Talk:Manchester Cenotaph

Bingle
The family is Bingle NOT Dingle, whatever Historic England and Skelton say. Search here J3Mrs (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for the link. Clearly it is Bingle—Bingle returns the records of the three sons with the right street and area, whereas Dingle only returns one record from a different part of Manchester. This will probably come up again so I'll put a hidden note in the wikitext. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain it was originally sourced to a contemporary newspaper report from BNA that I no longer have access to. J3Mrs (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrew Simpson, author of Manchester: Remembering 1914–18 appears to have researched this and he refers to her as Bingle as well. I'll cite him later (heading out for Sunday lunch now!). I've got a few more details to add and a few more books to cite and it needs a lead section, but the 'finished' article won't look drastically different to this unless there's anything that concerns you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

CWGC website: Sons of Albert James and Fanny Bingle, of 167, Harcourt St., Ardwick, Manchester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.174 (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nelson
 * Ernest
 * Charles

Temple Moore Memorial Cross
Not suggesting it's to be used, but this shows the "messy compromise" rather well. KJP1 (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't got as far as thinking about images yet. We're lucky to have a reasonable selection on Commons to choose from, but that one is a good candidate for illustrating the unfortunate placement wrt the Moore cross. The first time I walked past the cenotaph, I thought the Moore cross was art of it so it's easy to see why Skelton frowned on the placement. The tram seems to have done it a favour. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Italian Comrades and Korean War
"A marble plaque was added nearby to 'Our Italian Comrades 1915-1918'; it was removed during the Second World War but later returned [...] another plaque was added later to commemorate the Korean War"

Does anyone know where this information came from? I haven't been able to source it so far. The rest of the paragraph is from Historic England and the IWM by the looks of it, but neither mentions Italians or the Korean War. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It was certainly at the original site when I photographed it in 2009. When it was erected, and where it now is, I don't know. Neither Hartwell's City Guide, nor the Lancashire Pevsner, mentions it. KJP1 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For more information on the "Italian Comrades" plaque, see for example    The Korean plaque also clearly exists - see second image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.17 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, thanks. I shall have a look to see what MCC have done with it.  I don't remember seeing it at the new cenotaph site - maybe it's still at the old cross? KJP1 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they've been re-sited between the Cenotaph and the Town hall. Four in total; the Italians, the Korean War (faded), the British Legion (which I think replaced the original Italian one), and one ( slightly obscure?) to "Mancunians who have given their lives in other conflicts since 1945". I've photographed them and will upload to Commons. KJP1 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now uploaded - except the Mancunians' plaque which, for some reason, Commons doesn't like. They may be useful. Also a view of the cenotaph, stone and obelisks which may work somewhere. KJP1 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)



Local labour
Despite the promise that local labour would be used

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it's true to the source. On the other, one would expect a highly regarded firm of stonemasons to carry out the skilled part of the work (the level of precision would be down to thousands of an inch and would require highly skilled craftsmanship) and it's not surprising that Lutyens would use a firm he'd worked with before. The source doesn't elaborate on who did the site preparation and other, less skilled work. Anyone have any thoughts? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's true to the source, why remove it? It all adds to the controversy that dogged every part of the project. Of course he chose the best workmen but the committee had promised. I'm sure there were skilled artisans in Manchester, look at all those amazing buildings. J3Mrs (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right that it adds to the controversy. I would have expected local subcontractors to be involved in at least some of the work but the source doesn't elaborate on that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Background
I see you have reordered the section but as the Thiepval monument wasn't built until after Manchester's and most others, it was not an influence as were the stone, which was designed before the war ended and the cenotaph, I think it should be mentioned but last. J3Mrs (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To continue, I further think the Lutyens' stuff is inappropriate for the Background section and should be in its own Architect's sub-section in Commissioning. The architect doesn't really need mentioning until he has been chosen and that would be a better place. I read the reference, it doesn't say the Thiepval Arch was famous but that it "was the most influential on other forms of architecture", even more reason to change the order. It would then be possible to mention 100, King Street which he must have been working on at around the same time. J3Mrs (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I was WP:BOLD and did it. I think it provides a more logical narrative. J3Mrs (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you were bold. I might not have been in favour if I'd seen your proposal before you did it, but seeing it now I think it works nicely! I copy-edited the second paragraph a little to get rid of the passive voice ("was designed by Lutyens") and make it a little more readable. The original reason I wanted the background section in that order was so that it concluded in Manchester—it seemed jarring to conclude that section at Thiepval and then kick off the next section back in Manchester—but your re-working avoids that problem. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm better at doing rather than explaining, it's so much easier. As information is added sometimes some jiggling about is necessary. I absolutely hate the Albert Memorial pic, it's irrelevant, and am not at all keen on galleries but I think somewhere there should be a pic of the Temple Moore Cross, much more relevant, I think it's listed and there's one in the commons, wrongly labelled as the war memorial. J3Mrs (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't hate it but I'm not in love with it either. It's taking up a lot more space than it's worth. If you want to switch it out for Moore's cross go ahead. I'm hoping KJP will have some more photos for us in the nearish future and then I might play around with image placements again. I like galleries in architecture articles, though. Architecture is a visual art, and articles about it should be pretty, and if we have the photos to illustrate the things we're writing about we should use them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If another editor is taking more pictures then it's not worth doing anything yet. I hope there are some details. J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Architect
Just a suggestion re. the quote; "described by Historic England as the leading English architect of his generation." I personally prefer Gavin Stamp's quote; "the greatest British architect of the twentieth (or of any other) century." Firstly, I prefer quotes from people to those from corporate bodies, and Stamp's both eminent, and linkable. More importantly, I think it gives a better sense of Lutyen's stature. Your call, obviously, but if you want it, the cite details are in Edwin Lutyens Sources. KJP1 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Stamp, and his book on Thiepval is sat on my shelf. The reason I've used the HE quote so far is that HE use it in just about all their listing descriptions for Lutyens' memorials and it seems more fitting to use a quote specifically discussing (say) Manchester Cenotaph than one from a book discussing Thiepval when that book isn't cited anywhere else in the article. I agree it's a shame that HE don't name the authors of their list descriptions though. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep - you're probably right, I can see the clearer link to the subject of the article. One day, somebody's going to have to take on the Lutyens article. It's a poor reflection of the man and his achievements. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a horrible feeling that somebody is going to be me, considering I seem to be accumulating every word published about him. The trouble is it's taken me over a year so far to work through his war memorials in Britain and I still have some of the biggest to go, then there are his various memorials abroad, his work with the War Graves Commission (which is hardly documented on Wikipedia). I could easily do nothing else but write about Lutyens for years to come! HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  17:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a serious suggestion, if you ever do take it on, I'd be very happy to help. He deserves a good article and I've a bit of experience of working collaboratively with other editors on, for example, William Burges. Collaboration can be whatever you want/need; from comments, to writing half the article. Absolutely no hurry, and absolutely fine if you plan to pick it up solo. But the offer's there. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! A problem shared is a problem halved! It'll be a few months before I get to it though. Once Norwich and Rochdale are done, this one will hopefully be heading to FAC. Then Leicester is next on the list, probably to be followed by Derby, the Civil Service Rifles, Tower Hill, the RND. Then finally Southampton and Whitehall. And I'd love to do Thiepval and an overview article. Now you see why it's taken 15 months to get this far! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  20:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Burges took 6 years, from stub to the front page. There's no hurry. Aside from the memorial, Rochdale Town Hall is a truly astonishing building. If you haven't been, you should. KJP1 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Burials
I have been editing the article, to clarify that the original siting controversy was over the burial vaults, not specifically the cross. The trustees (rightly) maintained that they were charged by statute with keeping the burials in place (as indeed they still are). TomHennell (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - Tom, really appreciate the interest in the article and your input is valued. But, rather than try and make significant rewrites while it's on the frontpage, can I suggest you raise the issues on the article Talkpage. We can then discuss the suggested amendments without the pressure of the TFA appearance. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive comment; happy to proceed now the spotlight is not on the page. My essential points reference the description provided in Terry Wyke 2004 (already cited in the article). My note says its page 132; but I can check the text.  The controversy around the design and construction of the cenotaph was (as tends to be the case in such high profile projects) appropriated by a range of disparate interests, each of whom sought to hitch their own hobby-horse to the affair.  Unfortunately, the partial summary in the article picks up only one side of the story; specifically in relation to the question of whether the cross should be moved or not.  Lutyens, got caught up in all this; his original expectation was that the site should first be cleared of both cross and the underground burials.  When it became apparent that the trustees would not accede to this, he switched to saying that he was happy for the cross to stay; but once the monument had been dedicated got pulled into making supportive noises towards those seeking to re-open the whole issue.  The Trustees were deeply affronted by what they thought to be an attempt to frame them as being less than respectful to the wartime dead; and demanded (and got) a retraction from Lutyens.


 * The Trustees had been established by the Manchester Churches Act 1906 to administer the money paid by the City Council to the diocese for the purchase of the site of St Peters Church. Their statutory responsibilities were to document the burials, seal the vault, raise and maintain a memorial cross to those buried below, and ensure that the future use of the site by the City Council was in accordance with the terms of the Act.  As these terms did not include construction of a war memorial, the cenotaph project could not proceed without the Trustees consent.  The Bishop (ex officio chair of the Trustees) had indeed given his verbal agreement, but the full meeting of the Trustees demurred;; arguing that the most respectful site option would be Albert Square.  Hence their strong objection at their adverse characterisation as disrespectful in the local press.


 * not that this needs to be in the article; but it is important to register that the primary concern of the Trustees was the respect due to the existing burials, not the cross itself. Nor were they misguided in this; as the experience of TfGM in clearing the conterpart burials besid the Cross Street Chapel was to prove -  you cannot just load human remains into boxes and cart them away.  So the article needs to make it clear that the original site sat on top of the burial vaults of the former Church; and this substantially constrained what the statutory Trustees considered they could and could not agree to. TomHennell (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - Much appreciate the response. The main author's not around much at the moment and I don't have the Wyke, but it seems eminently solvable. What about something like:

Commissioning: As nothing was decided, any plans for the area would have delayed the war memorial project further and the council settled on St Peter's Square. ''The square was itself a controversial choice, due to its being the location of the former St Peter's church, demolished in 1907. The trustees appointed to administer the funds paid by the city council for the demolition, to allow for redevelopment, had statutory responsibility for the maintenance of the memorial cross, as well as for the bodies of the dead interred in vaults beneath the site, and objected to the removal of both. The dispute was only partially resolved. While the trustees finally consented to the construction of the cenotaph, they refused to allow the removal of the cross.''

Something like that, would then lead into the section in History which describes Moore's Cross. It would need citing, of course. Not at all wedded to the wording, or to its placement. Just a starter for 10. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty good KJP1. I am still trying to track down references to support these; some time back I found an article on the statutory Trustees on a local history website;  but it has since moved.  This blog from Dylan Lawson provides images of the proceedings of the key meetings in March and August 1923 https://manchesterarchiveplus.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/the-manchester-war-memorial/.  This from Stephen Levrant details the context of the recent restoration and move. https://www.academia.edu/36476477/Moving_and_Conserving_Sir_Edwin_Lutyens_Manchester_Cenotaph  Both should be in the article.  The account in Wyke is quite detailed; but confusing (or maybe just confused).  Wyke records the meetings in March/May 1923 proposing to remove the cross; but then the scheme goes ahead with the cross in place; only for the debate to be resumed after the dedication in July 1924.  What is apparent is that, following the March meeting of the City Council, the memorial committee split into three factions, each pursuing their own agenda.  One group continued to plan for a site in Piccadilly (in accordance with the Council decision).  One group launched an open competition in May, for a site in St Peters Square (with the cross and burials removed).  One group individually  approached Lutyens; who by August had produced a scheme with the cross and burials remaining in place.  Wyke does not spell out what was going on; but one clue (in my view) is Lutyens's reference to the 'susceptibilities of the donors'.  19th century public appeals generally published a list of named donors; but this was considered bad form for war memorials after the Great War; the object being to commemorate the generosity of those giving their lives, not those giving their money.  Nevertheless, it would seem that the most members of the memorial committee were also substantial donors; and as such were motivated to insist on being able to determine the choice of both the architect and the design.  Hence, although there were offers from 'outside' donors to augment the fund to meet extra costs (e.g. for placing the cenotaph in Albert Square); these were all declined by the memorial committee. TomHennell (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * p.s. Do we know what did happen to the bodies? Presumably they were disinterred? KJP1 (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They were moved to Southern Cemetery, Manchester. The crypt remains in place. . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * nope; the bodies are still there under the tracks, as the TWAO documents make clear. "The Memorial  Gardens  are  currently  located  on  the  site  of  the  former  St Peter’s  Church  which  was  deconsecrated  in  1906  and transferred  to  the Council’s ownership by the Manchester Churches Act 1906. Human remains are known to be interred on the site. However as a result of its special status, there are no statutory restrictions on its development as proposed unless it is intended to disinter the human remains."   TfGM moved the cross temporarily for restoration; and then installed a concrete lid over the crypt and its contents; with the cross on top.


 * Which was the key issue for the Trustees in 1924 (then not that long established). The Act required them to erect a cross to commemorate the burials still within the sealed crypt; and to maintain that cross in its place.  So the Trustees could not legally agree to removing the cross while the burials remained in the crypt.  But moving several hundred burials - who would need to be idividually identified and re-interred in separate plots on consecrated ground, would likely have taken a year or more. Which the memorial committee did not have.


 * Which is why the original plans were altered to accommodate the continue presence of cross and burials. But when it became apparent after the opening, that the cenotaph would not function as a parade tribune with the cross directly in front of it, there was a campaign to have the bodies removed; and Lutyens unwisely got caught up in this. TomHennell (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph
I think the first paragraph of the lead should be expanded with information of the 2014 relocation and broken up into two 'graphs.

I think the relocation is an important part of the story. But we don't mention it until the final 'graph in the introduction. And the first paragraph is long compared with other first 'graphs. It's also important to mention (for those of us who don't live in Manchester) that the original location was on the south side of the square.

Perhaps it could be changed to something along these lines:


 * Manchester Cenotaph is a war memorial in St Peter's Square, Manchester, England. In 1924, the cenotaph was erected on the south side of the square, although this site already contained a stone cross and was "cluttered" with overhead wires. In 2014, the memorial was relocated to the north side of St Peter's Square, closer to the town hall.


 * Manchester was late in commissioning a First World War memorial compared with most British towns and cities. The city council did not convene a war memorial committee until 1922, although it quickly raised £10,000. but finding a suitable location for the monument proved controversial. The preferred site in Albert Square required the removal and relocation of several statues, and was opposed by the city's artistic community. The next choice was Piccadilly Gardens, an area ripe for development but In the interests of expediency, the council chose the south side of St Peter's Square, which already contained a large memorial cross. although it already contained a stone cross commemorating the former St Peter's Church. Negotiations to move the cross were unsuccessful and the cenotaph was built with the cross in situ.

This whole revision and, in particular, the strikethroughs in the second paragraph, are just suggestions. Many people who are more expert than me would certainly do better. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Leningrad plaque
Although I can personally vouch for the unveiling of the Leningrad plaque, having seen it (OR!), the source used, Sputnik News, is on the Unreliable sources list as a propaganda agency of the Russian Government. We should probably have a better source for an FA. KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And the source has been removed by a passing editor on the grounds that it's deprecated, so I've removed the content it was supporting for now. I'd be happy to see it re-added if it can be sourced properly. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did hunt for a more suitable source when I noticed the Sputnik but drew a blank. KJP1 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)