Talk:Arlington National Cemetery/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Official website

Much of the text here is taken from the official website at http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/anc_facts.html As a work of the U.S. Federal Government, this should be a public domain resource. The Anome

September 11 effect

"The fact that 189 of the victims were Americans made the bombing the worst act of pre-9/11 terrorist violence."

does this mean that if 189 of the victims were NOT americans (and does this include canadians, mexicans, brazilians, argentinians), it would not have been the worst act of pre-9/11 terrorist violence?

I understand your concern, but I think it was meant to refer to the worst pre-9/11 attack against americans (as in US citizens, which is another debate). I've tried to clarify it. Ddye 20:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of 9/11, is there any memorial to the New York City or Pa. victims there or any victims buried there? 66.31.78.14 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

interred / buried

Arlington is running out of space, and it has now become more difficult to get oneself actually buried at ANC. Instead, the gov't is focusing on cremated remains and has built large columbariums to that effect. As such, I have changed two uses of the word "buried" to "interred" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=interred), and one incorrect use of the word "interned" (the latter meaning "to confine"). I think in a few other cases, it could be changed, but I'll leave that to somebody more familiar with the article. Avriette 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

history

Its amazing to me there isn't a history section here, the part about taking Lee's estate to make it a cemetary for the dead is part of american lore. I might write it later on, but don't have time now. 12.9.33.203 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of that history is covered under the Arlington House article. 66.31.78.14 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphic clean-up

I've cleaned up the article layout by limiting the number of image sizes to only 2; locating most images on the right; moved images closer to the text describing them. I've alphabetized the random list of notable civilian burials, and rewritten some of the captions to give more background. CApitol3 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I uploaded 3 images today and have several more available that I may upload in the future: (1), (2), (3). Cheers! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Amphitheater

It says in the article that the Arlington Memorial Amphitheater is modeled on Greek and Roman amphitheaters, however amphitheaters are strictly part of Roman architecture. I shall remove the "Greek" part. Albo NL 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My rather young Dutch (which is also my own mother tongue, since I live near Antwerp) friend, the Greek also had them already though. Extremely sexy 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
An amphitheater is a "fighting arena", and only known among Romans. The Greek played box, and this game was often performed in open fields (but never in an amphitheater, I'm sure). There were no amphitheaters in "Greece". The theater you must be talking about is the theatre, wich is a place for actors (only male by the way) to partake in dramas. This type of theater was, among other cultural features, directly adopted (from the Greeks) into common Roman life. Albo NL 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I always learnt about "Greek amphitheaters" at school, and I followed Greek and Latin at secondary school, hence. Extremely sexy 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Tu quoque, Bartus?:P You must know that thát is no reasoning. Ik houd voet bij stuk. Uw Nederlandse vriend 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL, but still no proof for this. Extremely sexy 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
My rather Flemish friend, please check http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Bart_Versieck. Albo NL 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Goed: dan zal ik daar even kijken. Extremely sexy 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

significant interments

Orde Wingate (a British officer) is buried at Arlington because his remains could not be seperated from those of the (American) crew of the aircraft which was carrying him when it crashed. Is this worth mentioning as significant? Or are there several cases like it? 82.13.83.244 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the "Tomb of Unknowns" section

The 1st paragraph states that it has never been officially named. But then the 3rd paragraph states: It was initially named the "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier." Other unknown servicemen were later buried there, and the name became "Tomb of the Unknowns." Obviously there is something awry here. Possibly a distinction is being made between government and popular labels, but if it is it's not well-stated. The first paragraph is confirmed by Arlington's official website at http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/tomb_of_the_unknowns.html . 69.227.126.47 07:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it to read It was initially known as the "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier." Other unknown servicemen were later buried there, and is now known as the "Tomb of the Unknowns." How does that sound? Lord Bodak 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. Remove the contradiction tag if you think so. Zchris87v 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain America

I have the news that Captain America is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. An issue of his funeral, called Fallen Son, will be released the day after the 4th of July. To find out more, click on this link: Captain America to be buried at Arlington. Man, it has taken a few months to come up with a burial scene not unlike the Anna Nicole Smith case, right? --Angeldeb82 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Southern Soldiers?

Were Southern Soldiers from the Civil War Buried in Arlington Cemetary as well? -82riceballs

That is mentioned near the end of the notable sites section; look for "Confederate Memorial". (SEWilco 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

exception to Arlington policy

Notable, I should think: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april082008/ww1_vet_4-8-08.php — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a notable link. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Add it! --ScreaminEagle (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil War unknown soldier

I was gathering media in preparation for an improvement push on Tomb of the Unknowns and came across Image:Tomb of the Unknown of Civil War.jpg at the Library of Congress. Does anyone know any background on this memorial? Kelly hi! 05:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off list

I figured that it would be use to split of the list of individuals buried at the cometary into a separate list so that is what I did. Let me know if this causes any problems. Remember (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personnel Issues

I respect the media coverage issue, but I don't feel that it is a major event in the life of the cemetery. There is a large amount of detail on a personnel issue. The conversation's between her and her boss, the change of title and the deletion of her blackberry account have nothing to do with the cemetery. It also sounds slanted. The mention of the issue of media access is appropriate, the rest should be edited out. --Boufa (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added some new information. The lawsuit is attracting congressional attention because it contains some serious accusations against the cemetery's leadership and the US Army. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate forum for an airing of Ms. Gina Gray's petty woes. Given that she has chosen this as a venue - one which honors the many who suffered and died on a scale barely imaginable to humble men and women - indicates that there is a hyper-inflated, if not delusional, ego at work which is the probable cause of her employment difficulties. Such individuals are rarely credible and it speaks poorly of the editors that it is allowed to remain. Please remove this stain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVL (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you cannot remove the information yourself. Personally, I think it is noteable, considering very recent events at the place. Lots42 (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A greater controversy than the media access

The burial of M. Larry Lawrence was one of the greatest scandals to involve Arlington that I am aware of. Lawrence lied about his military service. In fact, he was a draft dodger. But because he had donated large sums to get Bill Clinton elected the White House fixed it so he could be buried in Arlington, even though no record of his service could be located. Eventually the scandal broke and he had to be rebuired elsewhere. This story in covered in Wikipedia under M. Larry Lawrence, but no link or mention of it is in the Arlington article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.135.210 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Church-State separation

In light of recent controversies about crosses at the Mojave National Preserve, certain observers have openly wondered whether the crosses at Arlington National Cemetary could ever come under public scrutiny because of strict interpretations of Church-State separation, which forbid any kind of religious display on public property. This could perhaps be examined within the boundaries of the existing article. [1][2][3] ADM (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On Hallowed Ground

The current History section is boring compared with what is revealed in On Hallowed Ground: The Story of Arlington National Cemetery, by Robert M. Poole and Robert M. Poole (Hardcover - Oct 27, 2009). I'm not a history buff. Will someone please pick up the baton from here? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria Redundancy

In the burial criteria section, it is first listed that any active or former member of the Armed Forces (except those who were just in training) may be buried in Arlington. Later on, it is mentioned that any U.S. government official may be buried there, provided that he or she has served on active duty in the armed forces. Isn't that redundant? All these officials (and the others mentioned) would be eligible anyway due to the fact that they served in the military. So the office would not play any relevant role. --Hansbaer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

  • First, that's the legal criteria, so I don't think the article could be changed just because we think it's redundant. Second, the officeholder criteria you refer is not all-encompasing. "Former" does not mean "retired" (as per criteria #2 or #3), as "retired" requires a certain length of service; may not mean discharged prior to 1949 for medical reasons (as per criteria #4); may not have been awarded a medal (per criteria #5); and so on. I believe this section is so lengthy, and requires such extensive explanation (witness our discussion here on the Talk page) that it should be broken off into its own article. There is a long history of the burial criteria which could also be added, to provide historical background on this important issue. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. An own article or at least a more structured section in this article sounds reasonable to me. These fine distinctions are not apparent at first sight and should probably be explained. Maybe it's a good idea to start with a general introduction that the cemetery is restricted to members of the Armed Forces and their close relatives. Then, additional requirements can be specified. --Hansbaer (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There is also an argument to be made that the burial criteria are not, per se, encylopedic and the entire section should be removed. Perhaps it would be enough to simply document that burial criteria have changed over the years, and generally describe the ways in which that has happened. Wikipedia is not an instruction book on how to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery; that's what VA publications, the U.S. Code, federal regulations, and Arlington's Web site are for. So why repeat them here -- verbatim (e.g., stolen)? - Tim1965 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies at Arlington - include or not

1. "Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." 2. "Scandal mongering [muckraking] , something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person [or place]." 3. "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." [at the time you attempted to document a breaking news story]

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not. 2010-06-11 1038CST.

Based on the above information provided by the Wikimedia Foundation I believe the section (at the time of the action) was 'unencyclopedic'. I stand by my edits and trust you will do the right thing. This message concludes my involvement in the dispute. 70.92.132.205 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, since the article and section in question do not violate #1 or #2 above, you have quoted them for no reason. As for #3, you ignore the primary issue: "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Since the scandal in question led to long-term organizational changes at Arlington National Cemetery, it qualifies as encyclopedic. I am also posting this information on the article Talk page for others to weigh in on. Your views are yours, but they may not be a consensus view for Wikipedia.. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The managerial chaos is at the Cemetary is very noteable and should be on the page. Lots42 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the "added encyclopedic value". I do not think it is 'history' yet and the historical significance is yet to be learned; therefore, premature to include it. Just my opinion.Meyerj (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Secretary of the Army has personally apologized, the director of the cemetery has resigned/retired under pressure and in disgrace, his deputy appears to be getting fired (firing a long-time federal employee is very rare), the story made the front page of the Washington Post, and the Department of the Army has established a high-level senior executive service position to supervise the cemetery. I think that for now it's safe to include the controversy in the article. Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
That is news and current events, not encyclopedic material (not yet). We obviously have differing opinions and I respect your right to have yours. Meyerj (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

WP:V/WP:RS support for adding Yasukuni Shrine in the "See also" section of Arlington National Cemetery includes the following:

"Arlington National Cemetery and Yasukuni Jinja (The Shrine of the Peaceful Land) are symbols of the histories of the United States of America and Japan. Arlington National Cemetery and Yasukuni Jinja have a common purpose--to honor the war dead--but the two are very different. Arlington National Cemetery, which was created in controversy, is today is a place of peaceful repose. Yasukuni Jinja had very dignified origins, yet now is embroiled in disputes."
A veteran "questions why it is all right for American politicians to visit Arlington but not acceptable for Japanese prime ministers to come to Yasukuni... There is no response to the veteran’s comparison of Yasukuni and Arlington, no discussion of fundamental–and crucial–differences between the two."
"Yasukuni-as-Arlington has long been a favorite theme for Japanese veterans and relatives who seek a more formal, public display of honor -- and grief -- toward the war dead and who admire the way the U.S. has taken care of and publicly honored its veterans."
"American officials raise an eyebrow at Japanese comparisons of Yasukuni to Arlington National Cemetery. But they tend to defend, albeit somewhat uncomfortably, Japanese visits to Yasukuni, or maintain a studied silence."
"Yasukuni, a grand Shinto shrine located in the heart of Tokyo, is the Japanese equivalent of America's tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. The Yasukuni controversy is akin to an American president being pressured to avoid visiting Arlington Cemetery, say, after the Vietnam War. Arlington is indeed often on the itinerary of a Japanese prime minister on an official visit to Washington, but no American president would think of visiting Yasukuni."

In the context these citations create, this small edit seems justified. --Tenmei (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Many such national tombs echo Arlington National Cemetery. Should all of them be included? Under this criteria, they would be. But I do not think that is what a "See Also" is for. As the guidelines on "See Also" sections note, "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one." My guess is that referring to the Yasukuni Shrine would not fit into the main text of the article, and thus should not be in the "See Also" section. But let's see what other editors say. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
are they suggesting US war dead are comparable to the crimes done in WWII? I can't see the comparison. Yasukuni house war criminal, I have no problem with remembering the dead, they are dead after all and I can forgave, but shouldn't Yasukuni also remember the raped and murdered too? I don't like the language that they turn war criminal into victim. Germany leaders attend ceremony for holocaust victim, they never put Hitler's name in their war memorial. So it is complicated, I understand the emotion on both side, but I prefer people don't try and justify it and instead try and forgave... Yasukuni should exist, but it should do more to ease the pain then to ignore it. 218.186.17.240 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Military Cemetery" Link The opening paragraph of the article refers to Arlington as a "military cemetery" - a generic and apt term - but then links to "United States National Cemetery" - country specific and clearly relevant, but not the proper link if one wishes to convey Arlington as a "military cemetery" in general.

For accuracy and clarity, I suggest that either the link be retained and the text itself be changed to "United States National Cemetery," or the text be retained but the link changed to point to "military cemetery." Incidentally, "military cemetery" does not exist as a distinct topic from "cemetery." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.129.210 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete list of names

As the separate List of people buried at Arlington National Cemetery has already been created, I suggest the list of names in the sections "Notable civilians" and "Military burials" be deleted. They are completely redundant, and defeat the purpose of having two separate pages. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about religious symbols at Arlington

Recently we visited Arlington Cemetery (I have a relative interned there), and we noticed there were crosses with circles around them, and crosses with no circle around them. Does anyone know why this is? I cannot find it through my research. Sjerdan (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

= I believe Arlington follows the same symbols as the VA does for its cemeteries (the VA makes the tombstones for Arlington, including inscriptions). Here is a link for the VA symbols--do any match? http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp JeffreyW75 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Official site changed TLD, and broke link paths, too

We have a number of links to arlingtoncemetery.org that are now broken. At some point, the official site has moved to arlingtoncemetery.mil. And it's been reworked--just switching .org to .mil doesn't restore the links. And any link to the old domain redirects to the front page of the new site. I saw this first at Tomb of the Unknowns and did some work there. I updated the main link in External Links, here, but ran out of time to go through the other references right now, and see what material is still there, under new urls. I'll hope to get back to it; if anyone else can, too, there's a bit of work needed here. Thanks. Ale And Quail (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

CIA eligibility

Someone added the following in the eligibility criteria, which I don't think is an official eligibility criteria: "Individuals awarded the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Intelligence Star, which is considered the equivalent of the US Military's Silver Star and recognized as such by the President of the United States" The cite for it appears to be a not-available-on-the-web book on President Bush, probably citing an example where CIA agents were permitted to be buried at the cemetery in the past. However, there is no Executive Order, federal regulation, memorandum, etc., that seems to make this an official position of the federal government (none that I could find at least, but please cite it if there is). So this sounds more like the discretion of the President to authorize exceptions on a case by case basis, versus actual eligibility for burial. In practice, it may be automatic that the President grants these. But officially, I see nothing that actually states this. So the wording needs changed unless someone can point to a more clear source on why this is official U.S. government policy (not a private book by a private author).JeffreyW75 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

President eligibility

The article says any President or former President of the U.S. is eligible for burial, but provides no citation for that statement. The regulations cited in the article (in the CFR) state that an elected offial is eligible, provided their last active duty military service must have ended honorably. Otherwise, there does not appear to be any direct legal authority for their burial at Arlington. If they are buried there, it again falls on the discretion of government officials apparently--discretion to basically allow anyone they want to be buried there into the cemetery, even if they aren't per se eligible. So I'm striking that portion also, but happy to discuss it further on here, especially if you have a cite to the authority for them to be buried. In practice, they are probably always granted an exception if requested, but by law, the authority doesn't seem to be there (similar to the above part regarding CIA agents). JeffreyW75 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

British Commonwealth War Graves

I would like to incorporate some statement about those buried in the cemetery whose graves are registered by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, whose own website states there are 11 such war graves from World War I and 19 from World War II (Field Marshal Sir John Dill and Gen Orde Wingate being two of the latter). The information I propose to give is what I have just mentioned. Any suggestion as to where in the article this could be put (I am a Briton wishing to fit in with the preferences of American compilers and readers)? Would it fit the spirit of that article if it were mentioned in the existing article List of Individuals buried in the cemetery.Cloptonson (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

State funerals at Arlington

At Arlington National Cemetery/Archive 1 § Notable burials, the second 'graph said that four state funerals have taken place at Arlington, but then listed five (so I corrected the count):

There are some problems with verification, though:

  • Taft's "funeral" was held at a Unitarian Church, according to Last Salute Chapter II. The "brief graveside service", while attended by many, sounds like it was more military in character.
  • Similarly, JFK's "funeral" was at St. Matthew's Cathedral, with "graveside rites" at Arlington. Last Salute Chapter 23 draws the distinction in various places, like "It was now firmly established that the funeral service would be held at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington and that burial would take place in Arlington National Cemetery."
  • Last Salute Chapter 28 calls RFK's service a "Funeral Without Formal Classification". The "requiem mass" was held with 2,000 people in attendance at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, while the "graveside service" at Arlington was limited to 700.
  • According to the WP article, Ted Kennedy's "funeral mass" was held in Boston, with "burial" at Arlington.
  • Pershing appears to be the only one of the five that was clearly at Arlington. According to [Last Salute Chapter 3], "...funeral service in the [Arlington] Memorial Amphitheater..."
  • The state funerals of both the Unknown Soldier of World War I (Last Salute Chapter 1) and Unknown Soldiers of World War II and the Korean War (Last Salute Chapter 14) were clearly at Arlington Memorial Amphitheatre (but are not in our list).
  • Last Salute Appendix C further verifies the above.

So, I count three "State Funerals at Arlington": Pershing, WW I unknown, and WW II/Korean unknowns. Right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There remains an inconsistency between this page and the "List Of People Buried at Arlington National Cemetery" page, on the number of state funerals. This page says five, the other says four.Ndovu (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Two issues

There are two items at the bottom of the article that should be removed. First, there is a terrorism portal. Also, there is a Google mapping template that only maps two points. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Arlington National Cemetery marks 150 years"

--Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Private Residence in Arlington

On a recent tour of Arlington National Cemetery, I noticed a private residence on the grounds. I searched everywhere on the internet but couldn't come up with anything. I finally sent an Email to them and received the below response. I am not sure which section of the article this would appear in, but it would be nice if it was mentioned somewhere. I cannot find a picture of the house, but it can be seen in the satellite view of Arlington National. It is near the corner of Custis Walk and Ord and Weitzel Drive.

EMAIL Correspondence: USARMY Pentagon HQDA ANC OSA Mailbox ANC PAO <usarmy.pentagon.hqda-anc-osa.mbx.anc-pao@mail.mil> 8:01 AM (41 minutes ago) Reply to me Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Geralyn: The executive director of the Army National Military Cemeteries currently lives onsite. He oversees Arlington, the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery in Washington, D.C. and all Army military cemeteries. In the past, the superintendent of Arlington lived onsite.

Hello. I am trying to find out information about the private residence within Arlington National Cemetery. The sign at the end of the drive simply said it is a private residence. Is this a caretaker's house? Gmkoehler (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Poor Wording

Poor wording has been found within the first paragraph of the "Arlington National Cemetery" article. The issue is quoted below:

'...in whose 624 acres (253 ha) have been buried the dead of the nation's conflicts beginning with the American Civil War, as well as reinterred dead from earlier wars.'

Please fix this error ASAP.

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.3.206 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Arlington National Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Corrected links to NPS Cultural Landscape Report on the Arlington House, by Jennifer Hanna. Struck out applicable lines reported by the "http to https" bot. - KMJKWhite (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Arlington National Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Arlington National Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arlington National Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arlington_National_Cemetery/Archive_1&oldid=1136530091"