Talk:Arlington National Cemetery

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sir John Dill NOT 1st non-American buried here

message: Per undid edits  and  by , 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. 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)
replies: text: The full sentence in question is  versus 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)
replies: text: I agree decedent's is better. MB 14:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased's vs Decedent's 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A request for blacklisting has been submitted here. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arlingtoncemetery dot org 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, good job; I've added further hidden advice about not using that domain. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  I completely agree, that is the most appropriate solution, in my opinion at least. OgamD218 (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  www.arlingtoncemetery.net 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Mary Lee" 

message: 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)
replies: text: What specific benefit do you believe it provides? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FindaGrave