for a new booking, which was declined by the DAR. Hurok attempted to find a local high school for the performance, but the only suitable venue was an auditorium at a white high school. The school board, which was indirectly under the authority of the DAR President, refused to allow Anderson to perform there.[8] Eleanor Roosevelt immediately resigned her membership of the DAR. The organization later apologized and welcomed Anderson to Constitution Hall on a number of occasions after 1939, including a benefit concert for war relief in 1942.[9]"

Your account of the Marian Anderson performance omits what most of us think was her most famous response: she sang at the Lincoln Memorial after she was not allowed to use Constitution Hall. See, for example, the account given by NPR: see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102957947 Many millions of your readers have seen and heard TV rebroadcasts of that concert. They will think (as I think) it odd that you don't mention that. Indeed, they will think (as I suspect) you have gotten your facts wrong about what happened after Miss Anderson was denied the Constitution Hall venue. Thanks. ````Jackwilcox 11 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackwilcox (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable DAR members

There is an exhibit at the DAR Americana Collection in Washington DC called "Dazzling Daughters", which has material on famous DAR members up to 2004. I added the five names mentioned in the exhibit description on the DAR website, using the exhibit as a source in the cite tag. If anyone is in the DC area and can go see the exhibit and get a list of more names, they can be added using the same cite tag as the others. If the cite tags confuse you, just post the names in this section, and mention that you got them from the exhibit, and I will add them for you. - Crockspot 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Mayo (actress)

Excellent book on DAR which contains a good history section (up to 1986) is Washington Historic Landmarks: Pillars of Patriotism by Mollie Sommerville, Washington, D.C.: National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, 1985. ISBN: 0-96-2528-7-8 It details the many, many contributions that the National Society has made to the our country. VolunteerMom 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jane Wright may well have been a respected member of the DAR but how does she meet the criteria for notability when compared with the others on the list? And, even if it can be confirmed that she is notable, she may yet have to be moved from the Living Members section to that of Past Members section if this link is correct <http://www.memorialsolutions.com/sitemaker/sites/KnoxBr1/obit.cgi?user=547_JWright76> Boy mechanic (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Roosevelt "irony"

In response to the repeated inclusion of a statement about it being ironic that Eleanor Roosevelt did not protest the barring of Anderson from a white school under federal jurisdiction, I included information about the school, the board, and their federal jurisdiction in the article. This allows the reader to explore the issue of politics playing a part in the incident themselves. To say that it is ironic that she didn't protest is conclusionary and original research, unless a reliable secondary source making these observations can be found and cited. The statement has since been reinserted, but I reverted it, and will continue to do so. Barring further sourcing, I think how it is worded now is as far as we can go on that issue. Also remember, this article is about the DAR, not Anderson or Roosevelt. Crockspot 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Roosevelt "irony"

As you state, nobody disputes the fact that the white public high school (which was under the control of a Democractic president and Congress at the time) also barred Anderson. Barring counterevidence, this same can be said for the statement that neither Eleanor Roosevelt nor her husband ever uttered or wrote a single word of protest about the high school ban. Criticism of the selective nature of this protest is not twenty-first century revisionism. In 1951, in the Saturday Evening Post, black author, Zora Neale Hurston, was sharply critical of ER. She pointed out that the Roosevelts had no legal power to reverse the Constitution Hall ban, because it was private property. By contrast, at least Franklin had at least some legal (certainly moral!) power to reverse the school ban, had he chosen to do anything (which he did not).

Could politics, as Hurston wondered, have had at least something to do with the selective nature of ER's protest? We will never know but no objective historian would entirely dismiss it out of hand. Allan Keiler in Marian Anderson: A Singer's Journey (New York: Scribner, 2000), makes the following statement: "Mrs. Roosevelt understood well that the target of any action on her part and must be the be the DAR, and not the Washington School Board, a local issue local issue that could not possible resonate on a national scale."

Why then is the word irony misplaced? It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts which are not dispute. Furthermore, whether or not this was her intention, ER's protest entirely took the school board off the hook, politically speaking and thus helped FDR's 1940 campaign appeals to blacks. There is no getting away from its selective nature, however.

Actually, there is a good case for using a much stronger word to describe the one-sided nature of the protest: hypocritical.....but, then again, let's not go overboard. Unfortunately, however, your reverts and long and completely uncritical account of ER's protest goes to the other extreme and results in hagiography, not history.

In any case, you are right that this is an article about the Daughters....but since there is a long selection of Eleanor at least some balance is in order.

You reverts do not make clear that that the Board was not then governed by home rule but was entirely under the jurisdiction of a Democratic Congress/President. For this reason, I indicated this. Because, as you said, this is about the Daughters, I did not restore the old language about irony. Even so, you, or someone else, should add more nuance to the current completely uncritical and one-sided account of ER's resignation. 70.219.111.62 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have some additional sources that are not cited in the article. I have my hands a little full elsewhere, or I would pursue them myself, but I invite you to do so. Crockspot 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for what? What facts do you dispute? The Keiller book, which quoted above, has a good presentation of these facts though it does not use the precise word "irony." Since you yourself note the school board's action, what are you asking me to do?

70.219.111.62 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing anything. I'm just saying that you have some reliable sources I was not previously aware of that actually did point out/criticize ER for not protesting the school banning. They can be used to source an appropriately worded statement about that in the article. If reliable sources have criticized this controversy as a political maneuver, I am all for including it in the article. I just don't have the time for several days to do it myself. Crockspot 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further clarify, if the DAR's reputation was a victim of a political maneuver, then it is entirely relevant to include evidence of that from reliable sources. The sources you have mentioned above were not cited in the article when I rewrote that part, and I assumed it was simple original research. But it appears that such discussions were made at the time, so with the proper sourcing, it can more or less go back in, maybe not using the word "irony", but still... Do you get my drift? Crockspot 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Irony" is a value judgement that we should not make as encyclopedia editors. Let's just note the facts and let readers find the irony. -Will Beback 01:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But if reliable sources have reported criticism of ER or the FDR administration over this, then it is appropriate to include. When I made my edits, I was not aware of any RS criticisms, so I confined the discussion. But it appears that there was indeed criticism. Crockspot 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Roosevelt Irony"

Many people today, particularly those who do not study history, are surprised to learn that racial segregation in public facilities was once the law of the land in many parts of the United States, and the practice was not limited to the South. It was not just Nazi skinheads who advocated racial segregation back then. It was widely accepted by the population. Indeed, in a line of cases beginning with Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896, followed by five other cases in a 50-year period, the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly held that racial segregation in public facilities did not violate the Constitution of the United States.

To suggest that Franklin Roosevelt had the power to reverse segregation at the high school betrays a lack of knowledge of our legal system. FDR was not a dictator, and he could not make law unilaterally. At that time, segregation was law in the District of Columbia, and there could not be any change in the law unless the Congress, which has exclusive jurisdiction over legislation in the District, agreed. Given the composition of Congress at the time, and the mores of society in 1938, that was simply not possible. In fact, it would have caused huge unpopularity for FDR for him even to suggest such a thing. If Mrs. Roosevelt wished to resign from DAR because of its segregation policy, she could do so, and she did. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was it integrated?

This article is missing a very important piece of information. In what year and under what circumstances was the DAR racially integrated?--Pharos 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched their website but couldn't find any date for the change. -Will Beback · † · 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-female?

Is this an all-female organization? It should be in the introduction.ssepp(talk) 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the DAR do?

I came to this article looking for an answer to that question. I now know that I need to be X,Y, and Z to be accepted. But I know nothing about what they do, except try to keep Black women out. I feel integral (i.e. necessary) information has been completely left out. White Lightning 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence summarizes their activities nicely:
  • DAR chapters are involved in raising funds for local scholarships and educational awards, preserving historical properties and artifacts and promoting patriotism within their communities.
If you'd like to add more then that'd be great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is: how do they promote patriotism, how do they raise funds, etc? It's a decent sized article, but most of it is spent discussing side (albeit still important) issues about the organization. White Lightning 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, this is Wikipedia. That means do-it-yourself. Have you read their website? Have you visited the library? If you think the article needs more material, you're most likely the one to add it. Second, the DAR is a ladies society. At the risk of overgeneralizing, they behave in certain ways comon to ladies. They have committees. They raise funds through parties and bequests. They hold essay contests. They preserve old houses. Dames or daughters; they're all ladies under the skin. To be specific, this article would benefit by having a list of landmarks and houses the DAR maintains, and perhaps a summary description of their scholarships, and essay contests. I believe some actions are at the state chapter level, but the national website covers enough to appear comprehensive. Thanks for helping out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My long-time impression of the DAR is that it is composed of haughty, self-important, wealthy old white women, living off the earnings and property of their now deceased husbands, who spend all their time looking down on persons less fortunate than themselves. If someone can provide concrete examples of any good that the organization accomplishes, I would find that to be extremely helpful.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wargs.com

I have a couple of issues with the use of wargs.com as a source for DAR members. One, it doesn't seem particularly reliable. It is self-published material, but he does cite sources, so I don't doubt that it's accurate information. The larger problem is that it doesn't source DAR membership at all. It just shows that they are eligible to be members. I'm going to remove the citations, but I don't see harm in leaving the names. - Crockspot 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I am (for the third time) removing random connective trivia. The fact that a supporting character in a tv show was a member of DAR does not, in my opinion, add anything to this article. If you want to mention DAR in the gilmore girls article, that is perfectly appropriate, but it doesn't need to follow in both directions. If there was, on the other hand, a sitcom entirely about the hilarious antics of a DAR chapter house, or something of that nature, it would be reasonable to add to this article. My arguments are well expressed in the WP:HTRIV essay. If you feel the fact does belong, please explain your reasoning here. -Verdatum (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMILY: It's implying that I have no control over my hirelings at the DAR. I'm the president. The foliage on the right side of the door, which looks fine, by the way, is my responsibility. This is a direct frontal assault on my leadership. The woman's plotting a coup!

RORY: This is Constance, right?

EMILY: Constance Bedderton. Ever since the Masterson's Christmas party, when I mentioned that Constance's husband sells used cars for a living= which he does, he calls them pre-owned, but they're used - she's had it in for me. She's going to run against me in the next election. You don't try to oust a president of the DAR after one term, it's an insult!

just to let you know... she IS the president (: you should research more thoroughly, this is a script from the show it's on an episode called "The Ungraduate" in seasion six. And I think that in Gilmore Girls they do cover a lot about the DAR, when one of the characters works there (Rory) and the other one is the president (Emily) as shown in the last quote.

I am not implying in any way that you should let in what I wrote but we've all got some pride here so I'll put you in the website from which I got the quote :)

http://gilmore-girls.hypnoweb.net/episodes-/saison-6/episode-603/script-vo.31.745/

Lastly, I would like to add that if you have had to erase three times things that people have written there then STOP PUTTING A POP CULTURE SECTION! We get all excited when we fill out anything from anything we've seen about it and then you just erase it without a care in the world, maybe you could lock your article since yours is the only info that matters? =) You should change the name of the category to "Features" in popular culture because a reference is as much as a mention: Reference: mention: a remark that calls attention to something or someone wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And last but not least, how did Abbey Bartley even get there? Abbey yes but Emily no? How fair is that?:S

Also, not only Emily was there, but Rory (ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS) was in there too, it's there that I learned the requirements for joining the DAR and the going ons and without the show I would never have known about the organization. And I'm sure that many people have the exact same case. ;)

Cheers

Dianakarenina (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I'm not intimately familiar with the show, and I did a quick websearch for my info (in addition to the previous edits on this article leaving out the president fact). To avoid the errant anonymous IP editors, I'd love to flat out remove the pop culture section, however, the other two entries in the section are perfectly reasonable (to me).
Concerning Pop culture, it is a sensitive topic on Wikipedia, and has been given specific meanings because of it. This is discussed in WP essays like WP:TRIVIA, WP:HTRIV, and WP:POPCULTURE.
Also, the article isn't "mine", it's everyone's. Articles are only locked when there is edit-warring or vandalism. The proper way things are resolved is on talkpages like we're doing now :)
Given what you've said, I think a sentence or two mentioning the role DAR plays within the show can be mentioned. It now sounds more substantial than "by the way, so-and-so is a member" that other revisions of the fact seemed to convey. -Verdatum (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotism?

The opening sentence states that the Daughters of the American Revolution is dedicated to promoting Patriotism, with a link to the patriotism article, where it is stated that patriotism's ""meaning is highly dependent upon context, geography, and philosophy"". Given that, can someone expand on how the DAR promote patriotism, and what type of patriotism is promoted? At the moment it's all a bit vague. Markb (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the link to the official DAR website be in the "external links" section, not in the introductory text of the article? I am relatively new to editing, so I wanted to be certain prior to changing this. Thanks! Robinkhi (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be in External links. Also, new comments on the Talk page are generally added at the bottom, so people can easily keep track, so I've moved yours down. Thanks for your interest and sharp eye!Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much trivia

These listings are pretty dumb. It would be better for editors to spend time looking at the DAR website and seeing the changes they have been making in their exhibits and programs; they present ambitious programs that are intellectually challenging.Parkwells (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution&oldid=646377020"