Talk:West Hartlepool War Memorial/Archive 1

Lengthy essay
I've removed a lengthy essay from the article - I confess I am having a hard time figuring out what it's about precisely, it's written in fairly impenetrable prose, but it doesn't seem appropriate for what is essentially a simple encyclopaedia article on a single monument. Looking at the history, this seems to have been repeatedly added and removed - anyone have a better idea what all this is about? If there's something useful in there it should probably be cleaned up and added to the article, but I'm not sure I can pick anything out. Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the author of this admittedly complicated and lengthy 'essay', now apparently at an end. Complicated and lengthy and controversial perhaps, but I suggest that it must be held to be demonstrative of the incompatability of this sort of deletion (defined by the author Shimgray today 12 May 2009 as 'cleaning up') with a rational and correct consideration of the West Hartlepool War Memorial that it takes not account whatsoever of the fact, as was pointed out by myself in the material deleted, the area known as 'Victory Square' (not architecturally a 'square' as normally understood in relation to roads at all) was originally laid out (as shown in various editions of the the Ordnance Survey and in the Northern Daily Mail on the dates that were indicated, including the date of the unveiling, 11 October 1923) as in itself a memorial, but not including what was later (1923) erected as a monument.

This is of course of unusual. Was the open space intended by the War Memorial Committee to be purchased with money raised by public subscription for purposes of a war memorial, and then to be handed over to, and held by, the local authority as one for public recreation? In law this would I suggest represent a form of offence against property by the local authority in acquiring for a in effect a statutory purpose that which was in accordance with documents including its own minutes (October 1923) acquired for purposes of a war memorial, including the Square, 'to be held for the inhabitants for all time', that is on a trust basis. One must assume therefore, I suggest, that it was from the beginning intended to be, itself, as described, something with the characteristics of a memorial, both as land and inclusive of the structures erected with the money obtained by public subscription, including in particular the boundary wall and railings.

I have indeed changed by 'length essay' often (and it has sometimes been changed for me by others); I have however never gone into the details of why things happened in this way in 1919 or of the possible legal consequences; that is nonetheless upon what I believe is, upon a very reasonable interpretation of what is involved historically, the essence of the matter.

'Shimgray' (presumably an acronym) is (or would perhaps have been) right if he or she had pointed out that these are various legal issues involving the owner, a local authority, an executive agency under the listed building legislation, English Heritage, and the party responsible under the terms of the statute (1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act at s.1), that the Aministrative Court, the Treasury Solicitors for the Secretary of State, other executive agencies, and the Secretary of State himself or herself, have unfortunately repeatedly refused to resolve; they are admittedly not easy to resolve; in any event they cannot I believe be readily resolved in discussions between private citizens without the aid of those who possess both the power and the responsibility for ensuring that facts such as these are made clear.

Given this as what I understand to be the current state of affairs, I have now myself taken the liberty of removing what was left of my own contributions, since they, by being left isolated, have been rendered in effect meaningless (like the monument itself without the Square, for, I repeat what I said before, it is, both in the newspaper as cited and in the Programme of Dedication and Unveiling, of Thursday 11 October 1923) described as including a platform and five steps within the Square, notwithstanding that they were designed and built at the same time as the monument, the latter being in the form of an obelisk.

Thank all readers for their attention and interest so far, including 'Hartlepool Business' in a website, who say the memorial is the most interesting piece of history in Hartlepool (the memorials should more correctly be taken together, as constructed at the time, there are three of them).

Please see my final reaction at 'history' (time was always a mystery; on the internet it is volatile like the other mystery space and it seems that few things are the same from one day to the next; so be it, until copyright comes home and we look ahead to the future; meantime I salute again, and say farewell to, the immediately interested citizens of what is now 'Hartlepool', previously the 'Hartlepools', and wish to assure them that in my own view these matters cannot be concluded until the issues that I now raise once again on this talk page are resolved. Memorials, are in principle forever, and as constructed. Peter Judge 12 May 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr Peter Judge, may I politely suggest that you create a user account for yourself? There are many benefits to doing so, including the ability to keep a watchlist of changes to articles that interest you, as well as the ability to easily review all your contributions via a "My contributions" link.  (It would also allow the four-tildes signature to work as intended.)  I note that the names "PeterJudge" and "PJudge", among others, are currently available.
 * That said, in my opinion your reply here to Shimgray (a conflation, not an acronym) is illustrative of the same type of prose evident in your contributions to this article; Shimgray described it as "impenetrable", and I concur. I have attempted in the past to perform edits to improve readability and bring the article up to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but I find it difficult even to ascertain what it is you are trying to say—and I have some experience interpreting dense legalese.  To be specific, it contains an excess of parenthetical statements and inappropriate use of the first person; and its apparent point-of-view comments and  the utter lack of references to reliable sources makes a large portion of it appear to be (whether it is or not)  original research.  Moreover, I am not sure that the subject of this article warrants such in-depth, complicated, and (to be frank) convoluted information as you have supplied. It is, after all, simply a war memorial; lengthy discussions of treaties and surveys do little to edify the reader about the site, its purpose and meaning. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly didn't understand the previous text before you explained it here, which suggests a major problem with the article as it stood! If I'm reading this right, you're arguing the memorial was originally a physical monument plus open land, the land now having been used for some other purpose, and this is (potentially) legally problematic. That makes sense... but surely we can say that in a single sentence without extensive circumlocution, and leave it there?
 * If you wish to write at length on the topic, then I'm afraid Wikipedia really doesn't seem to be the best place for it; please see this page for an explanation. Shimgray | talk | 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC) (Andrew Gray)

Everything that has so far been said by others on this talk page strikes two notes with myself, the author of the material that has now been deleted as from 12th of this month: (1) it is perfectly logical and in practical terms absolutely correct (probably the right note) and it is in any event certainly clearly intended to be both helpful and courteous in accordance with the best interests not only of myself bu of Wikipedia in general, notwithstanding the deletion referred to; and (2) (a separate or joint alternative) in the context of what I happen to be interested in, and what I happen to believe should be of interest to others, it fails, this approach, nonetheless even to begin to resolve the problems that arguably, ladies and gentlemen, do indeed exist, not only within my own country (the United Kingdom, with regard to the West Hartlepool War Memorial) and not only indeed with regard to the history of the wars of the 20th Century, but, first, in relation to the history of Europe and its Empires East and West as first mirrored in the double-headed (and triple crowned) 'east and west' eagle that was adopted by the Byzantine Empire and later by the Empire that claimed to be its successor in historical terms, the Russian Empire together with the arms of Moscow (St George slaying the dragon, these arms were included by the Emperor Nicholas into the Imperial national flag according to the book published in the USA, Whitney Smith's FLAGS THROUGH THE AGES AND ACROSS THE WORLD, in the year 1914, when the Russian Empire entered the First World War), and second to this our wonderful or atrocious World and Universe that hide from ourselves Eternity, and human life in general from the day of the Creation according to the Holy Bible, and the subsequent eviction (which made necessary divine salvation and therefore a form of 'freedom' as understood in ancient Israel) from the Garden of Eden (something echoed carefully, upon inspection, in the Scottish National War Memorial, which depicts in the shrine Cain and Abel as the beginning of the story of human war and peace, and proceeds from there on, nationally (and incidentally upon what I believe is a correct interpretation, internationally, that is, with particular reference, upon the basis of certain symbolism, to events in Russia between the Empire in 1914, already referred to, in particular February 1917, and later October (November) 1917 and the revolution that was supposed in whatever precise sense to put an end to war, with the creation of first the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and later and the creation of the Soviet Union, under the motto, upon the USSR international flag, of the final words of the Communist Manifesto of 1870, at the time of the Paris Commune: WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!: you have nothing to lose but your chains, this being on the flag in the languages of the various nations involved, and not therefore in English) ... Thus when I say that these issues (which relate to architectural symbolism in my view) must be held to provide the intended significance to those structures which were erected as memorials after the First World War in the countries of the West as distinct from the East (who erected at the same time, or earlier, their own specific and unique form of memorials in particular in St Petersburg), then it becomes difficult to restrict oneself to purely legal issues such as the purpose for which land, or fixtures upon land, happen to be held by a local authority in the UK, as I understand happens to be suggested by Shimgray above?; for if it is indeed the case (that which I believe happens to be true, although no one else has said it, at any time, so far as I am aware, and it thus may not qualify for Wikipedia, as I am now told) that that land, and those fixtures, as originally acquired, and later added, when taken in relation to the purpose for which the land was originally held (an Armoury Field, in a Victorian New Town), the creation of a sea wall in a neighbouring historic town with the construction of coastal defences at the end of the 19th Century, coinciding with the targets of the first serious attack upon the United Kingdom since its creation in 1707 in December 1914, and (in a wider context) the truly revolutionary industrialization of the North East of England in the 19th Century, in particular the Victorian new town of Middlesbrough (the town of Middlesbrough, located on the track followed by colonists in  moving west, in Kentucky USA was incidentally created at the same time and also by a group of persons of English nationality, and I believe again symbolically); if these things happen to be relavent, then what is in question is surely consideration of the true implications of how allthese things might possibly have been INTENDED BY THE CREATORS OF THE WAR MEMORIALS, NOT SIMPLY IN THE HARTLEPOOLS, AND NOT SIMPLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, to fit together? That is what I wanted to suggest, perhaps as stated irrelevant, perhaps not; that however I concur is a personal opinion and consequently the objectives, and the means of obtaining them, of the in some ways highly controversial and certainly completely unprecedented 'encylopedia' Wikipedia (there are a the number of books that have already been published upon it dealing with its meaning and possibly implications and consequences which may be interesting, although I have not so far myself read them) are possibly indeed as stated by my fellow contributors above, and I repeat with emphasis: I do not expect in any circumstances whatsoever, at any time whatsoever, the article on the West Hartlepool War Memorial to be returned to its original form, or indeed any of my own contributions to be included at all, it being nonetheless the case, quite evidently, that if Wikipedia wishes to deal with facts, then facts, in law, relate to evidence receivable in Court, and that evidence is as defined, and does not allow disregard of the same by a responsible source of information calling itself an 'encyclopedia'; for judges, whose task is admittedly not easy, have in principle never claimed at any time to be able to alter what are facts, even if, as in the present case, they should choose to ignore them arguably contrary to both domestic and international legislation (or are they superhuman liars?) and the facts so far as the West Hartlepool War Memorial is concerned (based on public documents and joinder of documents where what is in question is hearsay evidence, the joinder being in particular with the maps of the Ordnance Survey) must until I am contradicted or proved a liar remain as I have stated them here in Wikipedia, and now state them again: it is not possible to redefine a war memorial as a public open recreational space only, as was done by Hartlepool Council at the time of the construction of the Middleton Grange Shopping Centre, resulting in the partial destruction of structures intended to be part of a war memorial, which has in the years since been carried further until almost nothing is left apart from the monument and the platform themselves, and then put the result in a meaningful document, whether encyclopedic or other, where the fact that the memorial has been deprived of any sense whatsoever is not at least considered as a possibility! Let it now be considered as a possibility, as suggested by Shimgray, on this talk page if nowhere else; and let us, ladies and gentlemen, people of Hartlepool in particular, seek amongst other things therefore the truth of war and of peace, that great mystery, and of the millions upon millions who have died, suffered losses, or been crucified in war, most recently in the name of 'freedom' disassociated from 'salvation' (those two concepts which I have stated were, for whatever that may be worth, historically associated in ancient Israel and that which which it may still be associated by some, and was associated in the Scottish National War Memorial in 1927, from Cain and Abel onwards); for in this sense the victory is not simply victory in war, nor even the victory of a Winged Victory, as defined by the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom on the Headland (AND NOTHING STILL HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT IT AT THE DATE OF WRITING): a male figure, with wings, and arms held high, looking up and holding a cross (what extraordinarily insulting rubbish for those people in his own country and abroad under treaty obligations that the Secretary of State is supposed to serve, and incidentally to the memory of those who contributed, with their own money, to the construction of this and other memorials and then gave them over to the UK Government for what was presumed would be safe keeping). If anyone wishes to use Wikipedia to relate these wider issues of these matters to other times and other countries, as I have in effect wished respectfully, notwithstanding that I do not underrate the difficulties, dared to suggest, then let them add this to their own other useful and numerous suggestions; but if it cannot be done, so be it, and I am sorry that what I have said has proved so incomprehensible! Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of Wikipedia, for your patience so far, for you are the first to mention these matters in a publicly available fashion at all!; in any event, your contributors to this talk page, and anyone else responsible, seem almost certainly to be natives from a New World, the United States, and I point out in conclusion that they should not perhaps believe the United States, with 'Liberty Englightening the World' in New York and Washington, is outside of these matters; I refer in particular to the truly extraordinary, and again extremely complicated, French Memorial of Gratitude to the United States erected at the Pointe-de-Grave on the Gironde Estuary, relating both to the sailing of La Fayette to join the American revolutionaries in the 18th Century before the involvement of France as a nation, and in particular its fleet, and the site of the landing of the first troops from the United States ever to land in Europe, in 1917, when they made it possible for the Allies to win that war at least in the West, followed incidentally by a Peace Conferece under a President from that country, Woodrow Wilson, and with in particular the issue of an Inter-Allied Victory Medal (THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILIZATION, with a Winged Victory, issued by all those Western countries agreeing to issue it with the exception of Japan to whom presumably Winged Victories meant little or nothing, at that time), and the creation of an in principle universal 'League of Nations', without the USSR or indeed the United States of America, in Geneva. So much for history and so much for what is incidentally upon one interpretation the necessary precedent, in history, of the United Nations now stationed in the United States, if its own history is to be understood, in relation to flags and in relation to war memorials and the wars themselves!; but it we continue, let us indeed continue with what are surely relatively simple facts, and their legal consequences, nationally and internationally, as suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SELF-EVIDENT. The lengthy essay continues lengthy but the length is that of the 'essayist', myself, and probably it will be maintained, if anything is ever said at all, that it (what has been said here) likewise continues to remain likewise 'incomprehensible'. So (incomprehensible), if not more so, is, I believe, almost everything to do with international law, or the 'law of treaties'; I suggest furthermore this is true both today and throughout history, and in particular as it was at one time perceived within the British Empire (with which the West Hartlepool War Memorial is, on the evidence, related both by virtue of the date of its unveiling and dedication--11 October 1923, twenty-fourth anniversary of the declaration of war by the South American Republics leading to the Boer War, an unprecedented event except insofar as this was the second of the wars in South Africa, the first one in 1880--and the colour of its Programme of Dedication and Unveiling on that day (11 October) being throughout khaki-coloured paper, this having been then as today the colour of the uniform of the troops of the British Empire, internationally, as adopted from that date, the South African War, and its relationship to the death of the first soldiers to die on British soil as a result of enemy action from the creation of the United Kingdom in 1707 and these having been within the Great War itself the first soldiers of Kitchener's New Armies killed in the war). This is nothing, or very little, when combined with and compared with the actual ramifications of this particular war memorial, including in its original form Victory Square (with its boundary wall and railings erected in 1924 and incidentally in the form of the railings, but not the wall, originally extending to surround the land at the time occupied by the Territorial Army to the south) this question (that of Victory Square) being now ignored in the article in Wikipedia as elsewhere, some of which ramifications I have attempted to indicate at least in outline myself, and all of which have been obliterated by others, having been first in effect invited to do so by the staff of your website, as a result of your unique process regarding control of what you put on your website, that is, as a result of the comments attached to it without any form whatsoever of dialogue with the author, myself, by you, declaring everything to be nonsense. So be it. The abstract issue of the significance of international law remains in view of the international treaty obligations that relate to what, in the United Kingdom, are called 'listed buildings' (the 'Hartlepool War Memorial' as it is described is Grade II under the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act), the current description being I respectfully submit something which itself in the present case is completely impossible to reconcile with the requirement under Article 2 of the 1985 Granada Convention on the Architectural Heritage of Europe, to which this country continues to be a signatory (namely, that any heritage chosen, within the states signatories of the teaty, to be protected should be, so far as that is possible, 'precisely defined'). What nonsense this treaty seems at least for the time being to have been made within the UK, rendering it meaningless as international law, in particular when compared with for instance the approach to these matters, under the same treaty requirements (the 1985 Granada Convention)within the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, and doubtless other countries as well, who put us to shame' for are we, the English, what people have always called us, are we hypocrites? But either these present comments, like my previous ones, are never read, or are not read by those who are concerned, or they will never be replied to, and for the time being hypocrisy will doubtless remain. I repeat, believe it or not, and effectively it remains to be conclusively demonstrated, it is in my view the history of the British Empire which is in question, in relation to Europe as a whole, as already pointed out by reference to the Scottish National War Memorial 1914-1918 and the Russian Empire, as it fought the war; this prevarication does not therefore, I suggest, necessarily mean that the issues that have been raised by the undersigned as named by myself are now at an end, even if I require a response within a reasonable period of time if I am to continue to participate in this discussion within Wikipedia. I suggest four weeks. Peter Judge. 8 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ALL THE ABOVE COMMENTS (TOGETHER WITH THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED BY OTHERS AND ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE) MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE OF INCREDIBLE AMBITION ON MY OWN PART (ASSUMING THEY CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AT ALL). So (may they have luck and good fortune, and be wise) are, ladies and gentlemen, as everyone must agree, the actions and statements of those who rule the world (assuming they live, as they do according to one theory, like the rest of us, under some form of judgment in terms of religion). Meanwhile, nothing has been said by anyone on the immediate issues so far as the West Hartlepool War Memorial 'comprising Victory Square and the monument erected thereon' (minutes of West Hartlepool Borough Council) and other war memorials in Hartlepool are concerned, let alone the wider issues! That is understandable. Your contributors are probably right in suggesting that an article upon a single war memorial is not the place for any of that! At the same time, I repeat what I have said above, that the central issue on this website as I see it is 'precise identification' in accordance with treaty obligations (with which obligations Wikipedia has, since the striking out of all comments on the memorial by myself within the article and the presentation of facts in a completely I believe misleading fashion, arguably failed to comply). The Internet is I suggest no more at liberty to disregard treaty obligations, or those relating to intellectual copyright, this including architectural design within the terms of the domestic legislation of the country concerned, than any other form of communication. Unfortunately this becomes very complicated when those providing information, as on Wikipedia, come from endless countries, and are themselves of endless nationalities. I suggest however that in the case of a charity registered in the USA (Wikipedia) this has so far as editing is concerned to require in the first place, so far as I can make it out, compliance with the obligations relating to culture and architectural heritage that have been entered into by the USA under the terms of the United Nations, and admittedly not the 1985 Granada Convention to which in particular I refer, this being limited to the member countries of the Council of Europe (which include incidentally Russia). These (potential) wider international issues must I believe be said to exist. They should I believe be replied to by Wikipedia itself in what form they consider most appropriate. Peter Judge, 26 June 2009.