Talk:Memorial Day/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit Request

It is requested that an edit be made to this semi-protected template (see protection log). In addition, the date for semi-protection expires today, May 30, 2012. Please change "Formerly known as Decoration Day, it originated after the American Civil War to commemorate the Union soldiers who died in the Civil War." to "Formerly known as Decoration Day, it originated after the American Civil War to commemorate the *Union and Confederate* soldiers who died in the Civil War." Sources: 1. The rest of said article is my first source. In the article many sources and facts are used to prove that both the North and the South were honoring and remembering their dead before the day was officially recognized. 2. "Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all." <ref> http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html </ref> 3. "On the first Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, and 5,000 participants decorated the graves of the 20,000 Union _and Confederate_ soldiers buried there." (emphasis mine) <ref> http://www.history.com/topics/memorial-day-history</ref> --Nicky face (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Nicky Moore

Question

HI

Question: On Memorial Day, do shops, enterprises etc. work? Because, here in Greece, on National Holidays, the only things that work are cafeterias and restaurants, as well as the TV and radio stations.memorial day is kinda stupid because i dont know....

Many businesses and nearly all schools are open on the New Year observing Memorial Day (if the schools haven't let out for the summer already) so most families have a three-day weekend all together. It is seen as the traditional beginning of summer. Many families travel to see relatives, to the beach, the lake, or some other fun destination. Usually those that don't travel will mark the day in some way. As a result, businesses that cater to travellers and those on holiday will be open. Factories, banks, the postal services, corporate offices, many government services such as libraries and water departments, car repair shops, even restaurants that mainly serve lunch to business people will all be closed. I hope that answers your question. -Acjelen 15:44, 30 May 2005 (U of the holiday require Federal and most State governmental agencies to close (except fire, police, etc.) whereas businesses are free to either close or, as in most cases, pay overtime (1.5x) pay to those who work. As a former military officer, I appreciate the observance of a holiday dedicated to those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that others could enjoy a better life. - [Russian55, 26 May 2008]

memorial day (United States)

Should this be memorial day (United States)? 24.94.179.179 15:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so; unless there are holidays named Memorial Day in other countries. Mattlary 13:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why should it matter if there is another holiday like it anywhere else? If other countries do not honor the sacrifice of their servicemen in time of war, they are ungrateful to those who gave the greatest measure. [Russian55, 26 May 2008]

I think that Memorial Day is specifically a US holiday. In France and in UK, we honor those who died in time of war on November 11, the date of the armistice of the 1st World War, and called Remembrance Day or Armistice Day which is the American Veterans DAy. From what I understand, there is a public holiday in Greece in October called Ochi Day which celebrates military honors. I see no reference to Memorial Day in Greece nor I am aware of a similar holiday on the same date in other parts of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.242.236.66 (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MSN Encarta highlight for 30 May 2005

An article on Memorial Day is highlighted today at MSN Encarta, located at Memorial Day. Courtland 17:14, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I was taught that Decoration Day/Memorial Day was established by President Abraham Lincoln. Is there any documentation for this?

Question About Military Status in Remembrance

Does Memorial Day honor veterans who died after discharge from military service dishonorably? How about those who were convicted of felonies after their discharge from the military? And, of course, does the current federal holiday honor those who served in the Confederate armies but who died later after signing an oath of loyalty to the Union?

101 Critical Days of Summer

"The USAF "101 Critical days of summer" also begin on this day as well."

Redundant. Please change to either:
The USAF "101 Critical days of summer" begin on this day as well.
or
The USAF "101 Critical days of summer" also begin on this day.

Also, since it is an official Air Force title, all of the words should be capitalized except for "of". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camknows (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

While a minor quibble, a better line would be "The US Military's safety campaign, the 101 Critical Days of Summer also begins on this day." Or something along those lines. The Air Force isn't the only branch that participates, at the very least the Marine Corps and the Navy do as well, and Army PowerPoint presentations available through Google indicate that at least some of their posts do as well.Sdsanders 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Reference for Memorial Day

A good reference for information about Memorial Day is at www.memorialday.org. Katiecalif 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad link to a non-existent page.

- Try this website www.usmemorialday.org You can find out information about US Memorial Day. Memorial Day is a day to remember those who have died during our nation's service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.80.138 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article fetures USA memorial day only?

There are memorial days in other countries too. I believe it should be renamed into USA_Memorial_Day.

Ans: Once there are entries for Memorial Day in other countries, it's certain that the article WILL be renamed. Until then, there's little point in differentiating betwixt entries that exist and those that don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.0.96 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Let's get articles on Memorial Days in other countries, and create a disambiguation page to allow the reader to select specific article(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hersbruck (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorial Day (disambiguation) now exists. I understand it is not necessary to move Memorial Day to Memorial Day (United States). Currently Memorial Day (United States) redirects to Memorial Day. HaŋaRoa (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Decoration Day?

"The southeastern U.S. celebrates Decoration Day as a day to decorate the graves of all family members, and it is not reserved for those who served in the military. The region observes Decoration Day the Sunday before Memorial Day."

The whole Southeastern region doesn't celebrate this "Decoration Day." A list of the states would be a better reference. I don't know of any celebrations here in North Carolina versus the celebration of Memorial Day itself. The source of the celebration observance is needed to make the "comment" more valid.65.82.105.98 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never heard of "decoration day" in the South either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.75.67 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But some of us have heard of it. It tends to be on a date such as the first Sunday after the first Saturday (or whatever)of the month. That goes back to when many small rural churches had services only once a month (although some of the Decoration Days are for family, rather than church, graveyards). This is a very important annual occasion for many of us. These events are sometimes announced in local newspapers now. Owners of local flower shops in those areas can tell you that such events occur on various Sundays during the summer. 50.104.198.87 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From childhood (1950s) I recall Decoration Day being held at Brown's Mountain Cemetery on the weekend (held almost like family reunions as many families had moved to the city from the mountain during WWII), and Memorial Day being observed seperately at the veteran's cemetery on a Monday, usually both Decoration Day and Memorial Day being on different days within Memorial Day Weekend. And not all the families who met were members of the church: the criterion for inclusion was having family buried at the cemetery. Decoration Day was and is celebrated by the individual churches or communities, and is a holiday of the people or their local church, not an official state holiday.--Naaman Brown (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment on the main page saying that Memorial Day was called Decoration Day before the Uniform Monday Holiday Act is not accurate. I was born in 1950, and learned the holidays by 1958 or 1959, and as far as I can remember, it was always called Memorial Day. My father used to call it Decoration Day, but that sounded very old-fashioned. - Ed Gehringer 10 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.250.49.213 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Whitsun

This is also a UK/European holiday known as Whitsun, which I note doesnt have an article. A bit POV, methinks, and needs resolving, SqueakBox 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Start of summer? I think not.

To me, Memorial Day is still springtime. But I live in Western Oregon where the hottest time of year runs from late June through mid-September, so the "start of summer" definition may work better for the hot-summer climates.

Its all relative. Please sign your comments. (~~~~)--Mazeau (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In Minnesota (certainly not a "hot southern climate") most of us consider Memorial Day the unofficial start of summer. Most of the kids here get out of school within the next week or two, most people go to the lake for a weekend for the first time and a lot of activities that are thought of as summer activities start around this time.

dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.169.58 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should say that it is the start of the summer vacation/beach season. Many beaches in the NE USA open then. Also, for fashionistas, is it the start of the period when it is considered proper to wear white? - BPilgraim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rselcov (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

POV Objection?

Perhaps I've missed it somewhere, but there doesn't appear to be any argument supporting the application of a POV flag to this article and I've removed it. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User "Frap" has reinstated the POV objection apparently without comment. Wikipedia is quite clear on the use of this tag...

To mark a dispute on a page, type {{POV}}, which expands into:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic.

I am, again, removing the POV tag and, hopefully, user Frap will express what he deems to be unacceptable before he again reverts. It's difficult to achieve consensus when there is no specific objection. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

POV McCutcheon Deleted

I deleted the McCutcheon cartoon because it is non-neutral political propaganda. I think it shows incredibly poor judgement on the part of the editor who inserted it to put an anti-war cartoon on a Memorial Day encyclopedia entry. John Chamberlain (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possible the person who tagged this article for POV before did so because of the McCutcheon cartoon.

Opening Paragraph

While the changes I made are almost minor, I believe they reflect both better grammar and composition.

1.) The subject of this article is contained in both the title and first 2 words of the opening paragraph. Repetition of the subject name as opposed to "it" in the relatively short introduction (3 sentences) strikes me as linguistic overkill. Nobody's memory or reading skill is THAT bad. Comments?

2.) In my opinion there is no comma required following "after World War 1" in the second sentence as it is a necessary qualifier to the remainder of the sentence. For example, the sentence might also be concluded thusly...

"...it was expanded to include casualties of any war or military action after World War I."

In that case the insertion of a comma after "action" would not make sense and, perhaps, that is a better edit afterall. In fact, re-reading the text, I'll insert the above and solicit...Comments? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooooops. Looking at this a third time, I realize that placing "after World War I" at the end of the sentence appears to qualify the wrong element and have replaced that with the following...

"...it was expanded after World War I to include casualties of any war or military action."--JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Boalsburg, PA and official government resource

Two points: 1. The page currently mentions that Boalsburg, PA is the official birthplace of Memorial Day. This is not true; whatever claim Boalsburg may have to being the actual birthplace, the official birthplace was designated by Congress to be Waterloo, N.Y. Please change this ASAP (as a lot of people will access this page today - can't change it myself due to semiprotected status).

2. The above and a lot of other useful information about Memorial Day (including the fact that it was originally created as Decoration Day, can be found at this page by the Dept of Veterans Affairs.

JeroenKvanH (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy & OR

This article has a lot of issues with factual accuracy & OR. One such example is this: "the first memorial day was observed in 1865 by liberated slaves at the historic race track in Charleston. The site was a former Confederate prison camp as well as a mass grave for Union soldiers who had died while captive. The freed slaves reinterred the dead Union soldiers from the mass grave to individual graves, fenced in the graveyard & built an entry arch declaring it a Union graveyard; a very daring thing to do in the South shortly after North's victory. On May 30 1868 the freed slaves returned to the graveyard with flowers they'd picked from the countryside & decorated the individual gravesites, thereby creating the 1st Decoration Day. A parade with thousands of freed blacks and Union soldiers was followed by patriotic singing and a picnic." and "The official birthplace of Memorial Day is Boalsburg, Pennsylvania. The village was credited with being the birthplace because it observed the day on May 5, 1866, and each year thereafter, and because it is likely that the friendship of General John Murray, a distinguished citizen of Waterloo, and General John A. Logan, who led the call for the day to be observed each year and helped spread the event nationwide, was a key factor in its growth." or even "Some of the places creating an early memorial day include Charleston, South Carolina; Boalsburg, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia; Carbondale, Illinois; Columbus, Mississippi; many communities in Vermont; and some two dozen other cities and towns." Now, these sentences (and some are even whole paragraphs) are completely unreferenced, hence, I am challenging the factual accuracy of this article. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• We already have a tag that says the article needs more references. Do we really need the one for Neutrality and Original Research as well? It seems to be to be a reference problem, not a problem of neutrality or original research. JohnMGarrison (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur (as far as the "disputed" flag is concerned). Lack of references (which is an appropriate tag in this case) does not, in itself, suggest lack of accuracy. It appears that the tag is mis-applied here and there are interim steps short of tagging an entire article for inaccuracy.

From WP:AD (emphasis mine)...

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:

• correct it right away if you can and also add to the article, as citations, any reliable sources you used to verify the information.
• if the neutrality of the content is in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.
• if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
  • insert {{dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
  • (Or insert {{Dubious|section|date=August 2008}} replacing 'section' with the appropriate section on the talk page.)

I'm removing the tag and invite RC-0722 to comment here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which tag? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed" tag. I'm not sure what your "OR" objection is based upon and will table that for the moment. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I added the OR tags because the article has a lot of OR. Re-read my first post and you will see what I mean. B. The "Disputed" tag stems from the reference tag because several claims made in the aricle are unreferenced and could be cosidered innacurate. One such example is this: "Some of the places creating an early memorial day include Charleston, South Carolina; Boalsburg, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia; Carbondale, Illinois; Columbus, Mississippi; many communities in Vermont; and some two dozen other cities and towns." Now, what if we're wrong and it's three dozen cities and not two? That would then be considered factually innacurate. Hence the tag. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That would then be considered factually innacurate.

No, that would be considered factually unsupported, NOT factually inaccurate.

For the sake of continuity and conciseness, let's address one tag at a time...in this case, your "disputed" tag. It is not enough, as I read Wiki guidelines, to suggest the "inaccuracy" of an entire article (which is almost unfathomable anyway) without providing some evidence or documentation upon which specific "inaccuracies" might be challenged. Let me re-iterate...while your "references" tag is appropriate, lack of references does not necessarily imply inaccuracy. The disputed tag, therefore, has no foundation. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Mea culpa. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No "Mea culpas" necessary. Your edits were well-intentioned and inspired a productive discussion. The article does need work. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorial Day and Poppies

Just this past Memorial Day, my wife mentioned to me that she had always bought red poppies from the VFW for Memorial Day. I had never heard of this tradition, so I spent an hour or so perusing the Web on the subject. http://www.botanical.com/site/column_rita/flanders.html summarizes most of the the historical points I was able to find. http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=cmty.levelc&cid=127 discusses the involvement VFW in this tradition. I really can't research it out the way it needs to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.228.170 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits / suggestions.

Please add "American" to: First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War, it was expanded after World War I to include American casualties of any war or military action.

Please add where appropriate: Memorial Day in the United States typically does not offer the remembrance of fallen non-American military service personnel nor persons killed by the American military services either in or outside of the US. Mingmasterz (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)MingmasterZ

I dunno Ming...I think it's rather clear that the day commemorates American casualties...but I'll try your suggested edit just to see if if I'm able to edit a semi-protected. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

April 2009

{{original research}} and {{refimprove}} from back in date=May 2008 have been removed. It appears to be an old edit war which prompted these. I was WP:BOLD and removed them as the article seems to have improved since them. If you have specific issues with the article, please mention them here so all editors can see and address them. — MrDolomite • Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

3 PM local time vs. Eastern

In the "Traditional observance" section, the article currently states that 3PM Eastern time is the moment for observance. But on the government site www.remember.gov, it states that it is 3PM local time:

"""Wherever you are, observe the Moment at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day. Ask others to remember—relatives, friends, church, neighborhood, or co-workers to observe the Moment at places such as your neighborhood, local pool, picnic grounds, etc., for one minute of Remembrance. Participation can be informal as ringing a bell three times to signify the Moment."""

67.132.99.226 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

US Centric - Needs a disambig?

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_South_Korea page links to Memorial Day, but the text in that page refers to their own holiday, rather than commemorating the American version (which is possible, given the number of US troops there).

Should not the general "Memorial Day" article be about the type of holiday in general, with links or disambigs to the national-specific holidays? (Memorial_Day_(US), Memorial_Day_(South_Korea), etc...?) 70.142.51.21 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What

I want to kow what it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.174.86 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorial Day began as a Decoration Day for fallen soldiers of the Confederacy.

A reference for the origins of Memorial Day are here. General Logan's wife gives her personal account about visiting a historic church and whilst passing through the graveyard, noticed the flowers and confederate flags decorating the tombstones by the survivors of the fallen soldiers. Upon her return to Washington, DC she spoke of its effect upon her to her husband General Logan who proceeded to pass legislation to create a "Memorial Day" in the month of May for all the fallen soldiers of both sides.<ref>http://memorialdayorigin.info/logan.html</ref>
Your current account seems erroneous since slaves were only free in the 'rebellious' states (see the reference below) and were not necessarily the ones decorating the graves as you list.

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, ... in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, ...the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

<ref>http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html</ref>

Please document facts with references. --Robin in Cody (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is "We are here to play..." correct?

In the second paragraph of Memorial Day Order, is play the correct word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.6.57 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a link to a Memorial Day site spam?

Whether in a time of war or not it seems only fitting that a link to the facebook group "Memorial Day" would be found relevant by many of their 200 million users. Is there err in this thinking? 74.69.228.244 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Name change?

When did the holiday known for generations as "Decoration Day" get the drastic name change to "Memorial Day"? Some info would be useful. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says "Memorial Day" was first used in 1882 and that it became official finally in 1967. It's one of those things that gained gradual acceptance, such as The Star-Spangled Banner not becoming the national anthem until the 1930s despite being treated as such for some time prior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"chocolate candy in the shape of US war heads"??

"Many people observe this holiday by visiting cemeteries and memorials and eating lots of chocolate candy in the shape of US war heads."

I deleted the reference to the chocolate warheads. I have lived in various parts of the United States and never once even seen a chocolate candy in the shape of a war head [sic], much less anyone eating one on Memorial Day or any other day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourMyEyes (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Presidents Day

Does Wikipedia have a standard, accepted spelling for Presidents Day? In this article, it appears as both Presidents' Day and President's Day. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures illustrating this article

Both these pictures show quite clearly all the graves are marked with crosses. I think the article could be considerably improved by showing at least one picture with graves marked with the Islamic and Jewish symbols or any other (Hindu?) Many Americans who are not Christians fought and died for their country but this looks as though only Christians did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.165.161 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy Murderer's Day to you all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.40.236 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view

I find that the entry does not take a neutral point of view and needs to be edited. In particular, the reference to the observance of Memorial Day fading in "liberal cities" during the 1960's and this sentence: "Conservatives revived the practice of honoring Memorial Day in the 1980s, under the leadership especially of President Ronald Reagan." This seems like a very politicized view of the history of this holiday.

Jglass54 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to describe what is happening--the article does not try say whether it is good or bad. Note the geography factor discussed by EJ Dionne], who connects it to the fact that military families mostly come from red states. Reagan made a big deal out of Memorial Day (Obama skipped it this year). Rjensen (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that this line is unnecessarily political, and I have tagged it. First of all, I have never heard of a "forgetting" of Memorial Day that was reversed by some sort of political campaign in the 1980s. This definitely needs a citation, if true. Furthermore, although it is true that no "judgement" is made whether conservatives are good or bad, just who these "conservatives" are, and how they "revived" Memorial Day, verges on violating the labels and unsupported attributions policies regarding Weasel Words. This statement is as empty as a "some people say" statement. Are there sources showing that William Buckley, George Will or Lee Atwater specifically urged a revival of Memorial Day celebrations for political gain? How does one square this with the mention of moderate Democrat Daniel Inouye being one of the biggest defenders of the holiday? Same goes for the Reagan mention: maybe he participated in Memorial Day because he was Commander in Chief, rather than for political gain.

If "conservatives" revived Memorial Day under Reagan, then how does one explain the Nixon and Ford administrations, Nixon declaring Memorial Day a national holiday on the last Monday in May in 1971? How else does one explain Lyndon Johnson declaring a national "birthplace" of Memorial Day in 1966? The Veterans Administration documents all this, but does not mention a 1980's "revival" [1].

Finally, just because many "red states" - whatever this really means - contribute servicemembers to the US military, this does NOT therefore mean that Memorial Day is a "conservative" holiday. First of all, such comments show a big ignorance of the fact that very many servicemembers - including those killed in action - come from such states as California and New York. Second of all, how a state's voting population votes in presidential elections really has nothing at all to do with this holiday, or with the personal motivations of US military servicemembers.

Memorial Day would be a politically-conservative holiday if it was named "Republican Military Day", or "Cut Taxes and Increase Defense Day", or "Focus on the Family Day", or some such. Just because one person wrote a newspaper editorial, and just because Obama skipped the holiday this year (might this have something to do with a big hole in the Gulf of Mexico? Or a looming war in Korea, or several looming conflicts in the Middle East?), does not make this flimsy sentence a fact. Keep the history straight and non-political please, for EVERYONE'S sake. Konchevnik81 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

History section, first two paragraphs

There seem to be a lot of '1865's in there, indicating that in 1865 the Union prison was at that time a racecourse and that the celebration of the liberation of slaves and also the decorating of graves both occurred in this year. Second para goes on to say that "By 1865 the practice of decorating soldiers' graves had become widespread in the North". "By 1865" should be changed to "Within the same year..." if that's the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.57 (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Charleston story

I read the version on David Blight's website of his research; it is a wonderful story that deserves to be told, but he does not actually say or produce any evidence to say that this is in any way the origin of Memorial Day, just that this was the first celebration that resembled the later Decoration Day celebrations. I moved the story down from the first section to avoid that implication. It would probably be good to make that even more clear, but I can't quite figure out how to word it at the moment.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have just reversed a series of edits that restored the (in my view mistaken) view that the Charleston celebration was the origin of Memorial Day. I stick by what I said above - Blight doesn't claim the Charleston celebration was the origin of the holiday, if you read his webpage. I think the article as is presents the story adequately. If other folks disagree, we should discuss it here, rather than changing the article unilaterally. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I just reread the Blight piece. I think it is probably accurate to say that he certainly at least implies that the Charleston celebration was the origin of the holiday. However, it is significant that nowhere does he claim that the later celebrations, in either North or South, were influenced in any way by the story of what went on in Charleston - he just says that the celebration in Charleston was very similar to later celebrations. I think his argument is that the celebration was invented in Charleston... and then invented independently elsewhere, because everyone felt the same need to commemorate the dead. Whether that means the holiday "began there"... I don't know. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Current date code

The article states, "Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (May 31 in 2010)." The last Monday of May is the 30th. I tried to change it but it is a code, "(May 27 in 2024)." I don't know how to fix this.

Thanks! Sezuni (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Current Edit War

Please first see my comments above under "Charleston Story". I have looked yet again at Blight's webpage; he is not claiming that the Charleston observance turned into a yearly event immediately (please read his piece, the link is in the Charleston Story section above.) He also never actually says that the Charleston observance influenced the later development of Memorial Day in any way - it was just very similar to the way the holiday came to be celebrated. And I do think that this story needs to be in the article, but not as "this is how Memorial Day began" - because I don't think that is really accurate. Could we have some comments from others on this? Or do we need to ask for some outside editors to join in? Brianyoumans (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please read my comments above, from last month. Note that I think Blight's material should be included, just not as "this is how Memorial Day started" - because if you read Blight very carefully, I don't think he actually says that (although he tries hard to imply it). The celebration in Charleston was very similar to later Memorial Day celebrations, but I don't think he claims that later celebrations had been influenced by it in any way. The Northern celebrations developed independently.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is astonishing to see the amount of vandalism done to this article within the past week. Sections deleted for no apparent reason of justification. Pictures taken off and then having to revert edits to put them back on. I think until after the Memorial Day holiday weekend is over, this page needs to be semi-protected. The edits are getting out of hand.Yoganate79 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

CHANGING THIS ARTICLE ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND

You are all offensive. You have politicized and demonized this article along racial lines during a time period when families are remembering their loved ones who died so young these past 10 years and earlier wars. You all hide under the guise of factual reporting when this could have been done at at different time. The contributions made by African Americans to our history has now been second classed into a two sentence comment towards the bottom of the page. It is amazing how people will claim no written documentation about actions performed by African Americans when pre-Civil war slaves were not allowed to learn to read and write. These are actions and duties that were passed down verbally for generations until it was ok for African Americans to become educated without a cross being burned on their front laws or being hung from a tree. Wikipedia allows for this change but I think it is time they block any changes to this article until QUALIFIED historians can contribute to this article. Here it is we are in 2011 and all races have equally committed to and served our country and we have hobby historians still causing mischief and strife using the power of the internet. Jerks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moganblack (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to restore the article. In fact the material you mention was deleted from the article by two different editors one anonymously here and one as his/her first edit ever here shortly before you wrote your note here. I reverted the anon and you've fixed the other, so no need to get angry my friend! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the sections above on the Charleston Story, as I call it. I continue to think that giving this too much priority and space is a mistake. The dispute over how to handle this material in the article clearly goes back a number of years, and I think it could use more discussion here. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're meaning to say is that it's a bit too detailed for the lede? I would agree that the lede needs tightening up and tidied. Subjects such as origins, development, secularization, and auto races are better left for the appropriate later sections, in my opinion. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I will summarize what I said above. The celebration in Charleston was very similar to later celebrations, but, if you read the article very carefully, the author does not claim that later celebrations were based on it, or were even aware of it. So, it depends what you mean by "origin" or "beginning". Was it the first celebration that we might modernly recognize as a Memorial Day celebration? Possibly. Was it the origin of other celebrations, a source of ideas for others to plan their celebrations? Apparently not. I think if you are looking for an "origin", the public call to celebrate "Decoration Day" by General Logan seems like a more likely candidate. I think the "Charleston Story" should be mentioned, even prominently, but I don't think it qualifies as "the origin of Memorial Day". Possibly "the first Memorial Day", but even that depends on whether you can call it that when it was basically disconnected from the origin of the northern celebrations. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to change the article right now, while it is under discussion, but there is stuff in the article now which is just plain wrong - for instance, the implication that the celebration in Charleston was called "Decoration Day". Brianyoumans (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Remake History

The following from the History Channel is probably more accurate than your assertions that blacks created Memorial Day, which is simply absurd!

"By proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, the first major Memorial Day observance is held to honor those who died "in defense of their country during the late rebellion." Known to some as "Decoration Day," mourners honored the Civil War dead by decorating their graves with flowers. On the first Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, after which 5,000 participants helped to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery.

The 1868 celebration was inspired by local observances that had taken place in various locations in the three years since the end of the Civil War. In fact, several cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, including Columbus, Mississippi; Macon, Georgia; Richmond, Virginia; Boalsburg, Pennsylvania; and Carbondale, Illinois. In 1966, the federal government, under the direction of President Lyndon B. Johnson, declared Waterloo, New York, the official birthplace of Memorial Day. They chose Waterloo--which had first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866--because the town had made Memorial Day an annual, community-wide event, during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.171.66 (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. This article is becoming a laughingstock. Just because one scholar - in African-American studies - is saying that Memorial Day was founded in Charleston doesn't mean that we tell that story first, second, and last. It was an isolated event, and I don't think there is any evidence that it inspired or led to anything later on. It should certainly be mentioned, but not as prominently as it is in the article right now. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not depend on editors' opinions but on using RS. David Blight wrote a major work of research on the making of memory after the Civil War. The History Channel would likely have followed his research. The material is not in conflict anyway, as he also notes Logan marking the first official recognition, as opposed to the unofficial celebration by freedmen in Charleston. If it is to be used, the History Channel program would have to be cited, with the date given. Generally, the History Channel is considered derivative of published academics. Parkwells (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not use this as an occasion for learning? - how interesting to read about an event that you did not know had taken place.Parkwells (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision to the Article

Since it seems that I am not alone in thinking that there is more to the history of Memorial Day than what David Blight says about it, I have revised the article a bit. I took all mention of the history of the holiday out of the lead, which I think is a good idea regardless. I also removed some of the material that seemed like overkill and/or was not supported by Blight's work, like implying that the celebration in Charleston was called "Decoration Day" (which it wasn't). I think it is logical to start by mentioning the "Charleston Story" (as I call it), and then proceed to the origins of the holiday in the North and then the South - that is chronological and makes sense to me. I think we really need to avoid implying that the events in Charleston influenced the origins of the holiday in the North. I think he would like it to be true, but I don't think he can claim it in a peer-reviewed paper, because he has no evidence that anyone up North said, "Hey, that commemoration in Charleston sounds great... let's do that here!" Logan's proclamation seems much more important in spreading the holiday nationwide. And the real answer is that some sort of commemoration probably seemed logical to grieving populations all over, and a similar sort of holiday would have arisen in any case. Please use this talk page to talk things over. This is a contentious and emotional issue. This article deserves to be better, and that doesn't come from lots of anonymous and unilateral editing. By the way, I withdraw my comment above that Blight is only an African-American studies professor; he is a history professor. I was misled by his title as head of the "Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance & Abolition". Brianyoumans (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You have made a number of arbitrary changes to the article not supported by RS. Editors can have all the feelings they want; the articles are supposed to reflect RS. The Lede is supposed to reflect the article, and it is appropriate to have a history of a national holiday. It is not up to editors to decide if published academics are suitable RS if they otherwise meet the criteria, as you seemed to want to do with Blight, above. It shows your lack of knowledge of history scholarship to think that his being director of the Gilder Lehrman Ctr means he is "only an African-American studies professor." Derogatory comments about living people can be removed according to WP:BLP.Parkwells (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article could certainly use some improvement. All I have been trying to do is keep it from being just a parroting of Blight. Blight is only one scholar, and the story he is telling is very different from the previously accepted story. And, as a former history graduate student, my reading of his work and the evidence he found is that he found some interesting material and a good story, but he is stretching the interpretation of it considerably. Now, I realize as a Wikipedia editor I am not supposed to be evaluating it myself, but nevertheless that makes me more likely to use the "he's only one datapoint" argument. I don't have any problem with including Blight's story, even prominently, but I think it should be clear that Blight has not found and doesn't even claim to have found any connection between the Charleston event and later Memorial Day celebrations. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your edits have improved the article. Good work! I have made some minor changes. I am still concerned that we are leaving the impression - stated baldly in the quote from Blight - that the holiday was "invented" in Charleston. Now, as long as you stick to the strict definition of "invented", I'm OK with that. The problem is that people might then go on and assume that it originated in Charleston - that later celebrations were inspired or based on or developed from the Charleston celebration - which I don't think is the case, and I don't think Blight claims it. Things can be "invented" in more than one spot, and I'm not certain we are making that point enough. But, this is an improvement over the previous state of the article. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography v. Further reading

Sources in the bibliography are supposed to have been cited in the article. If not, they will be moved to the header "Further reading". Each paragraph of the article needs at least one inline citation to support it, as a number of historic assertions are being made.Parkwells (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"First Decoration Day"

I don't have Blight's book. What are his references for the Charleston event being referred to as the "First Decoration Day" later? Brianyoumans (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

his ideas can be read Blight online Rjensen (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regional reconciliation

The work of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in establishing a Memorial Day tradition in the South is an essential part of the story, much of which involves the reconciliation of former enemies in a common national spirit. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The work of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC--not UDS as you call it), had no role in "establishing a Memorial Day tradition." Their predecessors, the Ladies Memorial Associations of the South played a major role, but the UDC played none. That is a fact. I've been working on this subject as a scholar for years. Please provide any citation you have to the contrary. And, by the way, since when did citing a book cover become an acceptable reference on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

UDC Involvement in Memorial Day

Including a significant amount of information about the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) in the history of Memorial Day section is an incredibly unscholarly, uninformed, and ridiculous measure. Southern Memorial Day began in April of 1866. The UDC wasn't born until 1894 nearly thirty years later. The UDC had nothing to do with the history of Memorial day. Nothing. This looks like an agenda. Now, the predecessor organizations of the UDC, such as the Ladies Memorial Association, had much to do with Memorial Day History. And what's more, those Ladies Associations were largely involved in the famous reconciliation events around memorial day that RJensen erroneously has attributed to the UDC. If you read Neff, Janney, Blight, Faust, or any other scholars of the event, there is no scholarly dispute about this. The UDC came much later, and had nothing to do with the history of this holiday. Does the UDC care about memorial day? Of course they do! So do the boy scouts and girl scouts. That doesn't make them an important part of the history of this day. I've been teaching in the University for some time now and I need to see RJensen's citations that the UDC had something to do with establishing memorial day. It's simply bogus. This wiki article is going to land on SNOPES as propagating a false assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing "In the South"

The grammar and punctuation of this section needed much help. Additionally, historians do not "argue" that the LMA played a key role, they simply acknowledge it. It's a little strange to identify the "Lost Cause" as a myth because if you do you seem to be suggesting that the cause of the Confederacy did not lose--that it's a myth that slavery was wrong! Why would you want to assert such? Do you think that the idea that the Confederacy "lost" is a myth? The "Lost Cause" is an ideology, a sentiment, and definitely a politically incorrect one, but "myth"? That word doesn't fit.

The previous author maintains that the Southern Confederate Memorial day merged into the national May 30th tradition. I changed that to "partially" because most southern states still maintain separate Confederate Memorial Day holidays. [signed: Hilltoppers]

Hilltoppers needs to read more widely in Southern history. Indeed historians write whole books about the MYTH of the Lost Cause: Gary W. Gallagher; Alan T. Nolan (2000). The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History. Indiana University Press. The Myth is discussed in Charles Reagan Wilson (2009). Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920. University of Georgia Press. pp. 37–.; Dorgan writes about "Rhetoric of the United Confederate Veterans: A Lost Cause Mythology in the Making" (in Braden 1979 Oratory); Gardner says, "Southerners created the Lost Cause myth not only to celebrate the Confederacy but also to promote a political agenda for the postwar South." [Sarah E. Gardner (2006). Blood And Irony: Southern White Women's Narratives of the Civil War, 1861-1937. U North Carolina Press. p. 267.] There's a whole dissertation: Susan S. Durant, “The Gently Furled Banner: The Development of the Myth of the Lost Cause” (Ph.D. North Carolina 1972); George Tindall used the "Myth of the Lost Cause" terminology in the mid-1960s, so it's not new. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a myth that the South lost, it is a myth that it was all about states' rights and economics and Southern nobility. I think Hilltoppers had some good corrections to make, but I think H is off on this one. And he should try to be more polite. It is good to assume good will and that mistakes are either errors, misreadings, or ignorance. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Thunder

As a resident of DC and former rider myself, I'm surprised to not see any mention of Rolling Thunder, a major bike rally held every year in conjunction with Memorial Day weekend. Some years attract as many as 350,000 bikes, which mainly stage in the Pentagon parking lot to ride in to the city, past the national capital's many monuments and tributes to those who have died serving. This ride is primarily done to raise/maintain awareness for POW/MIA soldiers from all U.S. conflicts. It would be great to see something about this included in the Memorial Day wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.120.238 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your service. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Day and the Indianapolis 500 mile race

The article on Memorial Day includes the following statement: the Indianapolis 500 auto race, held since 1911 on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend This is erroneous. The race was always held on May 30, the original holiday, until relatively recently, probably after that odious law was passed shifting many holidays to Mondays. This was done for the convenience of Congressmen and people who simply wanted to have a long weekend rather than to celebrate the day. How do I know this? I vividly remember working at summer jobs as a teenager and listening to the radio broadcast of the race, which carried the tag line, Stay tuned for the greatest spectacle in racing! Paracaleboy (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

General Murray, General Logan, and the Waterloo legend

The assertion that General Logan borrowed in any way from General Murray and a Waterloo observance is without foundation. The reference provided (http://books.google.com/books?id=XtxJ_zF_ydUC&pg=PA279#v=onepage&q&f=false) does not state that Logan took his ideas from Murray, and it certainly does not provide any primary source evidence to that effect. The claim that Logan gave a speech in 1866 in which he first suggested Memorial Day should be observed is also unfounded. No such text of said speech can be found. When Logan made his declaration in 1868, it was ubiquitously stated that he had "adopted" the Southern custom. To wit, see Boston Daily Advertiser, May 11, 1868; Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 1, 1868; Bangor Daily Whig & Courier (Bangor, ME) Wednesday, May 20, 1868; New York Times, June 5, 1868; Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch, in the Southern Opinion (Richmond), June 6, 1868; Pennsylvania Patriot, May 21, 1868; “The Origin of Decoration Day,” New York Times, June 14, 1869; Galveston, TX Flake’s Bulletin, May 23, 1868. Logan's wife quoted him as saying that "it was not too late to follow the example of our Southern brothers and sisters" when he wrote his Decoration Day order in 1868 (Mrs. John A. Logan, Reminiscences of a Soldier’s Wife (Scribner’s, 1913), 246.)

The claim that Waterloo, NY even held a decoration day on May 5, 1866 has never been supported with primary sources. Its claim to fame is a 1966 resolution of congress that was not founded on research but politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You got there first and won the edit conflict LOL ..all good I have removed the first part as per your description and lack of any real sources. Moxy (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Blight's admission that "he has no evidence"

I find the distinction that was made this week between "Blight admitted there is no evidence" and "Blight says he has no evidence" to be shallow and pedantic. Blight is a scholar, researcher, and professor employed by none other than Yale University. He has been researching this subject for decades. When Campbell Robertson of the New York Times asked Blight two weeks ago, "what evidence do you have that there that the Charleston event led to the Memorial Day proclamation of 1868," Blight said "I have none." In academic circles when the chief expert on the subject says he has no evidence, it is tantamount to him saying that there is no evidence--for if there were any, Blight would have been the first to find it. Suppose you ask an DNA expert on the witness stand "after examining all the DNA evidence that connects the defendant with the crime, what evidence do you have that there is a connection?" If the expert says "I saw no such evidence," his testimony is that in his opinion there is no such evidence. Blight is the expert witness who has carefully examined the matter for decades. When he says "I saw no such evidence," he is saying that in his view there is no such evidence. It seems to me that the desire to make the distinction must be motivated by some sort of agenda, and I would recommend that it be abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your comment above. I was a history graduate student at one point, and when I read some of Blight's pieces, I got the impression that he was going right up to the edge of saying that the "Charleston story" was the origin of Memorial Day, and even implying it, but that he wasn't saying it... most likely because he knew that he had no evidence for that. After you read enough historical papers, you get a sense for when someone would really like to claim something, but can't, and this is one of those cases. Frankly, I think it is a little disingenuous of him to keep implying it, but he does have enough integrity and good sense to not say it outright, and his answer to the NYT makes that clear. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

eduardo

o Eduardo é bonito sem ele não viveria

eduardo

o Eduardo é bonito sem ele não viveria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.79.107.149 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

I would like to post a link to a song about Memorial Day called "The Last Monday in May." It was written in 2013 in my program, Operation Song™, in which I write songs with veterans and active duty military with service related issues. Thanks in advance, Bob Regan, director, Operation Song™, regan615@comcast.net. 615-400-0764 https://soundcloud.com/bob-regan/last-monday-in-may

Regan615 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 04:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sure there are a number of songs that are about Memorial Day or which mention it; the question is, is this song particularly well known? Is it connected strongly with the holiday in the public mind? If not, it isn't worth cluttering up the article with. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014

History of Memorial Day I find that it is important that this information be added because it adds the missing information necessary to understand why this is such an important holiday to Americans.

Memorial Day was started by former slaves on May, 1, 1865 in Charleston, SC to honor 257 dead Union Soldiers who had been buried in a mass grave in a Confederate prison camp. They dug up the bodies and worked for two weeks to give them a proper burial as gratitude for fighting for their freedom. They then held a parade of 10,000 people led by 2,800 black children where they marched, sang, and celebrated.

references: http://www.davidwblight.com/memorial.htm http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/the-first-memorial-day-may-1-1865-reported-in-the-charleston/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005677467/ http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20090524/PC1602/305249938 There is much more.

Waldolc (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is already a paragraph in the "History of the holiday" section about Blight's work. It is an inspiring story, but Blight admits himself that there is no evidence that it was the "start" of Memorial Day, that it "inspired" Memorial Day, etc. - it was simply an early Memorial Day-like observance, like the other proto-Memorial Day events cited. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Also take note of Brianyoumans' comment. There may be a consensus against your proposed change. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC), revised 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

In the first line it says " The holiday, which is celebrated " celebrated should read "observed". Memorial Day is not a party. 67.87.189.34 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are parades and festivals and town events at parks and whatnot all over the country... Sounds like a party to me. If you want to provide accurate reliable sources that say otherwise, then it can be discussed and a consensus formed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that Memorial Day celebrates the memory of US soldiers, and one of the most famous traditions on this day is the Memorial Day parade, which can't be described as anything but celebratory.--ɱ (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The request is accurate. NOBODY SHOULD BE CELEBRATING the deaths of patriots. Memorial day is for commemorating, remembering, and observing. If anyone goes to the graveside and says "yay! They died!" they should be locked up. If you read any professional writers who write about this holiday, they deliberately avoid the word "celebrating." Do we "celebrate" 9/11? Do we "celebrate" dropping bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Memorial Day is a day of remembering millions of deaths, NOT celebrating them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

i want to suggest changes. If Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, all facts should be included.

Please review this article.

https://www.facebook.com/afropunk/photos/a.93811151622.90220.47016231622/10152101858321623/?type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorsj1 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

nope. Brianyoumans explained this a few days ago (above) : "There is already a paragraph in the "History of the holiday" section about Blight's work. It is an inspiring story, but Blight admits himself that there is no evidence that it was the "start" of Memorial Day, that it "inspired" Memorial Day, etc. - it was simply an early Memorial Day-like observance, like the other proto-Memorial Day events cited." Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

In the "See also" section ...

 "Victoria Day an analogous late-May observance in Canada"

The only thing analogous about Victoria Day when compared to Memorial Day is that they are observed in May. Canada's "Remembrance Day" (also observed in other Commonwealth nations) is a closer parallel to Memorial Day. "Remembrance Day" is a Wikipedia entry, so a hyperlink is possible.

Please consider changing this reference to read:

• Remembrance Day an analogous observance in Canada, the United Kingdom, and many other Commonwealth nations held on 11 November each year

Rtmc56 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

allowing the Waterloo legend to persist as truth

It is a shame that this page continues to include the Waterloo legend in the absence of any evidence to support it. The only citation given is to a website posted by local boosters. The primary source evidence proves that the story is a myth. To wit, the primary sources are abundantly clear that the events didn't happen as the local boosters claim. Why Sensei thinks he/she can just ignore primary source evidence over some homespun website is beyond me--certainly an indication that Sensei doesn't know the first thing about doing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the truth may be, Waterloo has, as sourced in the article, a presidential proclamation in support of its claim. The problems with your prior edit that I reverted were indicated in my edit summary. The first of the two paragraphs that were in your own words was entirely WP:OR, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. You would need a published WP:RS that arrives at the same specific conclusions based on the same specific research to include that paragraph in the article. Your second paragraph, the one after the extended direct quotation, draws conclusions of your own from your analysis of the Waterloo source and your judgement of the worth of Waterloo's claim. This, too, is OR and to a degree WP:SYNTH as well. Once again, you need to cite a source that arrives at these conclusions. Referring to Waterloo's claim as a "legend" is WP:POV, one clearly not shared by Lyndon Johnson's administration. I have no preference for Waterloo's claim over any others, but the policies here at Wikipedia that govern article editing require that information introduced into an article, especially material that contradicts a stable text, follow this site's protocols for research and not be the research and conclusions of any of us Wiki editors. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would add in a congenial way to Hilltoppers that we also have a policy here at Wikipedia known as WP:NPA, or "no personal attacks." Administrators tend to look askance at such attacks. What I know or do not know about "doing history" is not at issue here, and your gratuitous remark detracts from what should be the real focus, which is to improve the article while working within the strictures of Wiki policies. I would suggest that you get yourself up to speed on those policies by carefully reading the hyperlinks to the WP sections in my preceding paragraph. That way you can create an edit with RS that passes muster by Wiki standards and can be included in the article. Sensei48 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea that a presidential assertion is enough to verify a claim over and against clear and indisputable primary source evidence is simply irresponsible scholarship, regardless of whether it is Wiki policy, Mickey Mouse policy, or your own gratuitous policy. Presidents proclaim a lot of incorrect information. Just like Lyndon Johnson did with Waterloo, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that the Cooperstown Doubleday origin of baseball is legitimate . So, according to your view, on the grounds of a presidential declaration, Wiki should still advocate for the Doubleday myth too? If so, Wiki should be disregarded by anyone who truly cares about distinguishing between truth and myth. The fact is that Wiki rejects the Doubleday myth in spite of a presidential proclamation to the contrary. The "Waterloo" story is parallel to the Abner Doubleday version of the origin of baseball. But with regard to Memorial Day, apparently Wiki prefers mythology to accuracy according to scholarly evidence. Wiki needs to raise their standards on this matter if it wishes to be considered a serious source of accurate information. Presidents make a whole lot of bogus assertions. President Clinton asserted that he "did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinnsky." President Reagan proclaimed that there were no exchanges of arms for hostages. GWBush proclaimed there would be "no new taxes." President Jackson proclaimed that the only good indian is a dead indian. Presidents say a lot of ridiculous things. The 1966 "presidential proclamation" was supported by absolutely no historical investigation according to Charles Schamel, the curator of the records in the National Archives. It was entirely a political proclamation.

Satisfactory legitimate citations were provided here to show that the presidential proclamation was, in fact, just as much in error as the Doubleday myth--particularly the 1875 local news account that totally refuted the Waterloo claim. But Wiki policy doesn't allow for primary sources?? Does Wiki only accept secondary and tertiary sources as valid?? If so, Wiki is an entirely unprofessional source. All encyclopedic references of repute acknowledge the primacy of primary sources. No historian of repute would ever exclude primary sources as evidence. None. Period. It is a mistake to call this a "personal attack"--it is not, it is simply a matter of what professional history is all about. The decision to delete a primary source in favor of a political myth that was generated one hundred years after the fact would certainly result in rejection by any legitimate academic source. This is nothing personal. It's a matter of whether Wiki has standards for the assertions it allows. To say, "I don't care about the evidence, President Johnson proclaimed otherwise" is highly irresponsible, unprofessional, and unscholarly.

The information you reposted about Waterloo, Welles and Murray is not sourced to any legitimate published source. The "presidential proclamation" which you defend so ardently doesn't mention anything about Welles and Murray, but you seem to think that a homespun personal website is a more valid source than a published primary source. I can easily upload another personal website that counters the source you have cited, but that would be just as unprofessional as what you have presently allowed here as a legit source. I guess I thought Wiki had higher standards with regard to what constitutes a legitimate source and what is not. Personal websites, from a scholarly and academic point of view, do not qualify as legit sources.

I used to think of Wiki as rather legitimate and rigorous. This exhibition convinces me that either Wiki, or the editor who has deleted the valid sources, doesn't have a clue as to how professional history is conducted. If Wiki wishes to maintain a standard that approaches the label of "scholarly," such reckless and unprofessional editing would have to be avoided. Promulgating myths is not respected in true academic, scholarly historical communities. In a congenial way, let me say that you should be ashamed. You really make Wiki look very unprofessional.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You apparently failed to read or failed to understand my first paragraph of response above, either disregarding or again not comprehending the links I provided to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Read them closely, please. These are Wikipedia policies, not my personal ones. Your previous edits, however well-intended, fail to meet those standards for the reasons I articulated above and in my reverting edit summaries. Even in the weak article that you cite on the Doubleday myth - weak as determined by the editing members of WP:BASEBALL, who have rated it "Start class," the second-lowest class designation on Wikipedia - most all of the major assertions are supported by secondary sources and not by individual editors interpreting primary sources. For a better treatment of the same topic (a "B class" article, just short of a WP:GA), please look at the opening section regarding the Doubleday myth at History of baseball in the United States. Note that the history of the development of the myth is presented as well as the various refutations of the same, all supported by secondary sources and none representing the the interpretation of a primary source by the contributing editors. Should you want to comment on "the Waterloo myth," the Doubleday section there might well serve as a model for you since it does adhere to Wiki policies regarding OR and SYNTH.

I would also urge you to re-read dispassionately and with careful attention my comments above and then your own. I am not in any way "ardently" defending any assertion about the origins of Memorial Day. I am simply referring you to the operative methodologies regarding editing that are in force here on Wikipedia, methodologies with which you seem to take exception before amusingly attributing them to me rather than to this site. I am sorry if this editing process offends you, but your argument is with Wikipedia, not with me. Don't kill the messenger. Sensei48 (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What's glaringly unprofessional about your response is that you selectively apply Wiki policy to your own agenda. The citation on the article that "verifies" all the history about Welles, Murray, and the Waterloo myth is footnote 16, a citation which Wiki policy identifies as "a questionable source." Under Wiki's definition of questionable sources, it lists "websites that are promotional in nature," and websites that are "self-serving." The website citation (#16) you have deemed reliable is a village booster website for Waterloo, NY, which is entirely promotional in nature, self-serving, and provides no citations for any of the claims made therein. The fact is that the narrative included at that promotional website is without any foundation. It's one thing to reference the 1966 proclamation of LBJ (which is as historically accurate as FDR's proclamation regarding Doubleday), but it's quite another thing to accept what the Village of Waterloo says about itself. That is entirely irresponsible from not only a historical scholar's view, but also according to the Wiki policy. There are locations around the world whose promotional websites say that they are the location of the lost ghost of Frankenstein, the location of the holy grail, and the location of a UFO landing site. It seems to be your opinion that such websites meet up to Wiki's policy on valid evidence for a true assertion.

Again, I repeat, in a congenial way, you have perpetrated an embarrassing unprofessional lowering of standards on behalf of Wiki and Wiki's clearly stated policy regarding legitimate and questionable sources. You are not following "Wiki policy" and you are certainly entirely bereft of understanding historical methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How's this - I took out much of the "Waterloo Legend", the part cited only by the Village of Waterloo web page, which is, as Hilltoppers points out, not a very reliable source. And I added a list of other claimants, from the NY Times article, to make it clear that it is by no means settled where the holiday started. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)