This nomination was turned down first by the community for being a “sensitive location” (it’s not, it looks like a gravestone at first blush but is a memorial in a park) then was turned down on review for the girl not being important enough, even though I included a link to a website clearly describing the family and their local significance. (They were the first family to settle in this part of Wisconsin, her older sister is the subject of a fairly popular book). The memorial isn’t even just for her; she’s named but the memorial is dedicated to more than her. Even my first google search immediately brought up mention of Mary on the Wisconsin Historial Society website. I’ll admit the last name thing is weird; her family was changed to Woodlawn for the book, but their actual last name was Woodhouse or Watkins depending on the source. But it still doesn’t take a lot of effort to find out who the family was and their significance to the area. This seems like a really weak rejection.
Hello,
I can understand this being classed as a “Sensitive” location, as its a memorial for people that have no grave marker descendants could still used this instead.
IMO: The fact that it’s not an actual Grave Stone doesn’t change it.
Remember that it is down to the submitter to show proof, it’s not down to the reviewer to go searching.
I did submit proof, I linked a website in the supporting info. I was just pointing out I quickly found another one.
I don’t fully understand the gravestone point though; you are right that descendants could view it this way, but that’s true of every memorial and making assumptions is nowhere to be found in the rules. All the sources I’ve found call it a memorial and the girl is not buried there. In fact on the website I linked it mentions that the family house was moved there from the adjoining property, so she’s likely not interred on the park grounds at all. The guideline on the website states “Sensitive locations like gravestones (not associated with a significant/historical figure) and cemeteries” and it is neither a gravestone nor a cemetery. The rule does not say “things you think someone may use as a grave”.
By that logic all Stolperstein stumbling blocks in continental Europe would be sensitive locations but nearly all of them are wayspots
This memorial commemorates that somewhere in this area, Mary Woodhouse is buried in an unmarked grave - refer Mary Woodhouse (1854-1860) - Find a Grave Memorial
The Criteria Clarification states in part “gravestones belonging to historical figures or significant community figures can be eligible if the nominator provides evidence for their historical importance”.
Mary died when she was only 7 years old and I believe that you would have a hard time demonstrating that she was a significant historical figure in the community.
This memorial commemorates a nearby unmarked grave and as such, should be treated as a sensitive location.
It is not making assumptions. Not everything is Wayfarer is black and white. We are supposed to make “a best judgement” and I can understand if reviewers see it as “Sensitive Location” (which they did).
This is where best judgement comes in again. Some memorials people expect a wider range of the public to visit (think war memorials). This 1 seems more “personal”.
Remember: I was not in the Review Pool. I was just commenting that I can understand when Reviewer did mark it as Sensitive.
Find My Grave is a user-submitted and edited website. It is incorrectly listed there as a grave. The listing says “She was buried on a little rise of land in the northwest corner of the Woodhouse farm” which is straight-up incorrect. Someone took a picture and made an assumption instead of reading, which appears to be turning into an epidemic. I could take a picture of the Buddy Holly memorial and upload it as if it were his grave but that does not change reality for everyone else. No authority on the matter claims to know where she was buried. It is assumed nearby, but they were the literal first settlers of the area and the house was originally over 300 yards away. The park property lines do not represent all of the land they claimed, which covered 160 acres. The historical websites do not refer to it as a grave, I don’t know why a site that exists off user contributions would carry more weight for you than that. That’s like saying the PogoMaps site is more accurate than the Wayfarer map.
The memorial is dedicated to pioneer children who died in unmarked graves and didn’t name one of them, then there’s no reason it would be ineligible. But because it names the one with local relevance it is being assumed as a grave when it simply isn’t. She could be buried somewhere on park grounds or miles away. Jimmy Hoffa may be buried under your local McDonalds.
Since the memorial is ultimately dedicated not just one person but to a category of people, the notability question shouldn’t need to apply. I’ve never seen anyone else question a memorial dedicated to a group of people that died tragically. But aside from that I do believe she would be relevant enough even if it was a memorial to only her (which again, it isn’t). Her older sister had books written about her and her father given the grant of land by Abraham Lincoln and was the first to settle here. The name certainly has enough local relevance for the historical society to put her name on a memorial stone. All of this information was in the link I provided in the submission btw. Which is from the organization that installed the memorial and set up the park.
It’s in a public park. The family didn’t have it made and place it there, the Dunn historical society did.
Hi,
Not sure if I have somehow missed what you wrote in the appeals statement?
I can see the photos and the description text and supplementary info and the teams response. I don’t see the title?
Without the appeal statement it’s hard to know
I can see why the confusion arose because of how it visually looks. And it is an odd mix of an individual name but then about wider group. And with the different names Watkins/Woodhouse/Woodlawn it doesn’t create the impression of a strong connection.
As the supplementary is simply a link with no explanation I found that the link didn’t explain the significance of that stone ( or maybe I miss typed?)
So I am curious what you wrote for the appeal that would guide the appeal reviewer to the right conclusion.
If you decide to resubmit ( and I do think this is an object worth exploring) I would suggest a different approach.
I think that as this marks an area of unmarked child graves - which is inherently a sensitive topic- it needs to be framed firmly in the historic situation as to why this tells a story of life at that time.
I think you need to give more than that link as I didn’t find it that useful. A reviewer needs to quickly have the info in front of them. Something specific about this area of the park to show more depth about it. And tackle the confusion over names - you have understood but look at it through the eyes of someone totally unfamiliar and lead them to the right conclusion.
To clarify about the name; the family name was Woodhouse. Woodlawn was the name the granddaughter used for the books as a pseudonym. Watkins is likely the mother’s maiden name since some sources have the girls’ names as Woodhouse Watkins, similar to the other famous pioneer girl Laura Ingalls Wilder. The confusion is not because of lack of knowledge or relevance of the girls or the family.
And it doesn’t mark multiple child graves. One child is buried somewhere nearby, almost certainly not on the public park grounds. It’s not a gravestone.
This says to include additional context about the individual, which confirms whoever wrote this did not see that it is dedicated to multiple people, (none of whom are buried there) and did not click the link provided in the original submission that talks about the family and the park.
The problem that you have is that your nomination looks like a tombstone that has an epitaph/dedication. Just because there is an epitaph on it, doesn’t automatically turn that tombstone into a memorial “for pioneer children buried in unmarked graves”..
From what I can see online, there is plenty of reference to Mary’s unmarked grave but there is no reference to a dedicated memorial for pioneer children buried in unmarked graves (even on the official website)
You should definitely consider resubmitting this nomination on the basis that it is a historic gravesite.
I think if you provide some context that this site is a place of remembrance and that Mary is buried elsewhere on the property in an unmarked (and unknown) grave (and including a weblink confirming this). I would mention that the Caddie Woodlawn Historical Park is not a cemetery and that is primarily a historic, education site. You just need to show Mary’s historical significance (which based upon your reply you obviously can) and the educational value of visiting this site.
Good luck
The reviewing tool tip even lists memorials as a place that could be sensitive
I would certainly not feel good about approving this as a spot to play a game.
Why does the reviewing tip differ substantially from the rejection criteria? These need to be consistently worded or else what are we even doing here.
I 
agree with you that they should agree.
You’re right that the link doesn’t mention the memorial specifically, that was my mistake. There are sources that mention it but I used four different sites for research and thought I picked the comprehensive one. I almost did post multiple links in the supporting but thought that might make people less likely to read any of them. My cell phone reception in that area is also rather poor so it may have been a business decision, I don’t remember exactly it was two weeks ago.
I don’t buy the epitaph argument though. That’s saying these words matter on the object but the other ones don’t. I’m going off all the words etched on it combined with the knowledge that it is not intended to match her burial site.
I use the web submit to allow 5 images. I have included screenshots of information websites of the relevant piece. And then included the full we address in the supplementary. This gives the reviewer a quick read and if they want to check a way of doing so,
Sorry I had misunderstood what was at the location. That needs to be phrased better.
When you spend time researching ….which is great….you get to know the location too well
I was aware I could post up to five photos but was under the impression that they didn’t like screenshots and or third party/street view images in the supporting images. This guideline states the waypoint should be visible in the supporting photos so screenshots from websites seem to be in conflict with that. That seems to be what the supporting info section is for, although we can only put text and links there and not other types of images. I would be fine with people being able to put screenshots in the supporting as long as they also put the corresponding link in the description, but the written guideline doesn’t seems to allow for that.
And yes, I’ve definitely gotten to know the location too well at this point. I didn’t even know Abe Lincoln was tangentially involved before doing more research last night. I feel like I could write a book now.