Talk:War memorial

First World War Memorials
In the (current) third paragraph of the article (the one starting with "In modern times..."), there is a list of countries where war memorials were erected in most villages (France, England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and "other countries"). I don't think there is anything unique about these countries -- after the horror of the First World War, I think the same phenomenom occurred in virtually all countries that were involved. My suggestion is to get rid of the list and simply reference "countries involved in the conflict". Skeezix1000 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

 * The selection of images in the article was overwhelmingly western, and three of the nine images were of Canadian memorials. I have replaced some images, so as to achieve a a broader representation.  Obviously, the list of memorials in the article remains unchanged.  Skeezix1000 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Image:Vimy999.jpg was the last of the Canadian images left and it's missing so now there are no Canadian images. To keep the article tidy I've removed the following text




 * Someone must have a suitable copyright photo of this quite spectacular memorial. Also according to "The Memorial on Vimy Ridge does more than mark the site of the great Canadian victory of the First World War. It stands as a tribute to all who served their country in battle and risked or gave their lives in that four-year struggle." so we would have to re-word anyway to reflect this wider scope. Ttiotsw 01:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

?????war memorial
war memorial in newmarket cb????? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.208.111 (talk • contribs).


 * What exactly are you asking? Skeezix1000 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am assuming ( I know - never assume - Makes An Ass Out of U and Me) that the editor thought cb stood for Cambridgeshire, when in fact Newmarket is in Suffolk. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
There were too many images, and the different sizes in direct follow-up were distracting from the article. I have removed two (still 10 images! still really too many, but I didn't want to make too many people angry) and resized the others. For more explantion, please see my edit histories of the 25th February 2007. MadMaxDog 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But, further to posts above, the selection has again started to veer towards UK/US memorials (although your removal of some of the English ones helps).  I have done some further culling, to ensure that there is no more than one image per country in order to better represent a world view.  In response to Ttiotsw's comments above, I have also reintroduced a Canadian image (as the sole remaining Cdn. image, of the Vimy Ridge memorial, was removed once it was found to be a copyvio), but it can always be replaced if a new, non-copyvio Vimy Ridge image is uploaded.  I have also reintroduced a Russian image, to replace the images I have removed.  Finally, I reduced the excessive wikilinking in the image descriptions. Skeezix1000 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The "one image per country" rule may be too constricting. For one thing, the "Soviets" were not all from one country so a nation like Estonia would be difficult to represent here. For another, a monument to women would be excluded if one was pictured from the same country. This is why I reverted that last change, but I'm open to discussion. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. If you review the edit history of the article, however, you'll note that there have been issues with images.  Not suprisingly (given this is the English-language Wikipedia), the "natural tendency" appears to be for the article to fill up quickly with images from English-speaking countries (mostly English, and suprisingly, Canadian), or simply several images from the same country (Germany and Russia come to mind) -- a situation which we try to avoid and is contrary to policy (at times, the globalize tag would not have been unwarranted on this article).  Some articles more than others attract editors who want to give their personal photos prominence on Wikipedia  -- this is one of them.  On occasion, some editors have even removed "more diverse" images in order to include the latest pic they have uploaded.  The only way to counter this in a fair, non-subjective fashion is to effectively limit the images to one per country.  Having said that, I agree with you that there are a few cases where a memorial is unique, and in keeping with the goal of trying to maintain and promote diversity of images, ought to be included even if it results in there being more than one from a country.  The image of the women's memorial is a perfect example.  In retrospect, it ought not to have been removed. As for the Soviet images, I don't think I agree with your reasoning.  The fact that the Soviet Union contained many nationalities is not reason to allow multiple Red Army images.  Yet, a nation like Estonia, for example, can easily be represented -- it took me 4 minutes on the Commons to find an image of an Estonian war memorial unrelated to the exploits of the Red Army in WWII.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One more point, in response to your edit summary that "there is room" - sure, there is. Agreed.  But the Commons is full of images of a vast range war memorials all over the world -- we can add new images and still maintain diversity.  As for images being interesting - I agree with that too.  Even if we try to maintain a fair representation here, we should ensure images are uploaded to Commons, so that readers can follow the link and see all the images that have been uploaded.  The memorial/War memorial categories at the Commons are poorly organized at the memorial, so my next task will be to try to organize that in some coherent way that complements this article (and articles in other Wikipedia projects).  Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Protesters
"Such memorials were often constructed in city centers and now they are sometimes regarded as symbols of Soviet occupation and removed, often under protest of those who remember the Stalin regime in a more positive light..."
 * I would replace the marked part with "the original purpose of war memorials - to honor the fallen", but that'd be just replacing one POV with another. Would someone propose a neutral description for the protesters? --Illythr 20:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This should do. MadMaxDog 08:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure myself what should be in order or correct or both and I do not think I am alone, given that this is quite evidently an extremely complicated and long-running issue as confirmed by the Council of Europe in current publications (2008). Who knows what lies ahead? It should be what we can call 'the truth', not simply memorials in an abstract sense relating to individuals notwithstanding that the two issues are presumably related.
 * I suggest (with due apology, since it will probably be considered an offensive suggestion) that the first step in the West is for the countries in question to arrive at a correct interpretation of their own memorials, currently connected, probably in error, with both 'world wars' when created in relation to only one of them (the first) and arguably having implied meanings at the time of their creation (a time of considerable political stress) with regard to both (capitalist) west and (communist) east. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.4.71 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dates on British War Memorials
On many occasions the war memorials for the dead of World War One reads 1914 - 1919 instead of 1914 - 1918. I have been told the ones dated 1919 were to also recognise the dead from the expeditionary force to the new Soviet Union. Is this correct and if so was the funding for the memorial mainly from the gentry of the area ( a political statement ?) as I have also been told. presumabilly the dates are on memorials from areas that the soldiers of such a force were drawn from ? Thanks. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1919 saw the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and was the official ending of the war. 1918 was only the end of the fighting. Using the date 1919 had nothing to do with the expeditionary forces (there was more than one) against Russia since relatively few men served in them.Brownag (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'official' end of the First World War within the British Empire under the Parliamentary legislation relating to the end of war was 1921, as can be confirmed from official statements. The year 1919 was however the year of the Treaty as mentioned (28 June) and therefore marked the end of the war under British common law, if not in France, with peace declared by the monarchic herald (the official messenger and representative of a king or leader in former times) shortly thereafter in the same year. These particular characters of the two dates (1918 and 1919) within the British Empire are it seems in the UK reflected in a number of rather complicated fashions in the form of First World War memorials even if this has never at least up to the present time, 2011, been, it seems, analyzed in any publicly available form, these matters being perhaps historically politically controversial with the official extension of the war to 1921 having, as also confirmed in documentary evidence, resulted from legislation, namely the British Defence of the Realm Act. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.81.22 (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Cf. memorials with just one year, 1914, the opening year of the First World War, but which also may be said to relate to both 1918 and 1919, since the Scottish National War Memorial has this strange character of two different years for the end of the war insofar as the dates given on this memorial are 1914/1918 but in 1927 it was opened on the anniversay of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, 1919 being incidentally the date utilized both in memorials and in one version of the UK First World War medal (further, and as stated here, 1919 was indeed the end of the war under common law in the UK, even if it was also considered as having ended in the West in 1918 and officially did not end in the UK until 1921 as a result of a parliamentary act).
 * These histories will perhaps get ever more complicated for the general public as the years go by and eventually may be forgotten altogether. I myself think we should perhaps try to get this sorted out if we can both on this website and at official level for the sake of the understanding of history together with the medals and the war memorials by future generations but this admittedly has always been what seems to be a purely personal point of view (my own, and I am not it seems at all influential, alas). Peter Judge

US picture
The picture of the Liberty Memorial is an impressive photo of an impressive memorial, but wouldn't an image of the USMC War Memorial, which is likely the best-known such memorial in the country, be a better representation of a US war memorial? Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

World's longest sentence?
What is it with the last paragraph in the Controversy section with its first sentence just going on and on and on and on??2.29.92.113 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was almost certainly from an editor who signs himself Peter Judge, and who has a history of adding impenetrable gibberish to articles about war memorials - he's now banned from the project. I've removed the paragraph. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There are
at least in the US, a fair number of memorials, mostly statues, to individual soldiers. I am not sure if these would fit into the scope of this article or not. Any ideas? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just my opinion: A statue of a person is a "person memorial". Even if the person fought in one or more wars, it isn't a memorial to the whole war or to all of the war's casualties. Encapsulated in this article's clever name, this is about memorials to one or more wars. IMHO. ChrisJBenson (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Historic usage: Renamed section and removed its first paragraph
I made a significant modification to the section previously entitled "Historic usage". These notes are intended to quell concerns about the need for such a wholesale change. I started with the very first word!

The words historical and historic have quite different meanings. The former just means "from a long time ago", whereas the latter carries additional meaning (of great significance). I believe the intent of this section was just to describe war memorials from a long time ago, i.e. Historical usage. No, no, and no. Depending on your definition of "human", our history extends for at least 50,000 years (that's 500 centuries). With very few exceptions, war memorials are a product of the last two centuries. Furthermore, war memorials were not and are not the exclusive prerogative of the victors, and were certainly not reserved only for the greatest of those. Napoleon started a lot of troubling things, but that unceremonious ignominity wasn't one of them, and this practice didn't start on any of "his" days. The Arc de Triomphe is adorned with plenty of names (although it does also feature the tomb of the unknown soldier). And Nelson's Column isn't a war memorial at all. It commemorates the life of one man. Can anyone guess who? Was it? And did they? Almost every war memorial in Britain (regimental monument or otherwise) dates to 1918 or later. I won't even comment on the non-NPOV term "small Imperial Wars" other than to say it no longer appears in this article. I could find no reliable source for this. And "Anglo-Boer War" is an insult by omission to the Welsh, Scots, and Irish (and I am one of those). Even if this is true and well-documented, it is completely dwarfed by another war in the early twentieth century that attracted the funds of every town, city, parish, village and hamlet in Britain (and elsewhere). I removed it because "upon closer inspection", the stained glass windows carry a date eight years before the battle took place, and is just a tribute to all archers. I corrected the war the college itself memorialises (The Hundred years War in general, not the Battle of Agincourt, 23 years earlier).
 * Historic usage
 * For most of human history war memorials were erected to commemorate great victories.
 * In Napoleon's day, the dead were shoveled into mass, unmarked graves.
 * The Arc de Triomphe in Paris and Nelson's Column in London contain no names of those killed.
 * However, by the end of the nineteenth century, it was common for regiments in the British Army to erect monuments to their comrades who had died in small Imperial Wars and these memorials would list their names.
 * By the early twentieth century some towns and cities in the United Kingdom raised the funds to commemorate the men from their communities who had fought and died in the Second Anglo-Boer War.
 * Reference to the Flodden Windows, stained glass windows in Middleton, Manchester. Some claim they commemorate dead archers from the Battle of Flodden (1513).
 * Reference to All Souls College, Oxford.

I also rearranged what was left of the text in this section to be in chronological order.

The section could probably use a little more [truthful] information now. such as a Tasmanian War Memorial that enumerates British losses in New Zealand, or the earliest American memorials for the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the American Civil War. Cenotaphs in general, and specifically the Lutyens Cenotaph should probably be introduced here too.

I hope this wholesale change isn't too controversial. In my opinion, it was absolutely necessary. I know Wikipedia prefers verifiable over true, but previously, this section had neither of those traits. Even its title was incorrect!

With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Our thanks to you,  for taking this task on.  Though, changing 57 (carpmath) different sections is a bit more than I can hold in my brain at one time.  Occasionally while reading through your edits I found myself uttering the dreaded, "yeah, . . ..but" and I might return to a point or two later.  But for now, two thumbs up.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I will look for reference request South African War memorial in Bury St Edmunds which would make a good example of locals raising funds for such. Interestingly it was dedicated 11th November 1904, if only the time could be verified Edmund Patrick – confer 21:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Edmund Patrick –  confer 21:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

it is sort of a tradition,
or maybe it is just me, that says in articles such as this one each country is only allowed one picture unless there is a good reason to allow more. With that in mind I have removed one of the UK ones, and placed it here. I feel that Edwin Lutyens' Cenotaph is a better example than this one, so left that one to represent the UK. If you disagree with any of this, the gender argument is a good place to start, here is where to raise your voice. Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * One difficulty is that correctly you say one memorial to their war in dead per country, but this is a memorial to women who died in WII, not specifically UK. This was built as it was (and maybe still is) the only memorial to women who died, and in removing it from the article wikipedia is continuing the tradition of ignoring the fact that women also sacrificed their lives. The fact that it was sited in UK is secondary to the fact that it acknowledged that yes women also died. Edmund Patrick –  confer 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the article about the Memorial to suggest that it is not just for the UK women who served. Check out the uniforms worn.  But i take your point about the gender inequities found on wikipedia, so will remove the other UK photo as not to continue the tradition of wikipedia being USA & UK top heavy.  Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think both of us are between the devil and the deep blue sea on this one as both images have a "right" to be in the article, I wonder if other editors have, for example when faced with such dilemas, set up a gallery section - which would obviously become very large very soon! - or found another method to overcome such duel requirements? Edmund Patrick – confer 10:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe a subject link to Monument to the Women of World War II which obviously gives greater specific details to the monument? Edmund Patrick – confer 05:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't see that there is a problem any more. The UK has a memorial pictured which serves double duty as a monument to women. The problem is that there are 10,000 (carp math) monuments all over the world, each of which has an equal "right" to be in the article. As editors we have to make these sorts of decisions and I agree with you that trying to correct wikipedia's gender imbalance is more important than whatever other issues there are. I think we have arrived at a fine solution here. Carptrash (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)