Talk:West Hartlepool War Memorial/Archives/2011/July

APPENDIX
With regard to the Discussion on this matter, see also, for previous texts, now deleted, "Archive 1", under Toolbox bottom right, first option, 'What links here'. If this is done any readers interested in these matters will rectify any criticism now contained in this Talk section by the original author of the material deleted. I offer my apologies to Wikipedia for not having been aware of this relatively simple but not so easily ascertained fact! May I now recall the origin of this entire matter, which fits so strangely into the world of the Wikipedia website, but fits to some extent at least, whereas it fits nowhere else, and in particular fails to fit in the Administrative Court of the UK: the inclusion by the author or authors of the original Wikipedia page on Hartlepool under the title 'History' of two words (and two words alone) 'Victory Square' (I now repeat it has never been a 'square' in a strictly architectural sense at any time, even when acquired by the West Hartlepool War Memorial Committee for purposes of a war memorial, in 1921, although the records relating to the Committee, as a result of the other project, Alms Houses, now being a registered charity under the title 'Hartlepool(s) War Memorial and Crosby Homes', documented at the Charity Commission, Liverpool, may explain this by showing that it was the intention of the Committee that it should eventually become one as a result of additional and related constructions to complete its intended parallel--in both architectural and historical terms and in relation to the layout of both towns, Middlesbrough and West Hartlepool--with 'Victoria Square', recently demolished, in Middlesbrough) - the inclusion of these words therefore was done without any clarification whatsoever of what is and was (as is now suggested) the history of the matter, relating not only to war memorials throughout the UK but to Victorian municipal architecture as a whole. I repeat also 'Victoria Square' (destroyed in Middlesbrough in the present century some time after the destruction at the end of the 20th of the 1923/24 officially entitled 'square' with a boundary wall in West Hartlepool clearly based upon that same 19th/20th Cent. true square as it once existed in that neighbouring Victorian new town, Middlesbrough) is called, officially at least, 'Centre Square' (again, itself not architecturally a square, and now identical in this respect with both the former and the present West Hartlepool 'Victory Square') within what is in effect a Park, including an Arts Centre, next to the relatively modern 'Civic Centre' and the structure to which it was originally intended directly in a number of ways to relate, the 19th Century Middlesbrough 'Victorian' Town Hall and Municipal Building which is full from one end to another with complicated decorative and other features relating to the Queen-Empress and was opened by the Prince of Wales in a year which was intended to relate, in anniversary terms, to that in which she became Queen (currently a listed building). So another suggestion to which unfortunately I believe it is possible that no-one will pay much attention, at least so far as can be ascertained, is this: that since, as in Middlesbrough, the situation has moved to one that is almost certainly impossible to reverse, Hartlepool Borough Council (by which I mean Councillors not officers, even if with the advice of officers, which they can overrule if they think that advisable) should arrange in accordance with its own view of the law, subject of course possibly to review, either to obtain the necessary retrospective listed building consent, or to cease calling this particular little portion of open space in Hartlepool by the name of the land of the original war memorial (or according to the Council as stated in the press in the 1960s 'public open space' in terms of legislative functions, together with as an added fixture the Monument) 'Victory Square' at all; for that is a misrepresentation leading directly to damage to the significance of war memorials throughout the country; in view of its size and position this is now a bit of open space which will hardly require a name at all, nor historically will it merit one; for, in point of property law, it remains for the most part directly under the control of the Council, whereas the Middleton Grange Shopping Centre, also the property of Hartlepool Borough Council, has been, since the 1960s, leased property. You people of Hartlepool, I now request once again, move forward under the Freedom of Information Act, and save yourselves historically from this infamy, for this is what I respectfully, in conclusion suggest to you; for it was never your own fault, nor that of your elected representatives, but the consequence of official misrepresentation. In the meantime, why not start here in this Talk page on Wikipedia? Thank you, people of Hartlepool, or indeed Middlesbrough or elsewhere. "If ever the taming talisman, the cross, should shatter" (said Heinrich Heine in his 1835 book 'On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany') "primitive fury will be loose once again ..., the senseless frenzy of the Berserk, of which the Nordic poets sing and tell so much. That talisman is decaying and the day will come when it will fall miserably to pieces. The old stone gods will then rise from their long forgotten rubble and wipe the dust of a thousand years from their eyes; and Thor will leap up in the end and shatter the Gothic cathedrals with his giant hammer." Right or wrong, as quoted in 'Hitler's Henchmen' by Louis L Snyder (published in the USA in 1989)? In any event, in 1871 the Prince of Wales opened, on behalf of Queen Victoria, the Royal Albert Hall of Arts and Sciences, in 'Albertopolis' in London, with, concluding the script on the frieze, 'The wise and their works are in the hand of God. Glory be to God on high and on earth peace', and it is here, in this building, described by Queen Victoria as an 'image of the British Constitution', every year, since 1927, on the Saturday nearest to what was originally known as Armistice Day, now the Saturday before Remembrance Sunday, that the King or Queen of the United Kingdom together with others including in particular the Royal British Legion, hold that service of remembrance to be seen every year on television, after one open to the general public in the afternoon. What in effect, therefore, was it intended, in the first instance to signify? And how do all these matters including in particular architecture and history in fact relate? We cannot sort this out here and now. Let us sort out, please, the immediate local issues (with incidentally immediate reference, if anyone happens to be interested, to the unique character of the contemporary postcard entitled 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' and on the website itself incorrectly referred to in the title at the date of writing as 'Roll of Honour ... Hartlepool (West) Boer War', as referred to as an external reference in the main article in this particular part of Wikipedia, in the sense that this postcard with a photograph clearly of the same date as the unveiling and dedication happens to illustrate five steps on the left side and apparently none at all on the other, this apparent absurdity relating directly to 'The Monument Described' in the contemporary document referred to above, 11 October 1923, and the description therein of the five steps to the platform as being intended to symbolize the 'five years of the war' and therefore related, in view of the character of the British Empire version of the 'Inter-Allied Victory Medal', to 'Victory Square' as originally laid out and defined by a boundary wall, the article indicating grammatically that the 'platform' itself is part of the 'square'), but I hope fully aware that the wider issues as indicated possibly exist, and thus serve the country. (What is the alternative? I cannot say; so let us please do it this way, and thank you again).

As will be noticed perhaps by those with the time to spare on this matter (and duly observant in consequence) there is now perhaps a connection to an entirely separate Wikipedia page under 'talk' with perhaps the only relevant section at the present date under the heading 'October 2008' on this page, which relates to the long-gone (2008) initial removal of the article WEST HARTLEPOOL WAR MEMORIAL, as written here by myself, Peter Judge; this now added information was it seems something that happened automatically as a result of a contribution by myself to that same 'talk' page in Wikipedia today, 27 June 2010. I did not therefore provide this connection myself directly, but it should not be understood that I have any objection even if I happen as usual not to understand how it happened, or how I could have done it. I hope you go there and find it interesting. The anonymous administrators of Wikipedia (or their automatic procedures) have moved in their slightly mysterious fashion once again, but this time in a way that I must admit is entirely justified, in the interests of a balanced debate. It remains to be seen whether anybody else now contributes to either that or the present talk page, however. PJ 217.23.229.250 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009, additional postscript is now added on the 17 October 2009 and other additions to the same postscript on 24-27 June 2010 (UTC) P Judge.

WELL so far so good (or so bad)?

What is 'history', exactly, and how does it relate to our everyday concerns, if at all?

The past, the present, and the future or perhaps a different way round (words as quoted by Michael Linch at page xv of his work Scotland, A New History, a remarkable book published in 1991): Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past, this having been said in a book by George Orwell about what at the time of its publication (the Second World War) was of course the future, entitled Nineteen Eighty-four.

Ladies and Gentlemen, is EVERYTHING politics?

No Sir, No Madam. 'To time, its Art; to Art, its Freedom' (as for my own part I hope English language WIKIPEDIA now helps to confirm, if not exactly to make so far at least as clear as may be desired by some, for nobody else seems in our present state of affairs, at least in Great Britain, and as controlled in particular by the press, to do so at all).

As a layman I wish here to suggest that ultimately the issue remains one of law in the sense that what is in question in the case of the 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' is property owned by a local authority and, in theory at least, subject both to local government legislation and to the legislation (both domestic and international in treaty form) relating to what is described within the UK as 'listed buildings' (or, within the 1985 Granada Convention, 'architectural heritage of Europe'). As is made clear in the Convention (and, even more generally, in the accepted criteria of architecture) buildings or structures cannot be isolated, in architectural terms, from that which forms their framework, whether other buildings or landscape, or both together, and this sometimes in a perhaps rather complicated or at least not particularly evident fashion which is nonetheless significant (the significance being one which clearly exists in this present case in historical terms and is wide ranging, extending both within the North East, within Great Britain, and ultimately even further afield within Europe and over the entire area of military action throughout the war, as a result of particular references and connections associated with the design of the Hartlepools war memorials and that of Seaton Carew as first laid out which arguably exist even if they now, having been corrupted or disappeared altogether, remain to be clarified, officially or otherwise, in accordance with the decisions resulting from European agreements upon the significance of Article 17 of the 1985 Granada Convention, a rather problematic in historical terms European Convention to which the United Kingdom has been a signatory from its creation).

PS April 2011. There have been further additions to the main article which perhaps will clarify the notion that this is possibly a rather complicated national issue with possible international connections, and not simply in relation to 'listed buildings', but generally, as a consequence of the evident complexity of the relationship of British national (and imperial) history within that of Europe as a whole (including East Europe, as from the 19th Century, although the details which may be said to demonstrate this have not been included). To all those who believe that an individual (however remarkably honourable, dependable and competent) is not sufficient to resolve it, I express my entire agreement, and to this I would agree even if I happened to be a rather better known and better qualified person than what I happen, unfortunately, to be, as well as rather younger! The legal issues remain. By the leave of Wikipedia (to whom my thanks) I wish finally to draw the attention of all those concerned to the possible involvement within the United Kingdom of the Monarch in relation to both international treaties or conventions and, domestically, in particular under the Judicial Committee Act. Please rest assured ladies and gentlemen (and military and government departments!) that I myself remain (at least for the time being and as I hope a reasonable Britain) open to general discussion on the Internet, either here in accordance with the requirements of this website or in the more personal fashion that has been suggested by myself elsewhere within Wikipedia and which can of course be clarified here if required.

PPS June 2011 To the above must now be added something of which at the time that I wrote it I was unaware, but which is now included under 'References' within the article, namely the document issued in 2008 by the Political Committee of the Council of Europe in relation to the particular problems presented by these issues, shown under 'References'

Until at a Council of Europe level we resolve this issue is it not the case that the wars of the last century, including the 'Cold War', are in one sense unfortunately still with us here in Europe? When will true peace come, if ever? These are questions that are evidently also in the mind of a number of other people, even if, it seems, never likely to be discussed in the press. Let the people of each European country (or at least those directly involved, such as the United Kingdom) recognize what seems to be the courage and competence of the Council of Europe in this particular matter (admittedly the also relevant Vatican City does not happen to be amongst its members) and seek to move on from there.

PPPS A good deal of the text was yesterday (11th July 2011) removed as shown on the 'View History' page. I am obliged to agree with this being in principle entirely correct, given the title of the article. I nonetheless have to-day (12th) contributed to the relevant Talk page of the editor with the following comments under the title 'Your edit of West Hartlepool War Memorial':

"Hullo. The idea of what is 'too long' as here stated is probably relevant given the essentially local character of any particular war memorial. The wider issues remain where there are national and international connections and the principal purpose of the form in which this article has been edited by myself (as is made clear I hope in the Talk page where you could have had your say before editing if you had wished but it seems you did not choose to do so) was, rightly or wrongly of course, to make clear that what is never, in the case of any war memorial whasoever within the United Kingdom, generally recognized in respect of such a possibility should be made somewhat clear, if not entirely so, here. You and others may wish to believe this is the wrong way to have done it. Do you recommend that as the person in effect responsible for all this text I should either create a new article in Wikipedia or write a book? It would not be easy and you do not state this as your own 'POV' (point of view?), that which would have made your edit rather more courteous Sir! In the meantime I must admit that you certainly have a point and that the article is now much easier for anybody to read, given that other people have other things to do, and perhaps wish to concentrate on the war memorial in question (which incidentally was no longer given its historical name in relation to the 'Hartlepools' anywhere on the web until this article first appeared, with this historic name still not used anywhere elsewhere so far as I know). I confirm what I have said to lots of people lots of times, that like wars themselves it surely remains to be seen how all this complicated matter turns out at a European level, if at all. I was never a soldier myself and I sometimes wonder what it has to do with me, but it seems I have become for the time being at least embroiled. PS I have now read a further comment at the start of the article as follows, 'This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (July 2011)' Given that this request clearly relates to myself, can you perhaps explain to myself (who is admittedly rather incompetent so far as the website and Wikipedia are concerned) exactly what may be meant by 'using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject' (presumably as contained in the 'sub-articles', whatever these may be)? Does this mean the creation of a new article or articles related to the present one in the form suggested? Thank you if you can spare the time to resolve this issue so far as I am concerned. PPS I have now at last done what I should have done in the first place, had a look at the definition within this website of summary. I think I now understand what all this actually means, but I am a little confused as to whether the phrase 'this article' means that the summary should necessarily be under the title 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' when what is in question if sub-articles are prepared is clearly war memorials in general. Do you have any suggestions on this particular point? Furthermore are you fully aware that what is in question is indeed a national and international issue? It was the possible wide implication of what might be said under a different sort of title that encouraged me to put it all under 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' as I am sure you will appreciate when I make clear that it includes the arguably questionable actions and decisions of not only local authorities but the Charity Commission and the Administrative Court over many years, together with central government, further to actions by myself in relation to 'listed buildings' and UK First World War memorials in general (possibly a highly controvesial issue from both the historical point of view and that of our present-day ceremonies and those held elsewhere in Europe, east and west, together with their own memorials)."

These being the suggestions made and the questions raised on the Talk page of the editor in connection with this edit, I would of course welcome any comments on this directly connected Talk page by any interested party either for or against (I do however understand that there are probably very few people who think it either desirable or necessary to become personally involved, while at the same time asking them to appreciate the possible long-term complicated issues that are I myself think and suggest here in question both within the UK and so far as its relationship with the Council of Europe and consequently with its other European members both west and east is concerned, please see the 'external link' to the relevant documents of the Council of Europe previously available on this page article together with the text "The character of this state of affairs, if not widely discussed, was evident throughout Europe at the end of the war and its resolution may be said to have been the primary purpose of the Council of Europe set up in 1949 and which currently in 2008 (resolution of the Political Affairs Committee) has proposed collaboration between all member states with regard to the definition and the character of the memorials in each particular state which is based upon the idea (undoubtedly correct perhaps but of unprecedented complexity) that the memorials must eventually, and however long it may take for this to be done, be brought together within Europe, this being of course something that can only be done when promoted initially by the Council itself, in one way or another, and with careful consideration as to their significance and intended historical meaning as indicated on the Council of Europe website. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.95.148 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.88.171 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Text (11 July 2011)
A removal of a considerable amount of text within this article by Salix Alba took place on the 11 July for the reason given under 'View History' and in response to a resulting comment by myself as author on User Talk Salix Alba.

Some of the reasons there given have been accepted by myself as possibly likely to be accepted by a majority of those involved in the character and development of this entirely unique 'encyclopedia'. I have however (again of course as author) also made the following comments on the Talk page cited:


 * You are Sir no doubt (I repeat) correct in supposing that this article could be described as (I quote) 'too long' if restricted to its title (that of a particular war memorial). As you will perhaps recall however amongst the text now removed by yourself there were amongst other matters the following statements (which I believe are sufficiently confirmed by documentary evidence to have been in principle acceptable) in relation to the notable element in European history, the creation of a 'fête de la Victoire' or 'Victory Parade' on the French National Holiday in 1919, with the first involvement of foreign troops having taken place in 1916, under a different title (that which has according to http://www.garnison-paris.terre.defense.gouv.fr/14juillet2011/les-coulisses/historique-du-defile.htm with a few exceptions and since 1925 taken place on the same sites, that is including the Champs-Elysees entitled 'Victory Parade'): (1)  'The Whitehall Cenotaph (also associated with the burial of the Unknown Warrior) originated in part from the 1919 Victory Parade, Paris, and more directly from the Peace Parade in London five days later' ; (2)  'cf. also the Thiepval Memorial by Lutyens, the architect of the London Cenotaph, carrying the flags of two nations or empires, France and Britain, together with the graves of soldiers likewise from both nations or empires, and in the form of an arch relating to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and therefore to the history and architecture of both France and those European nations participating in the Victory Parade in Paris in 1919, as here in outline referred to' ; and (3) (in relation to the Nazi Germany and the Second World War, being in effect a citation from the Wikipedia website quoted, q.v. Welthauptstadt Germania)  'the German Arch of Triumph which was to be based on the Arc-de-Triomphe in Paris and to carry the names of the German dead of the First World War' .
 * I wish therefore in conclusion to suggest (whether or not this is relevant to your action as an editor) that the immediate relevance of this to the present interpretations of history as reflected in architecture within Europe is now (July 2011) fully demonstrated on the French language website http://www.liberation.fr/societe/01012349187-eva-joly-propose-de-supprimer-le-defile-militaire-du-14-juillet which has (so it seems) within a matter of hours been responded to by no fewer than one thousand comments (also of course in the same language) it being possibly the case that there is unfortunately not a single one of them that refers to this particular sort of arguably demonstrable historical and architectural relationship with the 20th Century in general and consequently to war memorials elsewhere both east and west including of course the West Hartlepool War Memorial with its inscription on one side 'Thine O Lord is the Victory', the connection of this date with French and European history being however apparently confirmed in the reliable governmental website on the 'history of the parade' (http://www.garnison-paris.terre.defense.gouv.fr/14juillet2011/les-coulisses/historique-du-defile.htm as quoted above).

I wish to point out that although in the 'View History' comment by Salix Alba dated 11 July 2011 a reference is made to 'rm' (which seems to myself to be intended to be understood as refering to Requested Moves, that is in relation to titles rather than to the complete or partial removal of any article) it is nonetheless the case that this particular form of action (discussion on the possibility of renaming) was evidently not in fact at any time followed, and was not in any case relevant?

I have in any event to confirm once again that this is in my own view, historically and architecturally, a very complicated matter arguably involving all sorts of very controversial and legally unresolved issues both within the UK and Europe, east and west and with particular connections in the case of the UK to the biblical quotation from Ecclisiasticus (originating c. 200AD in Apocrypha and first quoted at the beginning of the war in 1915 in a book by Sir Lawrence Weaver together with a 20th Century comment in the form of a well known poem by soldier, Siegfied Sassoon) 'Their Name Liveth for Evermore'. It therefore may I personally suggest have direct relevance to the current (as from 2008) actions of the Council of Europe in relation to war memorials as referred to above, and (insofar as it would not resolve those difficulties) the possibility of a renaming this article is therefore in any case irrelevant since it would not resolve those issues or problems (the question of why 'rm' was included in his text by Salix Alba remains so far as I am concerned).

So how (ladies and gentlemen, my readers, whoever you are) will all this end (in this encyclopedia 'Wikipedia' or out of it or both at the same time)? Having myself been involved for over twenty years (with some years in Wikipedia under this title in particular, 'West Hartlepool War Memorial') I still make no predictions other than to say that time will pass and time must also, for better or for worse, tell; it seems to myself, ladies and gentlemen from whatever part of Europe that you may come, that it is so far as Europeans are concerned a crucial issue in the history of humanity and the related issue of the true character of 'remembrance' which is now, within our Council of Europe, the general 'remembrance' of the history of a continent with particular reference to a given century, the 20th Century, as contained in war memorials and the related architecture, confirmed in the relevant document contained in the official site http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc08/EDOC11746.htm and clearly (so far as history is ever clear) in more than one country also dating back in terms of design and architectural reference to earlier centuries (even if this is currently in 2011 not generally recognized as a fact in either official documents or general comments so far as I am aware of these).

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.166.96 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)