Talk:Veterans Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 10 November 2016, Veterans Day was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Edit Request: Irrelevant and Opinionated Segment[edit]

While I do not oppose the idea of a ferdural holiday for elections, I do oppose the placing of a political talking point in an article about Veterans Day.

"Several commentators have noted the irony of Election Day being a regular working day, while Veterans Day, which typically falls the following week, is a federal holiday. Many people have called for the holidays to be merged, so citizens can have a day off to vote. This would be seen as a way to honor voting by exercising democratic rights.[9][10]"

This segment and its citations should be removed as it has nothing to do with the observation of Veterans Day nor does it have any direct relevance for the holiday itself other than an unstated and undefined reference to "soldiers dying for the right to vote". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.172.200.126 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No Mention of Attributive[edit]

The article states: the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Web site states that the attributive (no apostrophe) rather than the possessive case is the official spelling..."

The DVA website says nothing at all about attribute case -- there is no such case, for a start.

The case is called 'genitive' and it includes both possession and attribution.

The DVA website states only that the holiday is called Veterans Day instead of Veteran's Day or Veterans' Day because the day does not belong to Veterans.

In fact, the Act of Congress that renamed Armistice Day actually renamed it *All* Veterans Day. We later dropped the 'All' part.

But there is absolutely nothing on the website about the spelling being attributive rather than possessive. So the material about it being attributive should be removed. 73.162.218.153 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014[edit]

The National Veterans Award was also created in 1954. Congressman Rees of Kansas recieved the first National Veterans Award in Birmingham, Alabama for his support offering legislation to make Veterans Day a federal holiday. RevRobtheRR (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


That's it! Received is the correct spelling...

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Idea that Wilson declared a first Armistice Day in November 1919 "proclamation" is mostly a myth.[edit]

According to a New York Times article published on 8 November 1919 entitled "President Prepares a message to the People for Armistice Day", "President Wilson today wrote a message to the American People which will be made public on Armistice Day, Nov. 11." Other contemporaneous and official sources call this same statement a "greeting" or an "address". Even though Wilson routinely issued "proclamations", this was not one of them.

See: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0CE2DC123FE432A2575BC0A9679D946896D6CF

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19191011&id=XRVAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XaQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=7270,2198280&hl=en

https://books.google.com/books?id=WYg_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA8803&lpg=PA8803&dq=%22a+year+ago+today+our+enemies+laid+down+their+arms%22&source=bl&ots=SAyvxEs4yr&sig=tkkBHzQnk_V0Cnessu7W0Xyl6Ag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMIrYvdjcOJyQIViHgmCh1ytwxt#v=onepage&q=%22a%20year%20ago%20today%20our%20enemies%20laid%20down%20their%20arms%22&f=false

Compare the "Mother's Day" Proclamation of 1914 and its unambiguous formality and intent: http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=509

Obviously, one way or another, the notion of "Armistice Day" was already well-established before the Wilson's message, since the message itself and the pre-message press refer to it simply and casually as "Armistice Day". Furthermore his "message" or "address" was not only not a formal proclamation but it did not in any way "declare" or propose to create any holiday or new day of remembrance but simply speaks about the one year anniversary of the cessation of hostilities and what the occasion already known as "Armistice Day" means to Americas. The full test of the address demonstrates this:

   "ADDRESS TO FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN     The White House, November 11, 1919.   A year ago today our enemies laid down their arms in accordance with an armistice which rendered them impotent to renew hostilities, and gave to the world an assured opportunity to reconstruct its shattered order and to work out in peace a new and juster set of inter national relations. The soldiers and people of the European Allies had fought and endured for more than four years to uphold the barrier of civilization against the aggressions of armed force. We ourselves had been in the conflict something more than a year and a half. - With splendid forgetfulness of mere personal concerns, we re modeled our industries, concentrated our financial resources, increased our agricultural output, and assembled a great army, so that at the last our power was a decisive factor in the victory. We were able to bring the vast resources, material and moral, of a great and free people to the assistance of our associates in Europe who had suffered and sacrificed without limit in the cause for which we fought. Out of this victory there arose new possibilities of political freedom and economic concert. The war showed us the strength of great nations acting together for high purposes, and the victory of arms foretells the enduring conquests which can be made in peace when nations act justly and in furtherance of the common interests of men. To us in America the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with - solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service, and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of nations. WOODROW WILSON."

Thus the purported "Proclamation" of Armistice Day by Wilson in 1919 is essentially a myth.

00:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talkcontribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016[edit]

The caption on the photo in the main infobox at the top-right of the article currently reads: " Joseph F. Ambrose, an 86-year-old World War I veteran, attends the dedication day parade for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 1982, holding the flag that covered the casket of his son, who was killed in the Korean War. "

Since Joseph F. Ambrose's Wikipedia page and this source linked to from his Wikipedia page say that he died in 1988, the caption can be misinterpreted to mean that he is currently 86-years-old. Note his date of birth here.

I propose changing the caption to the following: " Joseph F. Ambrose, a World War I veteran, attends the dedication day parade for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 1982 at 86 years old, holding the flag that covered the casket of his son, who was killed in the Korean War. "

Deleting any information about his age in this caption would also work.

I apologise for any mistakes I may have made; I'm new to editing (obviously).

Blueinkblink (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  Paine  u/c 06:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016[edit]

In the article there is a mistake made in the year that Veterans Day was first celebrated it says the year 1918 but it is the year of 1919.


Sophisticatednyny (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Where does it say that? It says 1919 due to the war ending in 1918. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)