text:
Talk:Apple (disambiguation)

Organization
does anyone else think that Apple Computer should be moved after APPLE (the satelite) due to alphabetizing? or perhaps Apple Records should be moved to after Apple Computer due to its greater importance over a non existant article (APPLE)? -mysekurity 21:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the nonexistent article should be last. However, Apple Computer should be first (after the fruit). I'm even in favor of putting
 * For the brand of computers, see Apple computer.
 * on the page for the fruit. HereToHelp 11:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Old cut-and-paste moves affecting this page

 * See Talk:Apple for information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Fixed. See my response at Talk:Apple. Graham 87 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation
Ever time I search apple it come up with the fruit so can some make the disambiguation as the search page.

SaiyanEmperor2008 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)SaiyanEmperor2008

 * You would need to discuss this on a wider level as the fruit is obviously the primary usage for the term. If you think a move is in order then set up a discussion and file a request at WP:RM. Keith D (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

dual primary topics
As followed on iOS it seems sensible to have two primary topics here, the fruit and the computer company. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 * iOS is not even an example of primary topic disambiguation, which only applies where the page includes "(disambiguation)" in the title -- indicating that the primary topic is at the base name. iOS is an example where the most common uses are placed at the top of an otherwise ordinary disambiguation page. That is not primary topic disambiguation. On this page, the apple corporation is already at the top of the list after the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at talk) at 01:08, 25 February 2012|Talk:Apple - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

merge The Apples to here
Same as The Apple was merged here, The Apples should also be merged here. That's just partial disambiguation. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not partial disambiguation. Since the set of things ambiguous with "The Apples" (i.e., that users my seek by typing "The Apples" into the search box), leaving them separate seems appropriate and best for the readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I note with dissatisfaction that the talk page was inexplicably semi-protected, a completely absurd decision. There have been many, many discussions on Wikipedia before with sockpuppets, and we were able to survive. Talk pages should never be locked during a debate. (It's especially ridiculous in an RM discussion, which is so explicitly WP:NOTAVOTE.) Anyway, even a casual reading of the arguments here shows that the fruit is still widely considered to be far more significant than any other use. Red  Slash  06:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

– I see that the disambiguation page are more likely have two primary topics instead just one primary topic per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, one topic regarding the fruit and another regarding the $1 billion market cap technology company. In educational purpose or scholar, Apple is a fruit and should be maintained for long-term significance and educational value. But in modern/contemporary times, anyone who think the Apple are more likely think the company with more than $1 billion market capitalization which is one of the largest and most well-known company in the world. The company's name derived from fruit name, but because I see it at |Apple_Inc.|Apple_(disambiguation) the pageviews (Apple inc. included), there is WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC because there is a presence of the company which also claimed as primary topic in contemporary times while the fruit with the same name as the company derived from is essentially a primary topic for long-term significance. The Google search also refers word "Apple" as primarily the company, not the fruit, which is similar to how Kiwi (bird) vs Kiwifruit (when searching "Kiwi" it is more likely refer as the fruit). The dab page should be repaired to have two primary topics. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apple (disambiguation) → Apple
 * Apple → Apple (fruit)
 * AGF : brand new IP editor straight into major page move and familiarity with RM related guidelines In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This talk page is now semi-protected; IP editors can no longer contribute to this discussion. Certes (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks In ictu oculi (talk)
 * I didn't protect the page. I'm just noting that the proposer can't respond to points raised below. Certes (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why has this talk page been protected? Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Support. Apple Inc. has four times more pageviews than Apple, four times more incoming links, and dominates search results.  The fruit has obviously been around longer and "feels more encyclopaedic" but, after forty years in business, we must reluctantly conclude that Apple Inc. is not a flash in the pan and passes the 10YEARTEST.  We are constantly fixing wikilinks suggesting that iThings are marketed by a fruit, and if editors are SURPRISEd to find the fruit at the base name then readers will be too.  We can cope with the one-off task of changing existing links.  Moving from the established titles would be a courageous move but a correct one. Certes (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Per above. Apple Inc. has become the secondary definition of Apple, and people are more likely to search for Apple Inc. instead of the fruit. Goose ( Talk! ) 23:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: If consensus is found to move the pages, we might consider doing this as a planned process akin to TfD. Firstly, announce the decision, then give us a few days to fix the existing links before finallly moving the pages.  That might be less disruptive than waking up one morning to find that the pages have moved and two thousand wikilinks are suddenly broken. Certes (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion. There are more than two thousands wikilinks that needs to be fixed. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose. If you want to put Apple Inc. at the base name, just do that. Moving the disambiguation page there doesn’t help anybody. I would also suggest moving apple to apples to avoid using parenthetical disambiguation. -- Calidum  02:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To give a note, "apples" is plural name of apple. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No if there isn't a primary topic we don't randomly pick one (WP:NOPRIMARY) and such a move would break many external links pointing to the fruit. Per WP:PLURAL we don't title like that, see for example Oranges redirects to Orange (fruit) and Orange is a DAB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t need a lecture. And I shouldn’t need to remind you of WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. -- Calidum  01:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Calidum I wasn't giving a lecture I was just pointing out that neither of you're points are likely to be that convincing. As I noted WP:PLURAL (PT) gives Oranges redirecting to Orange (fruit) as a textbook example of a plural being (relatively) unambiguous even if the singular leads to a DAB page. Given also that there was also a move request for orange(s) that failed I don't think IAR or NOTBURO likely applies here and I doubt that this argument would succeed but given that that was back in 2015 we might be able to reconsider on that.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember that discussion :( Red   Slash  06:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Leaning support given that the company as noted is well known and important to and there are several other uses on the DAB page, no clear primary topic for the singular. Keep Apples redirecting to the fruit per WP:PLURALPT since although there are a few things called "Apples" on the DAB page and the company's products are sometimes called "Apples" that doesn't seem to be that common and when I Google Apples most of the results are for the fruit even though the company't products are there. Strong oppose moving the company to the base name per the above about incoming external links and the long-term significance of the fruit. Also Britannica uses "Apple Inc.".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This article doesn't discuss about moving the company title (Apple Inc.) into base name (Apple). The company was not affected by this RM and will maintain the current title as this official name. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that natural disambiguation works well for Orange S.A. (if you'll forgive my comparing apples and oranges) . Certes (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the move occurs, we should review redirects to Apple. Most, such as  and, should change to target the fruit article at its new name but a few, such as  and , might be better left pointing to the dab page, with pages which link to them being edited instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes (talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose as nominated. This proposal doesn't involve moving Apple Inc.. There can't be "two primary topics": there can only be one, or none. The current arrangement infers the fruit is the primary topic; this proposal effectively says there is no primary topic. The problem with this proposal is that if x% of users go to "Apple" because they want the fruit, and y% go to "Apple" want the the company, then 100% of users going to "Apple" would end up at the disambiguation page, one click away from the thing they wanted, and so 0% are satisfied in one click. In the current configuration, x% of users are satisfied in one click. Obviously x is larger than zero, so the current arrangement is better than the proposal. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There can't be two primary topics, but the disambiguation page can emphasise two topics where 99% of readers are likely to want one or the other, as in New York. Certes (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * New York is a perfect example of why this page should not be moved. When New York was the article about the state (one of two possible primary topics, but the one with fewer views, similar to apple vs Apple Inc), about 41 people per day went on to the dab page. But today more than 10 times as many people wind up on the dab page because it usurped the base name. Station1 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But in this case we have 2 topics that are different enough (unlike New York that could possibly use DABCONCEPT) and WP:NOPRIMARY says If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term.. In this case we should probably land readers on a quick loading DAB page.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But there is a primary topic. Some people say it's apple and some people say it's Apple Inc, but most people say there is one. And if one's first choice can't be at the base name, it's better for readers that the second-best choice be at the base name. Station1 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is that better? At best we (the editors) are forcing some significant percentage of readers to load a large page that is irrelevant to what they were searching for (vs a relatively lightweight disambiguation page). And even worse, mistaken links to the "wrong" primary topic are less likely to be detected as they are not included in the DAB reports. older ≠ wiser 20:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For precisely the reasons Shhhnotsoloud articulated at this bullet. Detecting mistaken links may be easier for editors, but doesn't help readers. Station1 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How are uncorrected bad links good for readers? That is not even primarily beneficial to editors. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, with very few exceptions, incorrect links to primary topics do not get fixed, and incorrect links are an issue for readers, not just editors. And on Shhhnotsoloud's point, that's really addressed against the current guideline on primary topics, isn't it? Essentially it's saying that dab pages should never occupy a primary title. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, uncorrected bad links are not good for readers. But a quick glance at the first few hundred links to apple doesn't reveal any, so that doesn't seem to be a problem in this case. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying dab pages should never occupy a primary title; I'm saying that where there is a choice of two topics for a primary topic, it's better for readers for us to choose one than to choose neither. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As to Station1's point about some thinking the fruit is primary and some thinking the company is, that provides pretty strong evidence that there isn't a primary topic! Primary topics should normally be straightforward and obvious like Paris. See Hearts (and Talk:Hearts/Talk:Hearts (card game)) for an example where users asserted multiple topics should be primary (the organ, the card game, the suit and even the football club) which realistically provided strong evidence that there is no clear primary topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC long-term significance based on the fact that every major entry on the disambiguation is named for the fruit. Its even used as the primary example at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Some things should never be allowed to change. -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The primary topic is the fruit. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Apple Inc. is linked from both a hatnote on apple and the top of Apple (disambiguation), so turning apple into a dab page would benefit practically no one. If there were a proposal to make Apple Inc. the primary topic, that would be different discussion, but there's rarely a good reason to put a dab page at a base name when a primary topic is reasonably possible. Station1 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have notified Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Watchers of that active page may be able to assist us. Certes (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fruit is clearly the primary topic. The company was even named after the fruit. J I P  | Talk 22:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per . Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the primary topic of apple is apple. Even to iPhone and Mac users. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes regarding the academic purpose and primary long-term significance. But in modern times, the primary topic of apple is not clear and tends to be complicated. "Google search" when typing "Apple" are more likely see about a $1 billion market cap company than the fruit. The fruit only more notable than the company in primary sources like Books, but not in secondary source like websites. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realise that apples the fruit haven't gone away anywhere, and people are still using them in farming and as food regularly? Not the whole world is the IT industry. J I P  | Talk 10:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * have you worked out who the Indonesia IP is yet? I can't find on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple_Inc./Archive_10#Requested_move_24_October_2019 . Can't see immediate relation to the recently bulk-blocked Indonesia IP-farm on the Bangalore and Ford RMs. And despite the interest in Korean girl singers, isn't the same vote made by Kauffner in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple/Archive_3 .... anyone else any ideas? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My speculations now as irrelevant - striking comment from IP nom as has now been blocked by admin anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose edible apple is the primary topic, Apple is not. Mikus (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fruit is just too universal and has too much long-term significance to be trumped by the company, however famous that may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Prefer to error on the centuries long-term significance of the fruit, as described on Apple and Apple (symbolism), among others. And as stated on Apple Inc., Steve Jobs stated he was inspired by the fruit when establishing his company in 1976 (only about 44 years ago, compared to centuries of human experience with the fruit). Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, apples have been around for millions of years, Apple.inc for less than half a century. J I P  | Talk 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry, it's going to be a hard sell to convince me the fruit is no longer the one and only primary topic. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder if, on a global basis, on any given day, more people eat an apple or more people use an Apple device? Just a thought. Station1 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nobody should close this RM right now as this RM was proposed by an anonymous user and this talk page has been protected till 18:29, 29 September 2020. Also, the nom has been blocked for 1 month. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move
Why did you close the RM? This RM was proposed by an anonymous user and this talk page has been protected till 18:29, 29 September 2020. Also, the nom has been blocked for 1 month. So, I believe that discussions shouldn't be closed while the nom is blocked. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The IP in question was blocked as a sockpuppet- that alone would be sufficient reason to close the RM, as per WP:DENY. We definitely shouldn't be leaving it open until a block expires for a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t participate in the RM or move review but just want to say that the nom was off by a factor of 2000 when they referred to the corporation capitalized at one billion. It’s two trillion. That’s double the entire US fruit industry.

Most of the opposition here seems to be conflating PRIMARYTOPIC with either “most important” or “what I think of first” with little to no consideration for what users searching with “apple” are likely to be seeking. And to deny the historical significance of this remarkable business and its transformational products as covered in reliable sources, is mind boggling. Sure the fruit has historical significance too, from the forbidden fruit to Johnny Appleseed, but that supports a dab page, not PRIMARYTOPIC. When this RM is proposed again someone please ping me. —-В²C ☎ 13:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you do with Apples (plural) if this was moved to Apple (fruit)? do you think that even though there are a few obscure uses and the company's products can be pluralized that the fruit is primary for the plural per WP:PLURALPT? Google results do mainly return the fruit though there are a few results for the company. I'd say that the fruit is clearly primary for the plural by long-term significance and possibly also by usage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * redirects to Orange (fruit), the plural of which is the primary topic for the term "oranges". Similar treatment for apples would seem appropriate. Certes (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone searching with "apples" is almost certainly looking for the fruit. The fruit is the PLURALPT. --В²C ☎ 05:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Apple which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@ 175.100.79.26 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apple (disambiguation)


text: Category:Riyadh

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Riyadh


text:
Kingdom Holding Company

The Kingdom Holding Company (KHC; شركة المملكة القابضة) is a Saudi conglomerate holding company, based in Riyadh. The KHC is a publicly listed company on the Tadāwul (Saudi stock exchange). The KHC consists of a select team of experienced investment specialists directed by its founder and chairman, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and chief executive officer, Eng. Talal Ibrahim Al Maiman. The company describes itself as a diversified investment company, whose main interests are financial services, real estate, tourism and hospitality, media, entertainment, petrochemicals, aviation and technology.

Present investments
Present investments include:
 * Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts (Canada-based) (owns 23.75% with Cascade Investment, LLC, and others)
 * Fairmont Raffles Swissotel (minority ownership with Accor)
 * Hotel George V (100%) (France)
 * KADCO Egypt (100%) (Egypt)
 * Kingdom Hospital-Consulting Clinics (100%) (Saudi Arabia)
 * Kingdom Hotels Investments (100%) (Saudi Arabia)
 * Kingdom Schools (100%) (Saudi Arabia)
 * Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (100%) (Lebanon)
 * Lyft (US)
 * Flynas (33%) (Saudi Arabia)
 * National Industrialization Company (100%) (Saudi Arabia)
 * Rotana Group (روتانا), the Arab world's largest entertainment company (100%) (Saudi Arabia)
 * Twitter, Inc. (minority stake)

Past investments
Past investments include:
 * 21st Century Fox (US / 6% minority stake, sold in 2017)
 * 360buy (China / now publicly traded as JD.com)
 * Amazon (US)
 * AOL / Time Warner (US)
 * Apple (US)
 * Canary Wharf (UK)
 * Citigroup (US)
 * The Coca-Cola Company (US)
 * Compaq (US)
 * eBay (US)
 * EuroDisney (France / now owned by The Walt Disney Company on a 87.15% )
 * Ford (US)
 * Hewlett-Packard (US)
 * McDonald's (US)
 * Motorola Mobility (US)
 * Mövenpick Hotels & Resorts (Switzerland / 33% minority stake, sold in 2018 to Accor )
 * News Corporation (US)
 * PepsiCo (US)
 * Priceline.com (US)
 * Procter & Gamble (US)
 * The Savola Group (Saudi Arabia)
 * Saks Incorporated (US)
 * SAMBA, Saudi American Bank (US)
 * Marvel Comics (US)
 * The Walt Disney Company (US)

Other involvements
The company is known for hiring the first Saudi female commercial pilot, Captain Hanadi Zakaria al-Hindi, who trained at the Mideast Aviation Academy in Jordan.

It is the owner of and was the lead developer of the Kingdom Centre in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Kingdom Holding is an active investor in sub-saharan Africa through Kingdom Africa Management, a private equity firm and subsidiary based in South Africa, Ghana and Nigeria. Kingdom Africa is run by J. Kofi Bucknor and focuses on growth equity investments.

In 2007, the company committed to purchasing an Airbus A380 "Flying Palace" for $485 million, however according to the Kingdom Holding's chief financial officer the plane has been sold.

In April 2010, the company sold part of its stake in Raffles Holdings International in a deal worth about $847 million to a group of investors, including an affiliate of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund.

In August 2011, the company announced plans for the construction of Jeddah Tower, one of the tallest buildings in the world.

title: Kingdom Holding Company


text:
Category:Skyscrapers in Saudi Arabia

Skyscrapers in Saudi Arabia.

title: Category:Skyscrapers in Saudi Arabia


text: Category:Towers in Saudi Arabia

title: Category:Towers in Saudi Arabia


text:
User:Rbonvall

Quick access links
WP:NPOV, NPOV_tutorial, WP:COUNT

es:Usuario:Rbonvall de:Benutzer:Rbonvall fr:Utilisateur:Rbonvall

title: User:Rbonvall


text:
Dead Sea Apes

The Dead Sea Apes is a Quran story of dwellers by the Dead Sea who were transformed into apes for breaking the Sabbath. It is also a metaphor used, for instance by Thomas Carlyle, describing people in modern times to whom the universe, with all its serious voices, seems to have become a weariness and a humbug.

title: Dead Sea Apes


text:
Arlington Memorial Amphitheater

Memorial Amphitheater is an outdoor amphitheater, exhibit hall, and nonsectarian chapel located in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington County, Virginia, in the United States. It was designed in 1913 as a replacement for the older, wooden amphitheater near Arlington House. Ground was broken for its construction in March 1915 and it was dedicated in May 1920. In the center of its eastern steps is the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, dedicated in 1921. It has served as the site for numerous Veterans Day and Memorial Day events, as well as for memorial services and funerals for many individuals.

Genesis of the amphitheater
Arlington National Cemetery was established in 1864. Due to the growing importance of the cemetery as well as the much larger crowds attending Memorial Day observances, Brigadier General Montgomery C. Meigs (who was Quartermaster General of the United States Army) decided a formal meeting space at the cemetery was needed. A grove of close-growing trees just southwest of Arlington House Grove was cut down and a wooden amphitheater (today known as the Tanner Amphitheater) constructed in 1873.

By the early years of the 1900s, however, the Old Amphitheater had grown far too small for the large ceremonies which were held there. Judge Ivory Kimball, Commander of the Department of the Potomac chapter of the Grand Army of the Republic (or GAR, a veterans' group for those who fought for the Union in the Civil War), believed that not only should a new and larger facility be built, but also that the new amphitheater represent the dead of all wars in which the nation had fought. Kimball and the GAR began their push for a new amphitheater in 1903, and sketches for the amphitheater drawn up by Frederick D. Owen, a civilian engineer working for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. But legislation failed to pass Congress in 1905, 1907, and 1908. Legislation passed in 1908 authorizing the establishment of a memorial commission, but it received only $5,000 in funding. Legislation was introduced again in 1912 by Senator George Sutherland. Sutherland's bill proposed construction of a 5,000-seat amphitheater with an underground crypt (for the burial of famous individuals) to cost no more than $750,000. Prospects for passage initially seemed dim. But during the third session of the 62nd Congress, a number of new federal memorials were approved, including the Arlington Memorial Bridge, the Lincoln Memorial, a memorial to women who served in the Civil War (now the American Red Cross National Headquarters), and a George Washington memorial auditorium. The successful push for new memorials helped supporters win the passage of legislation authorizing construction of Memorial Amphitheater. President William Howard Taft, in one of his last acts as president, signed the legislation into law on March 4, 1913.

The 1908 authorizing legislation established an Arlington Memorial Amphitheater Commission (AMAC) to oversee the design and construction of the structure. Its members included the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Superintendent of the U.S. Capitol, Judge Kimball (as a representative of the GAR), and Charles W. Newton (as a representative of the United Spanish War Veterans, a Spanish–American War veterans group).

It immediately became apparent, however, that although Congress had authorized the expenditure of $250,000 for Memorial Amphitheater, it had not actually appropriated any such funds from the U.S. Treasury. This left the AMAC without any funds to conduct its business. It was not until August 1, 1914, that Congress finally appropriated money for the amphitheater's construction. Ten days later, Colonel William W. Harts of the United States Army Corps of Engineers was elected the commission's executive director. On October 12, 1914, the AMAC contracted with the New York-based architectural firm of Carrère and Hastings to design the building. The AMAC hired the George A. Fuller Co. to construct it on February 11, 1915.

There is some disagreement among sources as to who should receive the majority of credit for designing Memorial Amphitheater. Lemos, Morrison, Warren, and Hewitt specifically name Thomas Hastings, as does the United States Commission of Fine Arts and others. But other sources name Frederick D. Owen, a civilian engineer working for the Corps of Engineers (and who also designed the flag of the president of the United States). Owen is named by architectural historians Butler and Wilson and by historian Rick Atkinson. The Arlington Memorial Amphitheater Commission is not clear as to who deserves the credit, as it notes that Owen "drew the first sketches for plans for the great Memorial in 1904" and later gave "suggestions and advice as to the form of the Memorial". Owen's significant role is made clear by the AMAC in other ways as well: He designed the memorial trowel used by President Woodrow Wilson to lay the cornerstone; he served on the reception committee for the cornerstone laying ceremony; he co-chaired the planning committee for the 1921 dedication; and he chaired the reception committee for the dedication. But the AMAC also said Carrère and Hastings prepared the plans for the building, provided the explanation of the design to the AMAC, and was named by Congress as the architects.

The AMAC's composition changed somewhat after Congress amended the commission's authorizing legislation on March 3, 1915. Congress added the leader of Camp 171, United Confederate Veterans of the District of Columbia, to the commission as a full voting member.

Construction of the amphitheater
The site chosen for the new Memorial Amphitheater was the top of a hill about 1000 ft south of Arlington House. A gravel pit, opened in the mid-1800s, existed there previously.

Ground for Memorial Amphitheater was broken on March 1, 1915. President Woodrow Wilson laid its cornerstone in a ceremony on October 13, 1915. A copper box placed in a hollowed out section of the cornerstone contained a copy of the United States Constitution, a copy of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Bible, the flag of the United States, one each of every coin and postage stamp then in circulation, a Congressional directory, a telephone directory of the District of Columbia, an autographed photograph of President Wilson, and several items connected with Arlington National Cemetery. Kimball participated in the ground-breaking and cornerstone ceremonies, but did not live to see the amphitheater completed: He died on May 15, 1916.

Excavation of the foundation was complete by the end of June 1915. Concrete foundations had also been laid and cured, and most of the brick foundation was in place as well. Most of the amphitheater's foundation was complete by June 30, 1916. The foundation included 629,000 bricks, 24 ST of structural steel, and 21644 cuyd of marble (for the exterior of the structure). The Guastavino tile system, patented in 1885, was used to create arches and vaults in the basement. More than 2500 sqft of this tile were used. The heating, clean water, and sewage systems were also complete. The Corps of Engineers also finished the architectural drawings for the approaches around the amphitheater as well, and was ready to start work on them.

A major design changed also occurred in June 1915. Originally, plans for the amphitheater called for wooden balustrades, plaster moldings, cement floors and ceilings, and wooden doors. But on June 26, all of these materials were changed to marble. The total cost of the changes was $41,000.

Work on the amphitheater slowed in mid-1916 and throughout 1917 due to a lack of high quality marble available for the work. Severe winter weather also meant that work on the approaches did not begin until late June 1917. The amphitheater was supposed to have neared completion on February 15, 1917, but these lengthy delays meant that the construction schedule was extended for a full year. The amphitheater was also proving to be much more costly than expected. Bids from contractors were all far above what the Corps of Engineers expected, but work went ahead anyway. By June 30, 1917, much of the amphitheater and its colonnade were done. Another 35140 cuft of marble had been placed for the columns, and 11856 cuft of concrete and 26 ST of structural steel were used to support them. Skylights and ornamental ironwork stairs were in place, and ornamental plastering and marble carving had begun.

The amphitheater, chapel, and most of the entrance hall were finished in 1918. The entrance hall was built with red brick (257,100 of them), and clad in 57711 cuft of marble. Another in 1060 cuft of marble were used for interior columns. The extent to which marble was used was eye-opening: 4790 sqft for flooring, 4694 sqft for stairs, 1272 sqft for door and window frames, and 2033 ft of moldings. The eastern steps consumed 4526 sqft of concrete. The interior was decorated with ornamental plaster, terra cotta partitions, terrazzo flooring, bronze doors and grillwork, ornamental ironwork railings and stairs, and glazed tile. While more than $7,000 ($161,500 in 2013 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars) was spent on carving for the amphitheater, just $2,933 was spent for carving on the inside and outside of the entrance hall.

The advent of World War I had a significant impact on the construction of Memorial Amphitheater. The United States entered the war in April 1917, and by spring 1918 American troops were arriving in Europe. Most skilled workers were diverted to the war effort, although artisans (such as marble carvers) were still available. The Corps of Engineers was able to obtain, after lengthy delays, the high-quality marble it needed for the approaches from the island of Vinalhaven, Maine. But railroads and cargo ships were so congested carrying war materiél and military personnel that the marble could not be transported to Arlington National Cemetery until late 1917. By then, another severe winter had set in. Intensely cold weather continued into the late spring, further delaying work. Only a limited amount of work on the approaches had concluded by the end of June 1918. Some modifications were also made to the structure because of the war. The largest of these changes eliminated the seating planned for the top of the colonnade.

By June 1918, nearly all of Memorial Amphitheater's exterior was complete. The interior work on the chapel and the first-floor reception hall was also done, leaving only the basement-level kitchen storage areas and the second-floor offices to be worked on. Construction of the concrete floor of the amphitheater also was under way.

Interior work on Memorial Amphitheater ended in June 1919. The remainder of the basement rooms and all of the second floor were now finished, too. All that remained to be done was decoration of the chapel ceiling, some interior and exterior inscriptions, and installation of lighting fixtures. The Corps of Engineers was also ready to connect the water and sewer lines, grade the grounds and roads, and install plantings and sod. During the next nine months, these items were all finished, and the interior painted. The masonry approaches were also completed, and the roadways and sidewalks paved. The G.B. Mullin Co. did the landscape design and work, which involved replanting 20 cedar trees around the three amphitheater entrances. The total cost of the structure and its grounds was $810,812. In total, 87000 cuft of Mountain White marble from the Danby quarries of Vermont were used in its construction.

Memorial Amphitheater was dedicated on May 15, 1920. The Corps of Engineers turned it over to the Quartermaster General's office on July 1.

Design
Memorial Amphitheater was designed by Thomas Hastings to be the center of a biaxial grouping of landscape features and monuments that included the USS Maine Mast Memorial in the west, the Spanish–American War Memorial to the south, and a formal Italianate garden to the east. Greek Revival, Romanesque Revival, and Renaissance decorative elements are used throughout the structure. Ulysses Ricci designed the various friezes, ornamental devices, and decorative elements of the amphitheater and entrance hall. Hastings said he wanted Memorial Amphitheater to be the building he was most remembered by.

As constructed, Memorial Amphitheater consisted of an elliptical outdoor amphitheater that sat 4,000. The bays formed by the colonnade can seat another 150 individuals. Another 1,000 individuals may be accommodated by standing.

The amphitheater is surrounded by a colonnade, with main entrances at the east and west axes. The capitals of the columns are Doric, but rest on an Attic base. The entablature above the columns, however, is Ionic to allow for inscriptions. These inscriptions, on the exterior of the entablature, list 44 major battles from the American Revolutionary War through the Spanish–American War. Low, backless marble benches in concentric circles face the semi-circular main stage, which has three levels. The lowest level features a klismos, a form of ancient Greek informal chair meant for rulers. The klismos chair faces the audience, much as a cathedra (or bishop's chair) does. Hastings intended the klismos chair to remind the audience of the missing heroes honored by the amphitheater. The second level of the stage has a podium. The stage and amphitheater are designed so that any speaker must look down at the klismos chair while addressing the audience, and must look at the USS Maine Mast Memorial if looking up. The third and uppermost level of the stage contains a semi-circular seating area for about 100 people and an apse in the back. The interior dome of the apse is richly carved, and the square pilasters on either side of the stage list the names of famous American generals (left, as you face the stage) and admirals (right) from the American Revolutionary War through the Spanish–American War. A quote from General George Washington's June 26, 1775, letter to the Continental Congress is inscribed inside the apse: "When we assumed the soldier we did not lay aside the citizen." A quote from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is inscribed above the stage: "We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." Decorative 9 ft tall urns carved with eagles, rams' heads, and snakes were placed on pedestals in niches on either side of the stage.

Above the west entrance of the amphitheater is a quote from the Roman poet Horace: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" ("It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country"). Under the colonnade are 300 crypts, which were intended for the burial of important people.

In the basement (or ground floor, if approached from the west) beneath the amphitheater stage is a chapel. This domed structure was designed to seat 150, and has a raised ambulatory around the edges.

As originally designed, the main entrance was in the east through the doors of the cruciform entrance hall. The entrance hall is fronted by a six-columned portico with Corinthian capitals. A frieze above the main bronze doors depicts symbolic trophies of war. The entrance hall is not connected internally with the amphitheater. Stairways, bridges, and short corridors on the outside of the entrance hall provide access to the stage in the amphitheater. The main floor of the reception hall is clad in Botticino marble. The main floor originally housed a reception hall (with two side galleries for the display of battle flags and war trophies) and stage, and the second floor housed a museum. In 1929, the main floor became a Memorial Exhibit Hall displaying honors received by the unknown soldiers lying beneath the Tomb of the Unknowns, and the second floor became offices.

Steps lead from the main doors of the entrance hall down to a small plaza. Hastings designed a series of short steps to lead from the plaza down to a landing, and then a series of monumental steps to lead from the landing to the eastern formal garden below. In the center of the short steps was a pedestal for a statue. No artwork was ever placed there. This pedestal was later removed, and the Tomb of the Unknowns took its place in 1921. The planned monumental steps leading down to the formal garden were not built when Memorial Amphitheater was dedicated. A retaining wall with false arches was constructed instead.

A roadway was designed to cross the plaza and circle the entire structure.

Construction of the monumental stairs
On March 4, 1921, the Congress approved the construction of a memorial to an unidentified American serviceman from World War I to be placed in the stairs leading up from the east landing to the plaza in front of Memorial Amphitheater. An unknown soldier was identified and brought back from France, and interred inside a small marble tomb on Armistice Day on November 11, 1921. To construct the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (as it was then informally called), the pedestal for the memorial statue envisioned in Hastings' design was removed. Workers dug 20 ft down into the earth behind the retaining wall. At this level, concrete footings 16 ft long by 9 ft wide were constructed. The earthen walls were reinforced with a burial vault consisting of concrete walls 7 ft thick at the bottom, narrowing to just 2 ft thick at the top. A hollow rectangular plinth was constructed on top of the vault walls, above which was a slightly smaller hollow marble base. On top of the marble base was a rectangular capstone with curved sides, which was also pierced through the center. A 2 in deep layer of soil brought from France along with the unknown soldier's body lined the bottom of the burial vault. After the unknown soldier was lowered into the vault and rested on the soil below, the capstone was sealed with a marble lid.

Additional changes to the east front came within just a few years. On July 3, 1926, Congress authorized the completion of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with an appropriate memorial. A design by architect Lorimer Rich and sculptor Thomas Hudson Jones was selected on December 10, 1928. The Lorimer/Hudson design, like nearly all the other submissions, anticipated removing the retaining wall below the tomb and building the monumental staircase first envisioned by Thomas Hastings. Congress agreed with this revision, and on February 28, 1929, authorized construction of the stairs, new road and pedestrian approaches, alterations to the formal gardens, and a new overlook. The Construction Division of the Quartermaster General's office oversaw the work, which was performed by the Hegman-Harris Company of New York City.

1956 renovation and expansion of the tomb
Little additional work was done at Memorial Amphitheater until 1954. By then, settling of the amphitheater and entrance hall, cracking of walls and exterior marble, water damage, and other serious problems were beginning to affect the structure. Congress appropriated $15,000 for fiscal 1954 (which began June 30, 1953) for a year-long study of the problems. A preliminary estimate indicated that repairs would cost $179,000. But the finished study identified even more serious issues, almost all of which were caused by design deficiencies which did not take into account the seasonal expansion and contraction of the building's marble. Arlington National Cemetery officials were forced to ask Congress for $447,000 to repair the amphitheater and $179,000 to repair the entrance building. Congress approved the request.

A second major change was made to the plaza in 1958. President Dwight Eisenhower signed legislation in August 1956 to allow the interment of unidentified remains for soldiers from World War II and the Korean War at the Tomb of the Unknowns. Two new burial vaults, to the northwest and southwest, were dug in the plaza before the eastern entrance hall. Carved into the granite in front of the tomb sarcophagus were the dates "1917-1918". The Korean War unknown was interred in the northwest vault beneath a slab with the dates "1950-1953" carved into its western edge. The World War II unknown was interred in the southwest vault beneath a slab with the dates "1941-1945" carved into its western edge. The cover slabs of both new vaults were flush with the plaza. The two unknowns were interred on Memorial Day on May 30, 1958.

In August, 1960, Congress abolished the Arlington Memorial Amphitheater Commission and transferred its duties to the Secretary of Defense. Although the commission had long ago fulfilled its basic mission of the construction of Memorial Amphitheater, it still had the legal authority to approve the placement of plaques, markers, and other commemorations on the inside, on the exterior, or on the grounds of the structure.

On May 24, 1964, Memorial Amphitheater was the site of a late-afternoon ceremony celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of Arlington National Cemetery. During its 50th year anniversary in 1969, the American Legion, along with the American Legion Auxiliary donated an exterior lighting system so that Memorial Amphitheater and the Tomb of the Unknowns could remain lit at night. In the midst of ceremonies also marking the 50th anniversary of the Paris Caucus – President Richard Nixon formally took possession of the lighting system in the nation’s name, flipping the switch that turned the lights on.

1974 renovation
Additional physical plant problems appeared at Memorial Amphitheater in 1965. The retaining walls adjacent to the east plaza began cracking vertically, and extensive horizontal cracks and spalling were found on the Tomb of the Unknowns as well. Additional damage occurred over the next five years. Congress then appropriated $522,000 in fiscal year 1972 to repair these problems as well as provide yet another renovation of the exhibit hall. By this time, attendance at Arlington National Cemetery had soared with the construction of the John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame in 1967 and the addition of the grave of Robert F. Kennedy in 1971. To accommodate the much larger crowds wishing to see the Tomb of the Unknowns, Congress appropriated an additional $478,000 in fiscal 1972 to widen pedestrian walkway approaches to accommodate the larger crowds. To make Memorial Amphitheater more accessible for the disabled, steep slopes around the structure were eliminated and steps were replaced with ramps. Congress appropriated an additional $3 million in 1974, to bring the construction project's total to $4 million. The extra funds paid for widening of the steps and portico in front of the east entrance — increasing the number of people who could view the changing of the guard at the tomb to 800 individuals from 200. In addition, the tomb honor guard received new guard posts on the plaza in front of the amphitheater.

The mid-1970s widening of the Memorial Amphitheater portico, reconstruction of the pedestrian approaches, and repairs to the plaza around the Tomb of the Unknowns represented the first major construction at the site since 1920.

Dedications and adding memorials
An attempt to dedicate the chapel at Memorial Amphitheater occurred in 1977. The National Cemetery Act of 1973 required the Secretary of Defense to locate unidentified remains of a Vietnam War veteran, construct a vault for these remains at the Tomb of the Unknowns, and inter the remains there. The vault was constructed between the World War II and Korean War vaults on the plaza, and a marble slab with the word "VIETNAM" inscribed on it placed over the empty burial shaft. By 1977, many remains had been located, but all of them were subsequently identified. Vietnam veterans and their supporters, concerned that no unidentified remains would ever be located, pushed to have the chapel in Memorial Amphitheater dedicated to veterans who served in Southeast Asia from 1958 to 1975. Legislation to require the change was introduced in Congress, but most legislators felt that if the chapel were to be dedicated it should be to all veterans. The legislation did not pass, and the chapel remained nameless.

On Veterans Day in 1978, President Jimmy Carter dedicated a plaque inside the exhibit hall which honored Vietnam War veterans. Two temporary plaques in the exhibit hall were dedicated by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger on Memorial Day in 1983. One plaque commemorated military personnel who died in the Vietnam War, and the second explained why no Vietnam War unknown had been interred at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

1995–1996 renovations and controversy
Extensive additional renovations in the amphitheater were made in the mid-1990s. Congress appropriated $4.82 million in fiscal 1992 to repair rainwater damage and fix leaks, and an additional $4.5 million in fiscal 1993 to restore damaged marble. Although the project was planned for completion in July 1995, a six-month delay occurred because of protests regarding the way the contracts were awarded. Bids for the project came in much lower than anticipated, creating $2.7 million in savings. The Army used $34,405 to make whole the bidder who had protested the improper contract award. About $1.4 million of these savings were used to build new wheelchair access ramps and improve access to the amphitheater for handicapped or disabled individuals. The remaining $1.3 million were used to build a columbarium at the cemetery. The repairs included installation of new waterproof membranes; removing water and rust stains; patching and repainting cement, marble, and stone; replacement of all deteriorated marble sculptures, balusters, and benches; replacement of worn and rusted iron railings and drinking fountains; replacement of worn and broken flagstone walkways; and installation of new and upgraded signage and trash containers. These repairs and improvements were almost complete by the end of March 1996.

Clark Construction Group, which was the general contractor for these renovations, received an Excellence in Construction Award from the D.C./Virginia chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors for the outstanding quality of its work.

Controversy about the renovation erupted in January 2011, however, when original decorative urns from the 1995–1996 renovation turned up at auction. The two 9 ft tall urns, sculpted by Ulysses Ricci, formerly stood on either side of the stage in the amphitheater. By 1995, they had significantly weathered and many details had softened so much as to be unrecognizable. Omni Construction, one of Clark Construction's subcontractors, was assigned to dispose of the urns. Omni turned the urns over to Pagliaro Brothers Stone of Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Pagliaro Brothers Stone said they did not have records about the urns' ultimate fate, but in 1997 the urns ended up in the hands of an unidentified antiques dealer. The dealer sold them to DHS Designs, an antique shop in Queenstown, Maryland. The urns (priced at $125,000) never sold, and in 2010 the owner of DHS Designs closed his store and put the urns up for auction. Potomack Company, the Alexandria, Virginia, auction house assigned to handle the urns, advertised them in December 2010—which brought the urns to the attention of preservationists in the D.C. area. According to unnamed preservationist experts interviewed by The Washington Post, the historic urns should have been restored or placed in a museum—not donated to private owners for sale. The U.S. Army, which manages Arlington National Cemetery, said it could not find the 1995 renovation contract and was unable to say what provisions for the urns' disposal had been made nor whether federal property and preservation agencies had been consulted before the urns were replaced.

Within a week of press reports about the sale, Arlington National Cemetery officials said that Clark Construction had been instructed to preserve the urns. These instructions met the requirements of Virginia law, which forbade the discard of historic artifacts. Alerted to the sale by The Washington Post, the Army asked Potomack Company to postpone the sale pending investigation of ownership.

On January 24, 2011, DHS Designs returned the urns at no cost to Arlington National Cemetery. The Army did not say whether it would display the urns at the cemetery or move them to another Army museum.

2012 renovation
In 1999, moisture damage to the ceiling in the Memorial Amphitheater chapel wore away a hole, which allowed water to begin dripping into the chapel.

The plaza of Memorial Amphitheater was altered once more in 1999. The unidentified remains of a Vietnam War servicemember were interred in the Vietnam War vault at the Tomb of the Unknowns on May 28, 1984. But questions were raised in 1994 that indicated the Army (under pressure from the Reagan administration to placate veterans' groups by finding a Vietnam War unknown) ignored evidence that the remains could be identified. After extensive media attention, the Vietnam War unknown was exhumed from the Tomb of the Unknowns on May 14, 1998. DNA testing revealed on June 30, 1998, that the remains were those of United States Air Force 1st Lieutenant Michael Blassie. On September 16, 1999, the marble slab over the now-empty burial vault was replaced by a new slab in a ceremony overseen by Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The new slab was inscribed with the words "Honoring and Keeping Faith with America's Missing Servicemen." Department of Defense officials decided to replace the old slab with a new one given how unlikely it was that unidentified Vietnam War remains would ever be found. Covering the vault to make it appear as if it did not exist was rejected.

By 2000, the east entrance hall at Memorial Amphitheater was suffering water damage and other problems yet again. Congress appropriated $800,000 in fiscal year 2001 to identify what fixes might be needed. Repairs were made in 2006, which included ameliorating water damage in the basement, first floor, and second floor; repairing and improving roof and exterior drainage; and installing new waterproofing and drains to prevent flooding in the basement women's restroom and chapel.

Additional repairs to the walkways around Memorial Amphitheater were made in 2012. In the wake of the Arlington National Cemetery mismanagement controversy of 2008-2011, Arlington National Cemetery officials discovered that more than $32.6 million in funds for cemetery improvements, maintenance, and operations had gone unspent. A portion of these funds were used to replace approximately 230000 sqft of the flagstone walkway around Memorial Amphitheater and to replace fire alarm systems in the east entrance hall.

Famous funerals and services at the amphitheater
Memorial Amphitheater has been the site of numerous Memorial Day and Veterans Day ceremonies. Every American President except Woodrow Wilson has visited the building since it was dedicated in 1921. Although the structure was dedicated during Wilson's presidency, he never visited Memorial Amphitheater or the Tomb of the Unknowns due to a massive stroke on October 2, 1919, from which he never recovered. He died on February 3, 1924. President Warren G. Harding was the first sitting president to visit Memorial Amphitheater, which he did on Memorial Day on May 30, 1921. President Harding was the first President to visit the Tomb of the Unknowns, as he was present during its dedication in November 1921. Harding was also the first president to speak in the Memorial Amphitheater before laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns, which he did on Memorial Day on May 30, 1923. Harding attended a service in the amphitheater on Memorial Day in May 1922, but did not speak or lay a wreath. He laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns on Veterans Day in November 1922, but did not speak in the amphitheater. On June 1, 1923, Colonel Charles Young (United States Army), The United States Military's first African American Colonel, became the fourth soldier honored with a funeral service at Arlington Memorial Amphitheater. He had died the previous year while serving as an attaché in Africa.

While memorial services in Memorial Amphitheater are common, the amphitheater has also hosted the funerals of many famous Americans. The first funeral to be held in the amphitheater was that of sculptor Moses Jacob Ezekiel, creator of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, on March 30, 1921. Other funerals held in the amphitheater since then include those of General of the Armies John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, General of the Air Force Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, and Antarctic explorer and Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd. A funeral service for the unidentified remains of 30 victims of the September 11 attacks on The Pentagon was held at Memorial Amphitheater in 2002. It was the first time the amphitheater had held such a service since the interment of an unknown member of the armed forces representing Vietnam War dead in 1984.

Frank Buckles, the last American veteran of World War I, lay in state in the Memorial Amphitheater Chapel in 2011.

An Easter sunrise service has been held at Memorial Amphitheater every year since 1931. The first such service was held in 1931 and organized by the Knights Templar, a group of Freemasons. Music was provided by the United States Marine Band. President Herbert Hoover attended the service, along with several thousand people. Along with Memorial Day and Veterans Day ceremonies, it is one of the annual and most well-attended events in the amphitheater.

title: Arlington Memorial Amphitheater


text: Category:Buildings and structures in Saudi Arabia


text:
Talk:Bellefontaine, Ohio

Changes To The School Situation
The city has recently added a new elementary and middle school complex, so that part of the article should be changed, but I can't find a good source to cite, so I'll leave it up to y'all. Hallaman3 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Important Tips Before Editing This Article
Please review the following: • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  18:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
 * 2) Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
 * 3) Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
 * 4) Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.
 * 5) Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

Internet Connectivity?
Don't want this in the article, but what are some ISPs in this city?
 * You can get either Roadrunner or Comcast for cable; I'm not sure, but I'm guessing Comcast. Bright.net is available for dialup, and Sprint provides DSL.  I know that there are more, but those are all that I can come up with at the moment.  Nyttend 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the city itself, it's Charter, not Comcast. Unless, that is, that has changed in the last 6 months.  -- SwissCelt 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the cable provider in Bellefontaine is Charter Communications. They also only offer up to 3Mbps service, and offer no high definition television service in this city, and have no plans to in the future. -- Jon99UT 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to confirm Jon99UT's statement about Charter, and also say that it's "Embarq" that offers DSL service (1.5, 3.0, 5.0 and 10.0 meg). Dial-up service is not dependent on location, therefore, there are a plethora of dial-up providers in any town in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.31.64.87 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * at least locally, (I don't know about all over), but "Embarq"'s name was changed to "CenturyLink™" Hallaman3 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue Jacket's Town
Good catch, Kevin! I think when I wrote that I made the mistake of presuming there'd only be one town named "Blue Jacket's Town". Since Blue Jacket's Town currently redirects to Bellefontaine, do you have any more material that we might use to spin off an article? SwissCelt 13:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably not much more, but perhaps enough for a very short article, since there were of total of 4 Blue Jacket's Towns. I'll see if there's enough material. Everything, BTW, was taken from Sugden's book Blue Jacket. --Kevin Myers 23:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bethany Dillon
In my estimation, Bethany Dillon meets the notability standard for inclusion in this article. She has earned a major award in her field. She also appears to have been a resident of Bellefontaine. Therefore, I don't see a reason not to include her. -- SwissCelt 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

GA review
I'll have to fail this article as it is far from GA status. The lead does not summarize the article. External links within prose and lists are discouraged. The Geography and Economy sections are still stubs. There are very few inline citations. Epbr123 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Let's be clear: You failed the article mere minutes after it was nominated, and you removed its nomination so that nobody else could comment.  You did this after you labelled the article as start class, without leaving any comments.  I'm really trying hard here to assume good faith, but your actions make it very difficult for me to do so.  Perhaps you could have allowed other editors to give some input before you trashed this article?  Anyway, as I told you on your talk page, I'm going to have to cool off here.  Let some other editors chime in... I'll revisit this later.  -- SwissCelt 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but this article definitely doesn't look like a Good Article to me either. Nyttend 12:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * One of the problems with the article is the amount of lists. It's understandable under the 'Law and government' section, but in the 'Sites of interest', 'Media' and 'Famous past and present residents' sections it isn't really acceptable. If a place is really of interest more than a single sentance can be written about it. The media isn't explained at all. As for famous residents, that section should be turned into prose and explainations given for each person (why they are notable and their link to Bellefontaine), that section also needs referencing. Broadly though this is a good article and at the moment should perhaps qualify as B-class rather than just start class; the article has the stucture of a GA but needs to be fleshed out significantly. Nev1 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * re: above -I will address some of these areas when I get a chance. Strangersound (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Start class criteria
For the record, here is the start class criteria to which User:Epbr123 refers:

* a particularly useful picture or graphic * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

This article has all of these. It has several useful pictures and graphics. It has multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic. It has at least one, and I would argue several, subheadings that fully treat elements of this topic. And it has multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article. Indeed, this article not only meets all of these criteria (where a Start-class article need only meet one), it exceeds the criteria. Rating this as Start-class was a grievous error, and I'm only sorry I compounded it by nominating this article for GA as a last-ditch effort to remove the erroneous Start-class ranking. Please, rate this article as B-class where it belongs for now. -- SwissCelt 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * "For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture."

 * This article covers history and demographics well, but is weak on geography, transport, economy and culture. Epbr123 14:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * That explains how the article, in your opinion anyway, only merely meets one of the criteria. You've yet to establish that it fails any of the other criteria.  Indeed, you've stated nothing to counter my assertions above.  Agreeing with me on one of the criteria does not prove your case that this is a Start-class article, and not of higher quality. -- SwissCelt 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * You're arguments have only shown tbat it is at least start class. You have said nothing to show that it is B class. If you had spend this time improving the article, it might be up to GA class by now. Epbr123 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * You seem to be the only one arguing that it is Start-class. And the time I've spent arguing this point has at least kept you from randomly sniping at other articles, giving them lower rankings than they otherwise deserve and leaving nothing behind for editors to know what to improve.  Moreover, by bringing this argument to bear here I'm certain that at least this article will be improved, as others come forth to explain what needs to be improved.  Time well spent, I say.  Of course, that's what happens when one collaborates on articles and communicates on how they may be improved, instead of making a bunch of hit-and-run edits. -- SwissCelt 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * And by the way, I did show that it is B class. From the criteria for a B class article:  "Has several of the elements described in 'start'..."  That's precisely what I demonstrated above.  -- SwissCelt 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't see your point. I think start-class may have "several of the elements described in 'start'..." as well. Epbr123 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Alright, let's put it to a vote. Start-class or B-class?  I vote B-class. -- SwissCelt 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest asking for a Third Opinion? Both parties would agree to abide by the decision and ask for a ruling by a neutral and previously unconnected party. Ruhrfisch ><> ° ° 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're hardly an unbiased reviewer. Epbr123 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Epbr123 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- SwissCelt 13:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Summary: Just write a better article!

I can be brief here. --User:Krator (t c) 15:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ratings are a tool to help Wikipedia 1.0 project reviewers with selecting articles for physical versions of Wikipedia. There is nothing but personal pride that makes it worth discussing a rating.
 * Personally I have conduct a lot of assessments for WP:VG. When reviewing an article on request, it is considered good form to leave suggestions for improvement akin to a peer review. This will allow editors to improve the article easily. It is also easier to see why an article was rated as it is.
 * With that said, this article is quite clearly start class. The article is composed of a bot-made section, a few lists, some stub sections, and an unsourced history section. Transforming the lists into prose, finding sources for the history section (or cite the current ones more), and expanding the stub sections would make this a B-class article. If a numeric treshold is wanted, try to have at least four reliable, independent, sources. Currently, two are present: the BBC article and the Ohio history. The city's website is not independent, the other is self-published.
 * Concluding, assessments are not a big deal. They are just a classification. What matters, is the feedback and review that usually accompanies an assessment. If you must have a rating, make it Start.

 * I am quite disappointed that none of the quite clear suggestions above were acted upon. Suggestions and constructive criticism take a long time to think up and write down. When not acted upon, the motivation of those writing up suggestions decreases rapidly. --User:Krator (t c) 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, well, that makes two of us. The amazing thing here is how everybody expects me to edit this article at the same time they caution me not to take ownership of it.  Meanwhile, no one else wants to bother with any edits of their own.  So while perhaps I can't be held blameless for leaving the project altogether, that's precisely what I shall now do.  The cooling off period didn't work; I'm gone.  I leave it to the rest of you to decide the best direction for Wikipedia, as I'm done fighting this battle. -- SwissCelt 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth opinion
A little confused here by SwissCelt - on his talk page as at May 25, 2007 he rants (his words not mine) on the dumb idea of assessment and that other editors can't be bothered to leave anything meaningful to help editors improve the article - however when editors do leave meaningful facts, copyedit etc templates at the exact location where such edits would improve the article he removes them. Not sure what else can be done - other than write the article for him - which is not what assessors should do. The reality is this article needs to be improved in a number of places before it gets closer to a rating above Start.-- VS talk 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Bots make meaningful edits?? Hardly!  And I take great umbrage to your claim that assessors should not write articles.  That's why we're here!!!  I think my rant is well-demonstrated here:  You can't be bothered to edit the article, so instead you pile on with some quick and dirty vandalism that degrades other editors' attempts at writing a good article.  Shame on you!!!  -- SwissCelt 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you're taking criticism too personally. No-one can write a perfect article that's behond criticism. We're just saying these things to help improve the article, not to ridicule its editors. Epbr123 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Take another day or three to calm down SwissCelt - Assessors should not take a major part in writing the article that they are assessing - check ... this is one of the first rules for assessing against WP:GAC. Not sure how you are getting the idea of Bots making meaningful edits - Assume Good Faith and check again my edit summary and point on the  tag which to make it abundantly clear in terms of the content on this (or in fact any article) is that the Bot picks up the date when such a tag is added and then includes it into the script that reminds all other editors of articles looking for sources. If you think about it and move away from this ownership issue you have with this article you will realise that this action actually helps the article. Oh and careful with your choice of words please - templates are not vandalism!-- VS  talk 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * After all, assessors and editors aren't meant to be enemies. Let's calm down — could we agree on a couple days' moratorium on this topic on this page between those of us who have participated in this discussion?  Nyttend 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I can understand the natural tendency to feel ownership of an article one has worked on a lot, I would also point out that both parties agreed to abide by the Third Opinion (see above). I see assessment as a map for improvement, not any sort of attack on the authors. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><> ° ° 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be nearly as upset as I am if the assessment process had included a real map for improvement instead of a standalone subjective rating, which is all this article got before I complained. The Third Opinion called for comments for improvement in future assessments.  From Talk:Warren, Ohio I see this hasn't been done as requested.  I'm not going to unilaterally back down from this and allow assessors to continue to bulldoze poor assessments upon us hapless editors.  That's not the purpose of the assessment process... assuming, of course, the assessment process had a purpose in the first place. -- SwissCelt 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Please remember that Wikipedia is consensus-run. What's more, assessors also edit pages themselves.  I'd recommend that you calm down, maybe take a few days' wikibreak.  Nyttend 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

City Staff

 * My feeling is that this type of info should be included, but being from this small town, perhaps I'm biased. What do you think? This is the info I had posted, and I have been told by many local individuals they found it very informative, especially since the city's own website doesn't come close to listing all of these people. Often, people come here to find out who they should contact for what:

City Staff
What do you think?
 * Service-Safety Director - Gary C. Carmean
 * Chief of Police - Brad K. Kunze, CLEE
 * Fire Chief - James Holycross
 * Municipal Court Judge - John Ross
 * City Prosecutor - William Goslee
 * City Law Director - Howard Traul
 * City Land Manager - Vanessa Shoffner
 * City Auditor - Tim Decker
 * City Treasurer - Joe Yoacam
 * City Engineer - Tim Notestine G.E.D.
 * City Traffic Engineer - Don Volbrecht

-- Jon99UT 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I think a listing of people such as this fails WP:NOT: the point of having an online encyclopedia isn't to provide a list of contacts. As well, if they're not on the city website, then (unless they're listed on some other publication that you have) they shouldn't be listed here anyway — Wikipedia is for sourced information.  Nyttend 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I would like to see the City Bldg pic back in the article. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangersound (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of city is French, but is not named for French city
The following is from a comment I left for User:Cliché Online regarding a recent edit:

Greetings! I regret to tell you that I had to undo an edit you had made to Bellefontaine, Ohio. While you are correct that several "cities" in France (actually communes; see Bellefontaine) existed under the name "Bellefontaine" prior to the establishment of the Ohio city, there is no evidence that any of these were the namesake for which Bellefontaine, Ohio is named. Quite to the contrary, the Ohio Historical Society states that the French words for "beautiful spring" were applied to this settlement to refer to actual springs. The practice of naming American settlements with French words is also not unusual; see also Detroit, Michigan, Belle Fourche, South Dakota, and Presque Isle State Park in Pennsylvania... the last of which was named by Anglophones because it resembled the natural feature for which its French name refers, just as with Bellefontaine, Ohio. -- SwissCelt 06:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bellefontaine is a thriving city.
Take it from someone who lives there and has seen the world around it, don't edit and reduce artical size it is important for people to what Bellefonaine is.

Wikipedia is a informational website how can anyone get information if people are out there reducing artical content and important facts? Were do you get a more in depth story a summary or a the full story. It would be nice if someone would update Bellefontaine's Population our population is no longer 13,069, but more like 17,422.

 * I'm a Belle Center native: I am quite familiar with the area. I've reduced the Holland information because the Holland has its own article: we don't need to have everything repeated on here.  Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Most residences of Logan County are in tune with the operations of Bellefontaine, due to the fact that it is the only "city" in the county. I respect you editing job and pleased to know someone else is looking over Bellefontaine's artical. I however, find it easier to get information about a stated topic in one place.

Reversion of latest edits
I've reverted this week's two-piece edit for two reasons:
 * I can't imagine how there can be a census estimate in 2006, since this page says that there wasn't one; I could, of course, misunderstand the source, but I can't see how a 2006 number could be appropriate unless presented with a specific source.
 * The restaurants simply aren't that notable; this isn't Wikinews. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Great Source!, however the census was not a national census; it was one compleeted by the Logan county area itself of the City of Bellefontaine and it's surrounding villages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.13 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd add that the addition isn't sourced. A source might have shown this to be notable; for example, if the local paper (or other verifiable source) indicated that this was a part of some kind of civic renaissance.  (Then again, I'd hesitate to compare a few restaurants' opening to Pittsburgh's Renaissance.) -- SwissCelt (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Bellefontaine, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6962cjXgL?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naco.org%2FCounties%2FPages%2FFindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
 * Added archive https://timetravel.mementoweb.org/memento/2010/http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/2010_place_list_39.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/2010_place_list_39.txt
 * Added tag to http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/37749197v1p37_ch02.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bellefontaine, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bellefontaine.k12.oh.us/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221150432/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/pl/fred-plum-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/pl/fred-plum-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202061313/http://www.co.logan.oh.us/html/county_map_-_large.html to http://www.co.logan.oh.us/html/county_map_-_large.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bellefontaine, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041012030246/http://www.ci.bellefontaine.oh.us/html/history_of_bellefontaine.html to http://www.ci.bellefontaine.oh.us/html/history_of_bellefontaine.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bellefontaine, Ohio


text: User talk:68.80.54.151

title: User talk:68.80.54.151


text: Category:Alicante

title: Category:Alicante


text:
Category:Skyscrapers in Trinidad and Tobago

Skyscrapers in Trinidad and Tobago.


text:
Friedrich Lange (artist)

Friedrich Lange (29 October 1834, Plau am See – 18 July 1875, Strasbourg) was a German history painter and member of the Nazarene movement.

Life
Friedrich Lange, son of a court clerk, spent the first years of his life in Plau, then in Bützow, where his father had been transferred. He had six siblings, including a younger brother who studied music in Dresden. He completed his painting apprenticeship with Gaston Lenthe (1805–1860) in Schwerin. He then went to the art academy in Dresden, where he studied diligently for five years as a student at the academy. There he was also four years special student with Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld.

In 1859, Lange received a gold medal for The Entombment of Christ at the Dresden Art Exhibition. From 1859 to 1862, he lived in Rome on a grant from Grand Duke Friedrich Franz II, where he was a member of the Lukasbund and the German Artists' Association. Lange lived in Schwerin from April to October 1862, where two small commissioned works were created. He then moved on to Bavaria, Austria, and Northern Italy. One of his daughters was the painter and artisan Laura Lange, who ran a studio together with Martha von Kranz in Munich.

title: Friedrich Lange (artist)


text: Category:Buildings and structures in Trinidad and Tobago


text:
Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet

The Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet is a Cyrillic alphabet designed for the Romanian language spoken in the Soviet Union (Moldovan) and was in official use from 1924 to 1932 and 1938 to 1989 (and still in use today in the breakaway Moldovan region of Transnistria).

History
Until the 19th century, Romanian was usually written using a local variant of the Cyrillic alphabet. A variant based on the reformed Russian civil script, first introduced in the late 18th century, became widespread in Bessarabia after its annexation to the Russian Empire, while the rest of the Principality of Moldavia gradually switched to a Latin-based alphabet, adopted officially after its union with Wallachia that resulted in the creation of Romania. Grammars and dictionaries published in Bessarabia before 1917, both those that used the label "Moldovan" and the few that used "Romanian", used a version of the Cyrillic alphabet, with its use continuing in Bessarabia even after the 1918 union, in order to make the publications more accessible to peasant readers. The Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was officially introduced in the early 1920s, in the Soviet bid to standardise the orthography of Romanian in the Moldavian ASSR; at the same time furthering political objectives by marking a clear distinction from the Latin-based Romanian orthography introduced in Romania in the 1860s. As was the case with other Cyrillic-based languages in the Soviet Union, such as Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian, obsolete and redundant characters were dropped in an effort to simplify orthography and boost literacy. It was abandoned for a Latin-based alphabet during the Union-wide Latinisation campaign in 1932. Its re-introduction was decided by the Central Executive Committee of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic on May 19, 1938, albeit with an orthography more similar to standard Russian. Following the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, it was established as the official alphabet of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic until 1989, when a law returned to the standard, Latin-based, Romanian alphabet.

There were several requests to switch back to the Latin alphabet, which was seen "more suitable for the Romance core of the language", in the Moldavian SSR. In 1965, the demands of the 3rd Congress of Writers of Soviet Moldavia were rejected by the leadership of the Communist Party, the replacement being deemed "contrary to the interests of the Moldavian people and not reflecting its aspirations and hopes".

The Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet is still the official and the only accepted alphabet in Transnistria for this language.

Moldovan Cyrillic spellings are also used in the media and in governmental publications in the Republic of Moldova for the names of settlements when writing in Russian, as opposed to using their Russian forms (e.g. Кишинэу is used in place of Кишинёв for the name of the city of Chișinău).

Description
All but one of the letters of this alphabet can be found in the modern Russian alphabet, the exception being the zhe with breve: Ӂ ӂ (U+04C1, U+04C2). The Russian letters Ё, Щ, and Ъ are absent from the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, and the former two are usually substituted with corresponding clusters ЬО and ШТ respectively.

The following chart shows the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet compared with the Latin alphabet currently in use. IPA values are given for the post-1957 literary standard.

Sample text
This text is from Limba noastră.

title: Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet


text:
Helgøy Municipality

Helgøy is a former municipality in Troms county, Norway. The 659 km2 island municipality existed from 1886 until its dissolution in 1964. It was located in the western part of the present-day Karlsøy Municipality. The municipality included the islands of Helgøya, Grøtøya, and Nordkvaløya, large parts of the nearby islands of Rebbenesøya, Ringvassøya, Vannøya, and many smaller surrounding islands. The administrative centre was located on the south side of the island of Helgøya in a small village where Helgøy Church is also located.

Prior to its dissolution in 1964, the 659.3 km2 municipality was the 148th largest by area out of the 689 municipalities in Norway. Helgøy Municipality was the 532nd most populous municipality in Norway with a population of about 1,517. The municipality's population density was 2.3 PD/km2 and its population had decreased by 5% over the previous 10-year period.

General information
From ancient times, the parish of Helgøy had existed. On 1 January 1838, municipal self-government law was introduced in Norway (see formannskapsdistrikt law), and the Helgøy parish was made a part of Karlsøy Municipality. Helgøy grew as a trading post under Christian Figenschou, but residents soon became dissatisfied with the municipal government based in Karlsøy.

On 1 September 1886 the parish of Helgøy was separated from Karlsøy Municipality to form a municipality of its own. Helgøy Municipality had an initial population of 828. Despite being separated, the two municipalities still had a common priest, sheriff, and doctor, but all these were residents in Karlsøy. From 1886 to 1892, Christian Figenschou was the mayor of Helgøy. After 1886, residents began developing a local town center on Helgøya island, with Helgøy Church, a rectory, a farm, and flourishing trade. A small village grew up around the church site and a permanent school in the parish was added on Helgøya island. Steam ships regularly stopped here and a post office was established. After 1928, a doctor and sheriff were permanently located here.

During the 1960s, there were many municipal mergers across Norway due to the work of the Schei Committee. On 1 January 1964, Helgøy Municipality was merged with the island portions of Karlsøy Municipality to form a new, larger Karlsøy Municipality. (The mainland areas of the old Karlsøy Municipality became part of Lyngen Municipality). Prior to the merger, Helgøy had a population of 1,495.

Name
The municipality is named after the island of Helgøya (Helgøy) since the first Helgøy Church was built there. The first element is which means "sanctuary" or " holy". The last element is which means "island". Thus the name means den hellige øy or "the holy island". Historically, the name of the municipality was spelled Helgø. On 6 January 1908, a royal resolution changed the spelling of the name of the municipality to Helgøy.

Churches
The Church of Norway had one parish (sokn) within the municipality of Helgøy. It was part of the Karlsøy prestegjeld and the Nord-Troms prosti (deanery) in the Diocese of Nord-Hålogaland.

Geography
The highest point in the municipality was the 1049.3 m tall mountain Soltindan, which was located on the municipal border between Helgøy Municipality and Karlsøy Municipality.

Government
While it existed, Helgøy Municipality was responsible for primary education (through 10th grade), outpatient health services, senior citizen services, welfare and other social services, zoning, economic development, and municipal roads and utilities. The municipality is governed by a municipal council of directly elected representatives. The mayor is indirectly elected by a vote of the municipal council. The municipality was under the jurisdiction of the Hålogaland Court of Appeal.

Mayors
The mayors (ordfører) of Helgøy:

 * 1886-1892: Christian Figenschou
 * 1893-1895: Guttorm Guttormsen Raste
 * 1896-1898: Edvard Raste
 * 1899-1901: Christian Figenschau
 * 1902-1903: Edvard Raste
 * 1904-1907: Hans Raste
 * 1907-1909: Søren Hansen
 * 1910-1913: Hans Raste
 * 1914-1922: Peder Nilsen
 * 1923-1925: Hans Raste
 * 1926-1934: Elias Olsen
 * 1935-1941: Edvard Baardsen
 * 1941-1941: Iwan Figenschou
 * 1941-1943: Matteus Grindberg
 * 1943-1943: Dmitri Figenschow
 * 1943-1943: Nils G. Rasthe
 * 1943-1945: John Olsen
 * 1945-1947: Edvard Baardsen
 * 1948-1963: Konrad Hansen

Municipal council
The municipal council (Kommunestyre) of Helgøy was made up of 15 representatives that were elected to four year terms. The tables below show the historical composition of the council by political party.

title: Helgøy Municipality


text:
Sampling error

In statistics, sampling errors are incurred when the statistical characteristics of a population are estimated from a subset, or sample, of that population. Since the sample does not include all members of the population, statistics of the sample (often known as estimators), such as means and quartiles, generally differ from the statistics of the entire population (known as parameters). The difference between the sample statistic and population parameter is considered the sampling error. For example, if one measures the height of a thousand individuals from a population of one million, the average height of the thousand is typically not the same as the average height of all one million people in the country.

Since sampling is almost always done to estimate population parameters that are unknown, by definition exact measurement of the sampling errors will not be possible; however they can often be estimated, either by general methods such as bootstrapping, or by specific methods incorporating some assumptions (or guesses) regarding the true population distribution and parameters thereof.

Sampling Error
The sampling error is the error caused by observing a sample instead of the whole population. The sampling error is the difference between a sample statistic used to estimate a population parameter and the actual but unknown value of the parameter.

Effective Sampling
In statistics, a truly random sample means selecting individuals from a population with an equivalent probability; in other words, picking individuals from a group without bias. Failing to do this correctly will result in a sampling bias, which can dramatically increase the sample error in a systematic way. For example, attempting to measure the average height of the entire human population of the Earth, but measuring a sample only from one country, could result in a large over- or under-estimation. In reality, obtaining an unbiased sample can be difficult as many parameters (in this example, country, age, gender, and so on) may strongly bias the estimator and it must be ensured that none of these factors play a part in the selection process.

Even in a perfect non-biased sample, the sample error will still exist due to the remaining statistical component; consider that measuring only two or three individuals and taking the average would produce a wildly varying result each time. The likely size of the sampling error can generally be reduced by taking a larger sample.

Sample Size Determination
The cost of increasing a sample size may be prohibitive in reality. Since the sample error can often be estimated beforehand as a function of the sample size, various methods of sample size determination are used to weigh the predicted accuracy of an estimator against the predicted cost of taking a larger sample.

Bootstrapping and Standard Error
As discussed, a sample statistic, such as an average or percentage, will generally be subject to sample-to-sample variation. By comparing many samples, or splitting a larger sample up into smaller ones (potentially with overlap), the spread of the resulting sample statistics can be used to estimate the standard error on the sample.

In Genetics
The term "sampling error" has also been used in a related but fundamentally different sense in the field of genetics; for example in the bottleneck effect or founder effect, when natural disasters or migrations dramatically reduce the size of a population, resulting in a smaller population that may or may not fairly represent the original one. This is a source of genetic drift, as certain alleles become more or less common), and has been referred to as "sampling error", despite not being an "error" in the statistical sense.

title: Sampling error