Talk:Tomb of the Unknowns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

From Tomb of the Unknown Soldier: "Although memorials to unknown soldiers of previous wars (such as the 1866 memorial to the unknown dead of the American Civil War) predate the Westminster Abbey one, it started the current trend."

Should the 1866 memorial not also be included here?


Took in text from http://www.mdw.army.mil/FS-A04.HTM in its entirety. As a work of the U.S. Government, this document is in the public domain, and we can use it to create our GFDL work. -- Anon.

Contents

[edit] factual accuracy

Removing the following per the information in this link:

In the fall of 2003, Hurricane Isabel moved through the Washington, DC area. The winds were so strong that trees were knocked down. Although the guards were, for the first time ever, given permission to abandon their post, they refused, and continued to walk the mat despite the storm. --ZekeMacNeil 01:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


It says here: http://www.tombguard.org/FAQ.html#Do%20you%20guard%20in%20a%20blizzard%20or%20a%20bad%20thunderstorm?

It was erroneously reported that during Hurricane Isabel, the Sentinels were ordered to abandon their posts for shelter and that they refused. *No such order was ever given.* All proper precautions were taken to ensure the safety of the Sentinels while accomplishing their mission. Risk assessments are constantly conducted by the Chain of Command during changing conditions to ensure that soldier welfare is maintained during mission accomplishment.

Article should be updated.

It has been done. Taco325i 19:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the article said that they were given permission not ordered to leave their posts. The website Taco linked to neither confirmed nor denied the rumor that permission was given. That's the story I'd heard, that they were given permission to leave but chose not to. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I was informed of this rumor by the Arlington guides on the tour of the site. If it's an official story of the tour, which I would assume would be pre-approved (if not scripted entirely) by government officials, that gives some credibility to the rumor. You are correct - giving permission is not the same thing as issuing an order.

I was the 543rd person to earn the Tomb Guard Badge, and served there for 15 months. Guards were never given permission to leave their post. Provisions were made, that if the storm got bad enough, they would "extend" the limits of the guards' post to inside the building directly west of the tomb, and the guards would watch through windows during their shift. The storm never got that bad, and the guards were never given, nor did they ever need, permission to "abandon" their post. I know of no internet page to cite this with, only my personal knowledge of the even (which is significant) and the personal account of Tom Sherlock (head historian for Arlington Cemetery). 543 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits recently

I have recently reverted a few edits from User:208.201.188.235. The reason that I have changed them back is because the changed made the title Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Which is a completely seperate article due to the fact that other nations aside from the US have such tombs for unknown soldiers. I have however kept some info from on of these edits regarding the duty, which is the last paragraph of the article. -- Malo 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I nearly did the same thing, except that you got there first and the edit conflict engine didn't tell me. Also, are you sure about the 'haircut and shaving twice per day' thing? - mholland 16:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not 100% about the shave and haircut, however I have seen these soldiers in person and they are extremely well groomed. I have also seen a documentary on the guard duty of the tomb, and it doesn't seem unreasonable, to me, considering the hours and hours they spend preparing. I'm still searching for verifiable facts, but no links just yet. -- Malo 16:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I found one about haircuts here however no word on shaving just yet. -- Malo 16:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

haircuts are required every other work day. guards must be clean shaven at all times - for me that meant at least twice a day, most people got away with only once though. again, my only reference is 15 months of doing it. 543 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentinals' uniform care

I am wondering about the section about the sentinals maticulous care about their uniform as I have read I had thought that was an urban legend

Some of that email that went around was urban legend, some of it was accurate. The website designed by present and former guards explains which are which. The meticulous care of their uniforms and their appearance is true. The bit about not talking for six months (and you can see that, right? Guy scribbling madly on his little chalkboard to talk to his wife at the dinner table)? Not so true. --ScreaminEagle 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oisiu-Eisue

What battle is this? Rmhermen 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oisiu-Eiseu: What a bad joke. It isn't the only problem with "Ardenne, Belleauwood, Chateau-Terrie, Meusse-Argonne, Oisiu-Eiseu and Sommes.". Battle of the Somme, no "s", it's a river(la Somme), in 1916, US Army arrived in France summer 1917...Battle of the Ardennes, an "s" here, mountains' chain(Les Ardennes), and not a WWI battle but WWII... Only someone from "The Old Guard"(US Army) could write such horrors: it has been in their manuals of history for years. Those small faulty "historical details" are just some of the numerous tags inserted into "The Old Guard" manuals, books, symbols, uniforms, ceremonies and so on: for proof that they are not guarding anything and are honorless. This whole article is infected since many sources comes from the "The Old Guard". I won't work on that article: They are sensed being the historical authority concerning the Tomb, they are also in charge to protect, rather than playing the "Oisiu-Eisue", ;).--Tagsforlife 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree..the Battle of Ardennes was in August of 1914, one of the first of WWI[1]. also, i thought wikipedia encouraged constructive edits....nothing you said was constructive, please be constructive. 543 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb Guard close up photo

Besides the image I put on the front page, here's a close up that might be useful or not.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

close up of Tomb Guard
close up of Tomb Guard


[edit] 9/11 remains

I've heard, and until I read this site beleived, that an unknown 9/11 victim had recently been placed in the Tomb. If this is not true, can anyone say how this urban legend got started--Dudeman5685 08:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, definitly not true. I have never heard of this urban legend.~ Rorndoff 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be it: a propsed monument to 9/11 in the national mall was modeled after the Tomb of the Unknowns http://www.nd.edu/~observer/11202002/News/0.html --Dudeman5685 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rank Insigniae

The article says:

> The sentinels do not wear rank insignia on their uniforms, so they do not outrank the Unknowns, whatever their rank may have been.

This image shows such a guard, with a SSGT (E-6) insignia on his left sleeve:

.

I don't think sourcing this will help, we'll probably have to just cut it.
--Baylink 20:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sergeant is not a sentinal, but the "Assistant Relief Commander", as the caption says. The two sentinals (new and old) holding the rifles, are wearing no chevrons, as are the sentinals in all of the other photos. I have been there, if you go inside the building, you will see a sentinal uniform on display where is tells about the the sentinal's uniform and explains about the absence of rank insignia. --rogerd 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The six wreaths

I removed the following:

Chateau-Thierry, the Ardennes, Oisiu-Eisue, Meuse-Argonne, Belleau Wood, and the Somme

as there's no such battle as "Oisiu-Eisue", but don't want to only list five of the six. Please don't return this sentence until the six battles have been verified and referenced. Dan100 (Talk) 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

According to my WW I Chronology there has been a battle near the channel from Oise to Aisne (channel as referenced here: Aisne_River ) which was fought during the 1917 Spring Offensive... Must be a veritable missspelling even when going after sound, but it's the closest hit i could find... --84.245.165.242 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sunglasses

"The guards are the only ones in the armed services who are issued sunglasses, due to the bright reflection from the marble surrounding the tomb and the ampitheater."

I'm fairly certain Army Rangers are issued Oakley sunglasses. Also if we do decide to keep this it should mention they are the only one issued to the US armed services. --BHC 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wiley-X Lobo Saber Slate Lens Sunglasses standard issue to US Navy Seals, FBI, Army Rangers, 100% UV protection, 2.5mm ballistic polycarbonate lens, adjustable rubber tipped saber temple, rubber nosepiece. Sunglasses Wiley-X Sunglasses ...." from this site, Oakley sunglasses are "Elite Special Forces Standard Issue" from this site, and this site claims this of the Wiley-X Modular Tactical Goggles:

"SeriesWiley X has been supplying ballistic sunglasses and tactical goggles for our nation’s finest fighting forces for over 17 years. Wiley X worked closely with military and federal law enforcement agencies in designing these ballistic sunglasses & tactical goggles, then Wiley X made changes according to the feed back obtained from these elite forces. Currently Wiley X protective eyewear is standard issue for the Army Rangers, 160th SOAR, 82nd ABN, 101st ABN, Army Special Forces Groups, Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Operation Squadron's, Marine Corp E.O.D., F.B.I. and D.E.A., just to name a few."

I had also heard that they were the only ones officially issued sunglasses, but that may have been just once upon a time. It would certainly seem that is not the case anymore. It can still be stated that they are among the few US forces issued sunglasses, or they are the only non-combat US forces issued sunglasses for their duties, or whathaveyou. --ScreaminEagle 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

they are for sure the only unit authorized to wear sunglasses in the dress blue uniform. 543 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits about the uniform

An unidentified editor (an Army officer supposedly?) took out claims that the uniforms take up to 8 hours to prepare and are of solid wool because his friends told him otherwise, etc. This is not an acceptable reason for altering the text. From the Tomb Sentinels' website: "It takes the average Sentinel 8 hours to prep his/her uniform for the next work day." From the page specifically on uniforms, also from the Society of the Honor Guard's website: "Summer Uniform: The current uniform used by the Guards is the standard issue Army Dress Blue uniform. It is made of 100% wool. The uniform consists of a blouse, trousers, service cap, and white shirt w/ black tie. Winter Uniform: The winter uniform used is also 100% wool and consists of an overcoat, white scarf, trousers, service or cold weather cap, and white shirt w/ black tie." I have replaced the text that was removed. --ScreaminEagle 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

The Boy Scouts of America presented the Silver Buffalo Award, their highest award, to the Unknown Soldier in 1928.[2] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Guarding" the tomb?

Since the job title of the guard suggests that he (or in three instances, she) must "guard" the tomb, does this mean that if anyone attempts to get close to the tomb or cause harm to it they would stop their steps and shoot the person? It's a highly ridiculous situation, but are the guards trained to actually do anything if the sanctity of the tomb is compromised, or is the position merely symbolic? In other words, to what extent does the term "guard" actually apply to the the tomb guard? └Jared┘┌t┐  14:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do protect the tomb to the point of confronting people who cross over the ropes, etc. They take the responsibility of protecting the tomb very seriously (and there's a reason their guns are inspected before every shift, you know?). Do you think they're just going to stand by and whine about it if someone rushes past them and starts climbing the tomb? They're going to do something about it, guaranteed. Whether or not they actually shoot you is up to you, I suppose. :) --ScreaminEagle 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I figured as much, but has it ever happened? I mean, do they just break off mid-stride if they feel that the tomb is being invaded? It just seems like one of those things that you would never expect to happen, so I was just wondering the whether there were orders to protect the tomb to that extent. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely they will protect the tomb to that extent. That's their entire purpose for being there. If there were never the chance of someone disrespecting the tomb in any way, they wouldn't be there. The Walk would never supercede the sentinel's primary purpose for being there, which is to protect; if it needs protecting, they'll stop everything and do it. Their own website talks about tourists and kids who cross the line and are terrified when the sentinels confront them. So obviously, it's happened, but the offenders probably didn't do so with malicious intent and the guards know that, meaning I'd be surprised if they got a rifle butt to the face. However, that doesn't stop them from performing their duty, though.
If you would like to ask them yourself, you can always email the webmaster of the tomb guard's webpage, who is a former tomb sentinel himself. I've asked him many questions and he's always happy to answer. Be sure and tell us what he says, as it's always interesting. --ScreaminEagle 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry to burst your bubble guys, but the webmaster of the tombguard.org website is a "Her" not a "Him." She is always willing to answer questions, and if she does not get back to you quickly I am also willing to do the same. I served at the Tomb for 15 months and am an active member in the Tomb Guard Society (the group that keeps up the website, among other things). adamnemon@gmail.com 543 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The tomb may be replaced

Officials at Arlington National Cemetary are considering replacing the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with a new replica. I didn't see this mentioned in the article but it is an important piece of information and should be added. →Wordbuilder 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Come up with a reliable source and you can. --ScreaminEagle 12:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There's the catch. The information is from an email from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I am unable to find the announcement on their website. I know non-web sources such as books and magazines can be used but does the same hold true for emails? →Wordbuilder 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds doubtful. It could very well be a ploy to get people all worked up over nothing (fund raiser?), rather than actual fact. Until it's published published, I refuse to believe something so ridiculous. So I would let it go until you can find actual proof beyond an email. --ScreaminEagle 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It actually wasn't a fundraising email. It was a political action push (contact your senators; contact the superintendent of Arlington). Anyway, I'll keep looking and see what I can turn up. →Wordbuilder 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They have the article on their website now. Since it's under the advocacy section and doesn't give any detail as to where they are getting their facts, I'm not sure it qualifies as a proper source. →Wordbuilder 02:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I found that last night as well, but I couldn't find anywhere else that mentioned it or that didn't use that particular aricle as its source. I think it would behoove us to write to the foundation directly and ask them how they found out about this and then move from there (but according to their article the decision will be reached on the 30th, so we should move quickly. I vote for you. :) ).--ScreaminEagle 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this instead, which is ANC's official document on the entire issue, including the exact problem, proposed solutions to the problem, the history of the Tomb and how it classifies as a national historic landmark, etc. After reading the entire thing, it is evidently clear that the information found on National Trust's website is exceedingly POV. To use it as a reference would be particularly unwise. The damage to the Tomb far exceeds what readers are led to believe given their description of the issue. I would say it is indeed a good thing to add this information, but only the information found in the official ANC's document as it appears that they have honestly tried to be as unbiased about the situation as possible, exploring every option available to them rather than only those that suit their purported interests. If you would like to write the addition, by all means. I can also write it, but my time is limited so it may take a little while to get to it.
Excellent catch, by the way. I had no idea this was an ongoing issue and the way that website talked about it, it seemed an overly asinine solution to a tiny problem. After getting all the facts, I can see what the problems are; very good to know. Props to you, my friend. --ScreaminEagle 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Good find on your part as well. I'll add the info to the article. How much space do you think it warrants? →Wordbuilder 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as stupid as it sounds, as much space as it needs to tell the whole story. I don't think there needs to be a space restriction on this, particularly since it deals absolutely directly with the article topic, as opposed to some issue that only has some themes in common. This information directly affects the subject and should be given ample enough space to make clear exactly what's going on with it as it affects the Tomb's listed history directly. First I would talk about the physical condition that the Tomb is in, pointing out the unexplained verticle cracks, as well as the inherent horizontal cracks that were likely there when the stone was quarried and have gotten worse through cleaning and weather erosion effects, etc. I would list what options the Cemetery is considering and what impact each would probably have according to their expertise. I don't think there's any need to go into depth about it being a historical landmark and thus needing the public's opinion, etc. (who cares?), but I would rely heavily on the scientific research they already performed to reach their analysis of the situation, always making sure to point out that it is ANC's researchers itself who came up with it, and not absolute, indisputable fact (they're just giving their best guess as to the future of the Tomb, too, right?). I certainly wouldn't go into as much depth as ANC has in that document, but I would summarize the applicable and pertinent sections to use for your text. Or at least that's what I would do. --ScreaminEagle 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persons who have lain in state or honor

Why are all these succession boxes spread throughout the article? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 45 minute rotation ceremony

Isn't there a longer, 45 minute rotation ceremony every 4 hours or so? Rates a mention, though I can't find anything. 71.178.191.108 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)