Jump to content

Talk:Arlington National Cemetery

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


Sir John Dill NOT 1st non-American buried here

[edit]

The statement, cited to Winston Churchill's postwar History of the Second World War, that FM Dill was the first non-American buried here is incorrect, in light of fact that 11 British Commonwealth servicemen (admittedly including one American whose body was repatriated from England, but most of the rest having family addresses in the UK) were already buried here, in the latter year of WWI and just afterwards. The earliest of that cohort was Engine Room Artificer Harold Gurney Davis of the Royal Navy, who died on 16 September 1918 and left a widow living in the Isle of Wight (England). These may have been overlooked by Churchill (who was past 70 when he began working on the series, while in declining health) or by those he consulted for information. (Ironically Churchill might have met in his lifetime the highest ranking of the cohort, Major the Hon Charles Lyell, Assistant British Military Attache in Washington when he died in October 1918, during the decade when both men were Liberal Members of Parliament sitting for Scottish constituencies.) I therefore propose the sentence be deleted if the CWGC's evidence is considered strong enough.Cloptonson (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having had no reply, I will remove the statement about Dill. Lyell was definitely not an American, so Dill had a definite predecessor.Cloptonson (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of photo of Trump

[edit]

After the hideous and disrespectful things that Trump has said about those who have served in the military, why is a photo of him included on this page?

There are plenty of other photos of Memorial Day services which could be posted here. Images of people who respect and honor those who have served, and sacrificed for, our country.

There should be no mention of Trump anywhere on this page. He is incapable of respect for those who have served our country.

Please, replace that photo with a ceremony including those who actually honor our brave service men and women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6017:7d:f9eb:c75a:65b:7b01 (talk • contribs)

I've updated the article with a photo of the most recent President paying respect at Arlington. Schazjmd (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most presidents have been photographed visiting ANC. (JFK is buried there. Taft is buried there too, but was he photographed?) Point is that the article does not need such photos, especially when they are promotional or controversial. – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the initial commenter is American, while I declare I am not one myself but I magnanimously appreciate the fact that the POTUS of the day is constitutionally the federal Commander in Chief and protocol would surely entitle him to set foot in ANC which is federal property. The presidential picture can surely change with the president, it could be seen as courtesy not hagiography.Cloptonson (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S. Rich's assessment, on the grounds of * wmf:Resolution:Controversial content
  • We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.
-Signaleer (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think it is astonishing to have a picture of the president – any president – at the national cemetery. That WMF statement doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the question at hand. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Memorial Day address at Arlington by the president is one of the two major annual remembrance ceremonies, it is entirely appropriate to include a photo of the president. Furthermore, using the sitting president respects neutrality. MB 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased's vs Decedent's

[edit]

Per undid edits here and here by @Aoidh:, and requested consensus. Seems to be semantics, however looking for any strong support or opposition for/against the change of "deceased's" to "decedent's". As nouns, both are synonymous[1][2][3][4]. Was under the assumption that this type of edit would constitute basic CE, or at the very least falls under the first WP:DONTREVERT recommendation —as I see no harm to the article, the encyclopedia or the subject resultant this change— however open to any feedback. Hoping to settle this matter as to complete a spoken article, where the former reads poorly and the latter reads smoother. Babegriev (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence in question is The Department of Veterans Affairs currently offers 63 authorized faith emblems for placement on markers to represent the deceased's faith. versus The Department of Veterans Affairs currently offers 63 authorized faith emblems for placement on markers to represent the decedent's faith.
Having said "deceased's faith" aloud several times as a test, I agree that "decedent's faith" is an improvement for a spoken article, and most likely for those readers using screen readers as well. An alternative would be "to represent the faith of the deceased". Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree decedent's is better. MB 14:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Definition of decedent". www.dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC.
  2. ^ "Definition of DECEDENT". www.merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
  3. ^ "Definition of deceased". www.dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC.
  4. ^ "Definition of DECEASED". www.merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Arlingtoncemetery dot org

[edit]

The following has been cut & pasted from the EL section of the article

  • ArlingtonCemetery•org (This British Drug Abuse website did not yet change the name of their website even though so requested by the U.S. Army (ANC in the U.S.) There is no current ANC funeral information at this website. It is a private mental health care provider in London, England that includes a 24/7 chat link to a drug abuse counselor for British military veterans and the United Kingdom's National Health Care System.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "arlingtoncemetery.org" links has been conducted. All such links are now gone. Accordingly, this issue should not be a problem. (Still, I think I'll ask that arlingtoncemetery.org be blacklisted.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A request for blacklisting has been submitted here. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment over at the blacklist request - the current owner of the domain has no relevant info; the archived pages at archive.org have a great deal of relevant info. I'm going to research whether the archive.org templating is fubar or if the references were added incorrectly. In the meantime, I've reverted most/all of the removals, since the archived pages provide relevant (and necessary) sourcing. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

www.arlingtoncemetery.net

[edit]

ISSUE: the website has many pertinent pages and resources that are exclusive to the deceased at Arlington National Cemetery. At the same time it has a listing of various German alternative medicine products. So, is the website – with its many pertinent pages – proper on Wikipedia? If so, where and how? – S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RFC opener – This is NOT a website devoted to the cemetery. Rather it is a marketing website for various "health products." (I think I'll request that it be posted on the Wikiblacklist.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think ArlingtonCemetery•org should also be removed. External links should not be a disambiguation section for domains. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two different websites. The dot.org page is pure alt-med. The dot.net website has lots of interesting and useful posts. The alt-medicine pages are disturbing. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Per WP:ELNO #5. A website that has just enough to go "oh look and while you're here, how about some health supplements? Speaking of death, don't you want to be healthy?" is not appropriate. There are plenty of other links that contain the same pertinent information; nothing is lost by removing this link. - Aoidh (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - For the above already stated reasons. This self admitted "unofficial website" of a cemetery is a commercial front (and arguably scam). OgamD218 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Is there someone opposed to this? This RfC seems unnecessary. If the site isn't related to the article just remove it. Nemov (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper enough - seems OK as in not violating any ELNO. I disagree with Aoidh on this - that after four pages of cleanly presented relevant material the fifth page down is a page linking to German-language stuff is not ELNO 5 “objectionable amounts”, it’s a lot less intrusive than common websites banner ads and sideads. It seems more ELMAYBE 4 “Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The original author of the site has passed away, apparently sometime after 2018 (based on his now memorialized facebook page). The domain registration likely expired, and it was taken over by the vendors of german health products. All original content was wiped out on September 11 of this year, and replaced with the simplistic site template it now has. I would propose that we simply link to the last archived version of the site, which was 'legit' (although in reality it does not appear to have had any meaningful updates since around 2015). https://web.archive.org/web/20220902201911/https://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've taken the liberty of making the change, let me know if it's adequate. Also noticed while editing that the Infobox has mapframe fields that aren't supported by the cemetery infobox. Regrettably I know zilch about dealing with such matters, but perhaps someone here does. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good job; I've added further hidden advice about not using that domain. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks all for bringing the matter up and assisting with a satisfactory resolution. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, that is the most appropriate solution, in my opinion at least. OgamD218 (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very good detective work, and I also agree with the choice to redirect to an archived version as per WP:ELDEADKerdooskis (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary Lee"

[edit]

This passage: "In 1804, Custis married Mary Lee Fitzhugh. They had four children, but only one, Mary Anna Randolph Custis, survived, and married future Confederate States Army general Robert E. Lee.

Custis's will gave a "life inheritance" to Mary Lee..."

is incredibly ambiguous. Careful reading reveals that the final "Mary Lee" is (probably) meant to refer to the second "Mary... Lee," but since this is the first time she is actually referred to as such this requires entirely too much effort to figure out. 184.56.114.218 (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FindaGrave

[edit]

Removing FAG from the WP ANC infobox is a mis-reading of WP:ELPEREN. With over 400,000 burials listed for ANC, some of the individual burial pages have User-generated content. But the overall FAG page for ANC is controlled by FAG. In fact, a large number of individual FAG listings were created by non-users or vetted contributors. For example, the International War Graves Project is an organization that has posted 1.7 million FAG listings. The US Veterans Affairs Department is the source of burial information for 1.9 million FAG listings. Both of these organizations have "contributed" data for ANC listings. (See: https://www.findagrave.com/user/profile/46770518 for IWGP.) There are 1,600 "famous" listings for ANC at FAG. Each of these listings is maintained under the editorial control of Find a Grave. And Find a Grave is not the "user" of the website. It should be included as an EL and infobox listing. – S. Rich (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specific benefit do you believe it provides? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issue -- how does ELPERCEN apply to the FAG cemetery-listing in the infobox template (or to a listing as an External link)? – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL applies. That institutional users have contributed some content to Find a Grave doesn't mean that it's appropriate to use here. (Edit: the International War Graves Project isn't an institutional user and appears to be user-generated content from a few people.) What we do need to solve is if it satisfies the following provision: "Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave." Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: My concern does not involve individual graves. (Each WP article about a deceased notable person may or may not have a FAG link and each of those links may or may not be acceptable.) In this thread I'm trying to focus on the issue of including the FAG cemetery ID using the Infobox parameter. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But Wikipedia editors are concerned with Find a Grave, a consensus summarized in my link above, and the bar for including a link to that cite is quoted above. If we can hurdle that, editors can come to a local consensus on whether to include it. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Cemetery Incident

[edit]

Should the former president's violation of one of America’s most sacred places be mentioned in the article? Will the manner in which the female staff person was rudely pushed aside and ignored and then insulted by claims of mental illness be mentioned? Will the fact that the ill-gotten footage was then used in a campaign video be mentioned (in spite of the former presidents claim that he doesn't need publicity)? The thread "Notable burials" would be a good fit, It is certainly more notable than some of the burials mentioned in the thread. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC) By Michael Powell[reply]

It's mentioned in the the article about Trump's campaign for president somewhere. Rude as it was, he's not the only visitor who's been obnoxious and violated the rules. I could go either way. Bkatcher (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be the only visitor to break the rules but he might be the first former Commander-in-Chief. 5 days later it is still a major news story thatb desrves mention here and there. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is the subject of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign section Arlington National Cemetery incident. I don't think it needs to be here as well. Of course, if in the future, the cemetery changes some policies or procedures as a result of this incident, it might then make sense to include something about it here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident has much deeper connotations than just the Trump campaign. To not mention it here seems political when it is not really a political incident. The fact that it involved a candidate for President is just part of the story. It deserves mention for its rarity. It has been highly criticized by many for the behavior of campaign staff, for the manner in which the employee of ANC was manhandled and disparaged, for the fact that laws were broken, for the use of footage in a campaign, for including a fellow deceased veterans' gravesite (other than the family that invited the candidate) without permission. A multitude of families of war veterans are continuously expressing outrage by the photo-op turned campaign video. But No rush. Let's see how long the story "breathes". Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 09:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we include this event in this article, which is about the cemetery, we are doing exactly what the cemetery rules prohibit – injecting a political controversy into the article, which should give the reader a dispassionate overview of the cemetery, and the features which are unique to the cemetery. – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As no reply addressed my concerns, I've removed the particular information and requested page protection. At the same time I hope appropriate, sourced details about the incident(s) can be added to the 2024 election and Trump campaign articles. Let's let the Section 60 burials RIP. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident may or not be a significant incident within the scope of this particular political campaign or election cycle, but from what I can see in the sources and what's happened since, it doesn't seem to be a significant event in the history of Arlington itself, especially considering the 10-year test. The See Also addition seems appropriate, however. - Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the outset, I thought it might be the kind of story that cascades into an investigation with major consequences and long term effect on the campaigns. It didn't so I'm fine with moving on. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arlington_National_Cemetery&oldid=1245728936"