Talk:Mount Zion Memorial Fund

"Respectively"
There are two occurrences of constructions similar to "Both memorials were paid for by John Fogerty and Bonnie Raitt respectively." This is at best ambiguous. To me it is self contradictory. If both Fogerty and Raitt contributed funds for both memorials then the idiomatic construction would be "Both memorials were paid for by John Fogerty and Bonnie Raitt." If Fogerty paid for the first memorial mentioned and Raitt for the second the idiomatic construction would be "The two memorials were paid for by John Fogerty and Bonnie Raitt respectively." Combining the two as in [this version] of the article is confusing. The [original version] of the article stated clearly though informally, that both Fogerty and Raitt contributed funds to purchase memorials for James Thomas and Memphis Minnie. Subsequently an anonymous editor [changed] the text to the above and in particular added "respectively". I assume the original text is correct and both paid for both both memorials. However I have no source to confirm this so I am not going to edit the page.

In reference to Sam Chatmon and Eugene Powell the original version of the article says "both memorials funded once again by grants from Raitt and Fogerty respectively." This is also unclear and as there is no older version of the article there is no internal evidence of the correct meaning. If both Raitt and Fogerty contributed funds to purchase both Chatmon's and Powell's memorials then "respectively" is incorrect. If Raitt purchased Chatmon's memorial, the first mentioned, and Fogerty purchased Powell's, second mentioned, then "both" is incorrect. In the second case it should be "the memorials..." or " the two memorials ...". Dsurber (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"External Links"
As of today, none of the external links leads to an operational webpage. Please update! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 130.74.202.134 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
It seems that the officers of the Mount Zion Memorial Fund, here and in previous edits, are attempting to revise the article. That is inappropriate, per our guidance on conflicts of interest. Articles should be based on reliable, independent sources, not on the views expressed by their subjects. In my view, this article needs to be rewritten from scratch, to summarize previously published material, and to exclude the considerable amount of unsourced material. Having said that, it should of course be possible to include basic and uncontested factual information about the Memorial Fund, if it is raised and agreed here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)