Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:13, 9 September 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts: Public art This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts This article is supported by the public art task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. North East England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Military history: Memorials / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military memorials and cemeteries task force World War I task force

'VICTORY SQUARE AND THE MONUMENT ERECTED THEREON' is the contemporary text as contained in the 1923 programme "West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919, Unveiling & Dedication" under "The War Memorial - Its Message"

As now I hope made clear in the title of this Talk page as well as in the article itself there is a programme of dedication and unveiling relating to this war memorial, the 'West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919', produced at the time of the handing over to the Council of both land (as determined by the West Hartlepool War Memorial Committee itself, not by the architect named on the article page relating to it) and monument. It begins with illustrations of the structure and its north elevation, together with the inscription on the south elevation and the text of Psalm 124.

The text in this possibly (if not necessarily perhaps in point of law!) rather authoritative document (which includes a plan entitled 'Site of the Memorial', this being recorded also, if in an apparently different form, to a design by a well known landscape architect, at Cumbrian Archives), on page 8, under the title The War Memorial - Its Message, after some introductory illustrations, arguably makes this much, and more, clear: that Victory Square as originally laid out is effectively, so far as the 'message' is concerned, part of the memorial; for the subject of the first sentence in this text, and in the document, after the illustrations and the Psalm, is this: 'VICTORY SQUARE and the Monument erected thereon ... ' (in relation to an area the character of which as a 'square' in a simple architectural sense was, and has remained, debatable).

It was accepted as such (that is including land) from the West Hartlepool War Memorial Committee by the West Hartlepool Borough Council as a war memorial and this is recorded in the Council minutes, as follows: 'the West Hartlepool War Memorial comprising Victory Square and the Monument erected thereon' (General Purposes Committee, October 1923, report by the Mayor). In the 1960s this land was advertised in the local press as having been acquired by the Council for public recreation under the 1906 Open Spaces Act, with a view to changing of its purpose to that of a shopping centre. Finally, readers should note that this comment is being added by the author, P Judge, in addition to other comments by the same author over the past year (which may be known to some of the readers of this present discussion) relating to treaty obligations under the 1985 Granada Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, to which the UK is a signatory, which will again be clarified here in terms of access to the relevant website confirming those provisions arguably ignored by HM Secretary of State in terms of domestic legislation if anyone is interested. Meantime, I invite both contributors to this section and the managers of this website to please be serious and to be complete, or to make clear, in particular if the present addition to the material available to those who visit this site is now as has happened with regard to other material in the past, arbitrarily removed without any form of explanation or consultation, that the Internet, and in particular websites, is often not helping to educate the people who read it at all, but is alas alas effectively in some respects (at least through this socalled 'registered charity', WIKIPEDIA) helping to corrupt it. If you cannot tell the truth, say nothing at al, and be aware of the dangers of misrepresentations and of lies, for the truth will prevail in the next world where our dead soldiers live, we hope, if not in this world where we live now, and the 'victory' in this respect will not be that of man alone. These comments, including the present text, are already matters of record in hard copies and will therefore, if considered necessary, be drawn as soon as possible to the attention of whatever bodies in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom can account for it in terms of the necessary protection of the beneficiaries of what are known in law as public trusts, which is presumably the classification of WIKIPEDIA in both those countries (even, within the UK, only indirectly in terms of international United Nations treaties which may presumably be dealt with internationally on those terms by means of requests and comments to the UN in New York for transmission from one country to another). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.229.250 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 'Misplaced Pages' or out of it or both at the same time)? Having myself been involved for over twenty years (with some years in Misplaced Pages 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)

Section under "Rate this Page" (undated)

I (Peter Judge) have I hope duly noted what is available under 'Page Rating' at the end of the article (a single comment so far, and one which like any others which may in future be provided must be held clearly to refer principally to myself as the "author", even if I am of course, in Misplaced Pages, not so recognized, it being the case that anyone can contribute). This ("West Hartlepool War Memorial") is perhaps a rather unusual matter insofar as it relates to a particular war memorial but includes national and international references to war memorials and wars and national histories in general (that which has hardly been at any time the official approach to these matters, which may or may not of course be an approach which is justified, it being admittedly an arguably extremely complicated issue from a political and artistic point of view, as implied in the article and as stated above). I hope sufficient (if rather incomplete) evidence in documentary form is now on Misplaced Pages and on the website in general, in particular as quoted on this article, to confirm that these are issues which should perhaps be considered by the governments and the peoples throughout Europe as defined in the 'Council of Europe' even if they happen to be somewhat controversial and debatable. I also of course have noted the comments which have been included at the head of the article since July this year, 2011. May I confirm that I do indeed hope I shall, again as the person evidently principally responsible for the contents, be able to investigate (whenever I can find the time and the energy) how what is clearly relevant here in the form of suggestions can be put into effect. I am sure that it is good advice, for which I now thank the person providing it even if in the above section, in commenting on the removal of a considerable amount of the text, I have failed to do so. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.92.190 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peter Judge

With all your hard work that has gone into this page, I would advise that you make a wikipedia account. This will not only speed up the editing process, but also allow people to award you for your hard work. Akjar13 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Upgrading to Start Class

I will shortly begin re-formatting the information here to make it more legible, and thus able to be rated as a Start-Class instead of a Stub. I will try to refrain from removing information, but if I find something that appears to not belong to this page I will remove it and explain why under this section. Akjar13 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice to myself. I note what you, Akjar 13 (and perhaps eventually others as well) are possibly now going to do to this 'stub' text which is in effect entirely my own.

There are lots of things that have been said which may be considered as irrelevant or difficult to understand or both. Please allow me however to continue to approach this matter in my own unique and perhaps suitable (or ridiculous?) way, so far as possible.

I hope this has been explained above. I now repeat that what is in question is world history, believe it or not, as created by the European states, east and west, from the time of the Reformation, in my own view, if not in that of others.

So this is something that cannot be talked about in this article? Well, I have already conceded that point as well, and I now concede it again. I suggest, Akjar 13, the ultimate issue remains: truth which cannot be denied, that is, not as usually to be found in an encyclopedia, but concerning whatever particular issue that happens to be in question at whatever level, and for so long as the evidence is not destroyed altogether.

I am afraid that a further point is that almost nothing has been said here (believe this or not, Sir) in relation to the extraordinary issues that on a wider level happen (again in my own purely personal view, admittedly) to be in question (on the basis however of what is for the time being demonstrable, if not very easily obtained, evidence).

So I am for you or against you? Please bear in mind the ultimate possibilities. You may turn out to be right, you may turn out Sir to have suppressed once again (as on many occasions they have been suppressed elsewhere for over half a century since the Second World War and a new world order, and in opposition to myself personally at all levels of government in this country, the United Kingdom) the essence of European architecture and its relation to history (I have to include the rather large section of text already removed from this article a few months ago by another person, of which removal you will of course be fully aware, if not other readers).

You say above that for your part you intend to make comments once the removal (or alteration of existing text) by yourself has been carried out; unfortunately it remains to be seen whether this kind offer by yourself, Akjar 13, to enter into a posterior dialogue is in fact meaningful in my own opinion or in that of the other readers, of which there do not seem to be many, of this particular page, as recorded in the 'View History' page.

Finally, I am afraid that I find possibly rather cynical what seems to have been your decision first to congratulate and then in effect to criticize myself, and I hope you will agree that in any event history and its relationship to historians and to art (in particular architecture) will possibly for the time being remain unchanged, even if they are rather evidently (by the Western governments since the Second World War) suppressed so far as European history is concerned, the Russians having perhaps in comparison remained at all times reasonably honest.

But then what is the truth? Veritas vos liberabit,'You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free'. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.13.160 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of my revisions will be to start this article on the road to a Featured Article. I understand that much of the information on this page is important and so I would advise that you create and relocate information to other pages, then link them to this page. I understand that few people have visited this page, but as we upgrade this page and improve on it, more people will visit it and hopefully contribute in a positive manner. Akjar13 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue unfortunately remains somewhat out of the reach of any private citizen, namely, the character of our government and the particular application of specific or implied legal requirements, involving in particular (so far as specificity and direct connection is concerned) the character of architecture and history (I repeat this may be held to apply throughout Europe under international law as a result in particular of the creation in 1949 of the Council of Europe to which we are a signatory together with other countries both west and east currently related to these issues as stated above by myself, together with an external link, that is to the history of both world wars in the 19th Century, together with their memorials).

What is the answer? I know very little about war and peace. So far as others are concerned, I suggest that that depends on how the persons who you say may in the future be involved choose to view the relationship between an entirely new form of publicity (which will once again in this particular case, as is already of course the case elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, presumably not be possible to relate to any identifiable person, I believe perhaps unfortunately) and the present form and actions of our UK government (for there are some war memorials that relate to both war and peace in both west and east Europe, that which incidentally is directly implied in the frieze of the 1871 Royal Albert Hall and consequently in the inscription on the south side of the 1923 West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919 as officially entitled 'Thine O Lord is the Victory', surmounted by a cross, together with the 'Reveille', the military formation that begins the day, in the Scottish National War Memorial referred to on postcards, if not within the memorial itself, as 'The Cross Triumphant and the End of War'}.

Disastrous though this may be, and please forgive me for suggesting it, perhaps the easiest (if not the best) thing to do is to remove this article altogether rather than go to the effort of retaining it and creating new ones in the way you suggest, Akjar13? I am truly sorry (and perhaps a bit of an unfortunately lazy character or coward or both) but I say this quite seriously, please believe me. Please also rest assured that in any event I leave such decisions to others. It is not one that I shall ever at this stage try and put into effect myself and in the meantime please rest assured also that I am duly grateful for the opportunities that have been provided to me, and shall do my best to collaborate in your suggested course of action.

So if it remains, as will very possibly have to be the case, we shall see what happens to this article, and I hope for the best. Thank you again, Misplaced Pages.

PS Well, I have now today (28 September 2011) contributed to Scottish National War Memorial in response to a request for 'confirmation' as to the possible original intention that it should be related to one particular element in the history of Europe, the 'first world war'. I repeat I understand the political problems but I hope they (the comments I make) will not now be removed. If they are, as will possibly be the case, then naturally I shall be disappointed if not surprised. All of this remains, unfortunately, to be seen. I can make no forecast on any of these matters. Oh Misplaced Pages, how complicated in some ways you are, while being so extremely and remarkably efficient.

Peter Judge

'Relevance' or 'connection' of First World War memorials to the architectural form, as from the 19th Cent., of Buckingham Palace in London

A comment has today (28 October 2011) been added on a separate Talk Page by myself on this particular 'relevance' or 'connection' (together with that 'relevance' or 'connection' which likewise can arguably be said to exist in relation to other numerous and significant architectural and historical factors at a European level), this being the Talk Page which relates to an article on a remarkable piece of London architecture (which is likewise referred to within this article on the 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' under its name) 'Buckingham Palace'.

The fundamental background to these matters may be said to be something which seems to have been for many years (since the First World War) unrecognized, namely what was the true motivation (as recognized at the time of the raid, if never subsequently so recognized officially within the UK) of the German East Coast Raid on the 'Hartlepools' in 1914, on the basis of the assumption that the German Empire was at that time fully aware of these historical and architectural connections, and in particular their relationship with the Victoria Memorial in London immediately in front of and connected with the Palace amd "dedicated in 1911 by George V and his first cousin, Wilhelm II of Germany, the two senior grandsons of Victoria", when this was considered together at the conclusion of the First World War with what was quite clearly the completely unprecedented situation in Europe, east and west, as I suggest it must be presumed without perhaps much apparent documentary evidence other than that which is indirect but nonetheless significant, was indeed the case at the time in east and west.

The relevance, if any, of these matters to our present point of time is what remains of course to be demonstrated! May I now with some sort of regret suggest that it involves a very large number of possibly relevant considerations, including in particular the 2008 Council of Europe initiative so far as European war memorials are concerned, see the Council of Europe website on memorials ) and I therefore repeat that although this particular article may be in part at least something completely personal to myself, as has been remarked or suggested by at least one other person who has recently removed a large part of the text, it remains for this reason something which is complicated and is potentially at least in my own view a long-going national and international issue (there has been another person who has suggested that everything is indeed well enough demonstrated in this article).

We must haunted as we are by our dead and those of other countries in world wars take it or leave it, ladies and gentlemen, my friends or my enemies; what we cannot do, I suggest again, is deny that it exists and that it relates to the most extraordinary events in the history of our humanity on this earth. Let, therefore, the relevant departments of our government and our elected representatives in the UK now, or as soon as possible, if they consider this matter at all, either respond in one way or another or suppress for whatever reason those details which may from one point of view be considered very likely to be the truth of this matter in accordance with international treaty obligations including the 1985 Granada Convention and which may furthermore in certain respects be considered to be directly relevant to the form of the Olympic Games in London next year and the history of those Games in modern times, unlikely though this may seem, cf. the British Listed Buildings website showing the Hartlepool War '1914' Memorial historically properly entitled not the 'Nike', 'Victoria' or 'Winged Victory' as in Nike (mythology), its official titles at the present time and on the official list of English Heritage according to this website, but 'Triumphant Youth', as named in the extremely relevant in many respects official Programme of Dedication and Unveiling published in 1921 and included in part in both the local press and the Council minutes as well as being in certain even more significant forms reflected in local postcards, even if it happens to be, like the Victoria Memorial in London, evidently in its design related to that particular form of firstly classical Greek and later European sculpture which has over many centuries a very long and perhaps complicated history which continues now in the form of the renovated and (as from the late 19th Cent.) now in theory at least international "Olympus" Games, which "Games" themselves have a rather complicated and long-running relationship with that history and architecture that has been mentioned and which therefore also may be held to relate to, amongst other things, First World War memorials including in particular the "Inter-Allied Victory Medal" and the memorials in the 'Hartlepools', with the 1914 'Triumphant Youth' on the coast and further inland, next to 'Victoria Road' in the Victorian new town West Hartlepool, the 1914-1919 obelisk with the inscription 'Thine O Lord is the Victory' as also found on the frieze of the Royal Albert Hall, the essence of this matter being arguably in one sense the fact that 'Victoria' is the classic Latin word for both 'Nike' which means 'victory' in classical Greek and for 'victory' in general in Latin and clearly therefore relating to the Scottish National War Memorial if its designs are taken into account in particular in the Shrine and on the line out to the south from the Shrine (these being the elements within what previously had been a military barrack block as added in the 1920s by the architect of this memorial); but the unnamed figure 'Triumphant Youth' is, in its form, evidently dead, and represents the first soldier to die, in 1914, on British soil as a result of enemy action for hundreds of years, nor should it be assumed that there are no specific connections with the Imperial War Graves Commission as it was called at the time, this being however indeed a separate issue at a national and international level with particular connections with France (the ultimate problem or matter of consideration being as previously considered over many centuries, throughout the world, with particular reference in principle to what is known as 'religion', that of war and peace as famously dealt with by Leo Tolstoy in Russia in the 19th Cent. with reference in particular to revolutionary France).

One of the many remarkable features of the West Hartlepool War Memorial and its most evident one is of course simply the height of the obelisk (historically an architectural form the main physical character of which is height) at 66 feet/20.3m, as emphasized in a contemporary postcard relating to its 1923 unveiling (and of course on the coast the 'Triumphant Youth' goes the same way, as perhaps both distinct from and related to the 'Winged Victory' medal issued at the time of the East Coast Raid in 1914 by the German nation in respect of many different actions and relating to the Berlin Victory Column which itself had such a long and remarkable history together with the motto held by all soldiers of the German united army and on the nation's flag at the time, 'Gott Mit Uns 1870', that is, relating to the 1870 war with France, in which war the United Kingdom did not participate).

In conclusion, and so far as Buckingham Palace in London is concerned, the ideal course of action would presumably be the creation of a publicly available collection of relevant documentary evidence as detailed on http://www.chicagohs.org/research/resources/architecture (in the USA, Chicago)) and this in turn could be related to other architecture including the First World War memorials in the historic 'Hartlepools' and the history of architecture in the north-east of the UK in general, with reference in particular to the now demolished 'Victoria Square' in Middlesbrough, in effect begun at the same time as the extension of the Victorian new town to the south of the railway line, and the Ordnance Survey 'Battle of the Scales'.

Could a request by members of the public for this sort of action (evidently of significance not so much for myself as for the United Kingdom monarchy and its recorded relatively recent history together with European history in general with particular reference to the World's fair in the 19th Cent.) possibly be made, and if so by whom?

I do not know the answer, I can only put the question in the hope that its possible significance may be admitted by those with the power to consider some course of action in accordance (they can always have more information from myself if they wish either on this particular Misplaced Pages Talk Page and at this section or within Talk:Buckingham Palace where I hope that a copy of some of the paragraphs in this section can be referred to, it being perhaps more immediately relevant as an article).

What is the answer? Thank you Misplaced Pages for allowing this significant issue to be raised at all, nobody else seems to want to know about it so far (November 2011).

Peter Judge 28 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.138.227 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

PS Please (ladies and gents still reading my apparently questionable text!) do not after all understand that this last sentence "What is the answer?" should after all be supposed to mean some apparent complete public indifference. It seems that it had already (unfortunately I was not myself aware of this at the time!) been the case that there was a recent 2011 ceremony in 'Victory Square' in Hartlepool in connection with Easter (Good Friday) and involving the Latin cross as held by them during the ceremonial procedure and relating to that on the memorial, in connection with the words 'Thine O Lord is the Victory' which I believe is historically clearly related to the frieze on the 19th Cent. Royal Albert Hall also of course still, on a Saturday, associated with war memorials in relation to what is now in the form of a 'Remembrance Sunday'. This has according to the local newspaper now been repeated in 2012 but I have not however I am afraid been able so far to be in contact with theae particular persons in question and, this being something quite clearly completely unprecedented in all sorts of ways in relation to two, not one, world wars I have no idea of what may be the final answer (to whom or to what we are supposed now to be faithful I am not sure, ladies and gentlemen, but in any event all these soldiers in two wars died and in a completely unprecedented fashion were buried by their British government in the form of the military throughout the British Empire together with memorials within the UK, and not everybody in this country was it seems at the time wishing to be involved having it seems been given the option of the names of relatives not being necessarily included in any particular locally created memorial list). As for the relevance of these particular 'Hartlepools' memorials to Easter this is I believe something also clearly implied in the originally entitled 1914 'Hartlepool War Memorial', now sometimes known as the 'war memorial in Redheugh Gardens', it being the case that here evidently a soldier, if without uniform, is holding a Latin cross and with this together with numerous other relevant elements on the Headland having been all at one and the same time unveiled and dedicated seven years and one day after the remarkable German East Coast Raid on 16 December 1914 directly following their own failure in 1914 (and in particular thanks to the Russian as well as to the Western forces) to access, in France, either the capital Paris as in 1870 or the later attempted coast. Peter Judge, June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.145.137 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Psalm 124 This relates, of course, to 'victory' as in the Old and not the New Testament; a relationship with the New Testament can be said to arise as a result of connections with the statue Triumphant Youth, a statue which, by virtue of a cartouche on the shaft, relates directly to the Coastal Defence Units, the shaft being aligned upon a tablet (unveiled on the same day in 1921, seven years and one day after the East Coast Raid in 1914) recording the first military to die on British soil in two hundred years in the one and only raid by battleships, which tablet is located on the coast at a distance of 127m/139 yards, this distance on the ground being at a scale of 1:2500 equal to exactly 50.8mm/2" upon a plan, and identical with the length on plans and therefore on the ground of the open space 'Victory Square' and two times its width, the width equalling three times the width of the Armoury and the length of the platform of the memorial at 21.1m/69 feet. 'Victory Square' was therefore originally so defined by a boundary wall and railings and based on the length of the original 'Parade Ground' or 'Armoury Field' next to Victoria Road and a width as determined by the length from the Armoury to Victoria Road, these being details and facts within a large number of others as confirmed in Ordnance Survey plans back to the 19th Cent. and the Mawson suggested layout and plan in the programme of dedication and unveiling held at Cumbrian Archives, Kendal, and Teesside Arcives, Middlesbrough in the 20th, and also connected in a number of ways with the German High Sea Fleet 1914 East Coast Raid on the 'Hartlepools' and the resulting casualties (one example which is remarkably notable in many different ways is the width of Buckingham Palace upon the addition of the east front by Queen Victoria in 1847, to the present time, which can also be measured at exactly 127m/139 yards, or two inches at this particular OS scale (1:2500), rather than slightly less at 120m as is mentioned in the article Buckingham Palace, under the heading 'Interior' and even though admittadly relying upon the monarchical website as there cited, it being therefore a possible interpretation, but with the AA Street-by-Street Central London plan, based on the Ordnance Survey and at a scale of 1:10,000, measuring with inclusion of the Bow Room entrance exactly one half of an inch.)
2. ^ WEST HARTLEPOOL WAR MEMORIAL
3. Core Data Index to Historic Buildings and Monuments of the Architectural Heritage. For the possible relevance to this Misplaced Pages article please note User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2010/November#Re._User_talk:82.1.67.40, which contains currently (2011) an invitation to discussion elsewhere within the Internet.
4. http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1833/1030885.html 1833 Judicial Committee Act, s.4, His Majesty may refer any other Matters to Committee. It shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the said Judicial Committee for hearing or consideration any such other matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit; and such Committee shall thereupon hear or consider the same, and shall advise His Majesty thereon in manner aforesaid. It is conceded that unfortunately it is only in principal that this legislation remains in force and it is certainly conceded that it must be fully recognized that the form of its application in practical and understandable terms is something that cannot be forecast; it is however also the case that the present situation, as stated, is probably in historical terms something entirely unprecedented within any form of the exercise of any jurisdiction and involves (again as stated) certain international historical and architectural issues in relation to treaty obligations in particular within the Council of Europe (established in 1949) that which certainly involves the representatives from all those member countries or states, both east and west, that are signatories to the 1985 Granada Convention; I am indeed obliged to repeat again that I believe the future to be uncertain, but we can perhaps talk about it in whichever way is thought most suitable in these difficult circumstances and with or without citizens of the USA since memorials relating to the United States within France are also involved (it would be surprising if they were not).
5. ^ "'Attitude to Memorials subject to different interpretations' (htm, if this is desired, may be replaced by pdf). Council of Europe Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee. Reference to committee: Reference No. 3346 of 24 May 2007. The draft resolution and draft recommendation, which recognize the historical significance of these matters, were unanimously adopted by the committee on 29 September 2008 and it seems that a request had already been made to the member states of the Council thirty years earlier in 1980. It seems also that no response, positive or otherwise, by any European government is quoted, and the issue presumably remains open, that which may seem surprising; what may seem equally if not more surprising (given the date of creation and the character in the sense of purpose of this Council) is that the issue had not been approached in this particular fashion at all before this date (2008) and the reason seems to be clearly its historically difficult and politically highly controversial character as in this document very clearly outlined."
6. Granada Convention, 1985
7. 'Olympic Games' "'Nike and the Olympic Games' - In these four lines the poet captures the essence of an Olympic athlete. In this section, we will expand on those four lines and explore the Games from an ideological perspective since the historical perspective is well-documented.", cf. "The Olympic Truce - On 17 October 2011, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously adopted UNGA resolution – ‘Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal’ better known as the Olympic Truce resolution. This UK sponsored resolution has broken any previous record held for the most number of co-sponsors to the Olympic Truce resolution. Lord Coe, Chair of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Organising Committee (and the UK double Olympic Gold medallist), who tabled the resolution on behalf of the UK, read a speech to the UNGA, highlighting how sport can promote peace and development worldwide." (from the UK governmental site relating to the 2012 Games in London, )
8. British Listed Buildings where the first soldier to die in war on British soil for hundreds of years (the date on the memorial being 1914 with an illustration clearly relating to the East Coast Raid in that year) has been documentally turned by our present UK Government into a 'Winged Victory', at least for the time being, cf. Nike (mythology) which states that the statue in question "was created to not only honor the goddess, Nike, but to honor a sea battle. It conveys a sense of action and triumph as well as portraying artful flowing drapery through its features which the Greeks considered ideal beauty" (the same 'flowing drapery' being likewise part of the 1921 statue of a winged male figure but male and holding a Latin cross and opened on the Headland seven years after the East Coast Raid, the intended contrast or relevance being evidently with the 1917 and 1918 memorials of the 1918 Soviet Russian Republic in Saint Petersburg as relating to the October 1917 Decree on Peace rather than with the form of the 'Nike' or 'Victoria' of pre-Christian classical Greece, the Winged Victory of Samothrace in Paris since the 1860s, if also to be understood as relating to that and to the Inter-Allied Victory Medal).

Text removed -- now that I've finished the article, I'll sort through the removed text to: find any useful morsels - state why it was removed

Most of the comments below fall into: too long (Misplaced Pages:Article size), encyclopedic content (such as Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not) and Misplaced Pages:Relevance.

1. In the article already

The site of this memorial, with as a leading inscription 'The Great War 1914-1919' on the pedestal of the obelisk at the time of the unveiling and including a 'platform' with five steps described as 'symbolizing the five years of the Great War' (description in the leaflet as referred to below, 'External Links')

2. Interesting, but extraneous to the article.

was historically within the area of a Parade Ground to the south of a highway originally named 'Cambridge Road' and renamed 'Victoria Road' on the occasion of the 1897 Diamond Jubilee.

3. Not encylclopedic content that is needed for this article (i.e., part of the "too long" issues)

The area is shown on the 1:2500 Ordnance Survey (OS) plans dated 1897 and 1919 of the Victorian new town known as 'West' Hartlepool (or together with the historic Hartlepool the 'Hartlepools') where it is named 'Parade Ground'. Within this 'Parade Ground', also known locally as 'Armoury Field', is a building named the 'Armoury', this being occupied from c. 1870 by military units within the body set up in the 19th Century and known from 1907 at the time of the unveiling as the 'Territorial Force' ('TF'), currently entitled in England and Scotland the 'Territorial Army' (see Reserve Forces and Cadets Association).

4. Personal comments / too long issue

It seems that before the recorded involvement by the West Hartlepool War Memorial Committee of any artists or architects the area if not the design of the war memorial site was almost exactly predetermined by the West Hartlepool War Memorial Committee with or without consultation with the local TF but almost certainly with such consultation given that the site as eventually laid out involved the partial demolition of their 19th Cent. Armoury possessing on OS plans a particular relationship, together with the Parade Ground itself, to the road known from 1897 as 'Victoria Road', this War Memorial Committee itself having been created both by popular support and by the intention of the West Hartlepool Borough Council with a view to creating what is described in a public document, the Council minutes, as a 'permanent memorial' for West Hartlepool, being a memorial which eventually included another element that also extended to Hartlepool as currently recorded by the Charity Commission under 'Hartlepool War Memorial and Crosby Homes', previously 'Hartlepools' (minutes of the Peace Committee, April 1919).

As recorded in the press (report of meeting of the Committee in the Northern Daily Mail on 15 May 1919 in the form of a suggestion by Ald. Macfarlane that what should be done was to 'purchase the Armoury Field, widen out a width three or four times Victoria-road, and call it Victory Place or Square') the area and location of the site as a memorial were suggested in the first instance by this 'Alderman' (or senior council member) of West Hartlepool Borough Council, which Alderman here again used the word 'permanent' without referring to any of the legal issues relating to permanent or perpetual occupation of land under English law of which he was probably nonetheless aware (namely the requirement if this is to be made possible and legally binding of the setting up of a charitable or public purpose trust under the control of equitable jurisdiction distinct from 'common', 'statutory' or 'case' law).

The design of the monument within the site to be named 'Victory Place or Square or some other appropriate name' (described as in itself a memorial) was it seems (and as reported in both the national architectural journal The Builder and the local press in September of that year) almost entirely separate from and independent of either the Committee or the Council as such, being the result of a competition adjudicated upon in 1921 by a former president of the Royal Institute of British Architects under procedures relating to the design of war memorials (which were it seems fairly general at the time throughout Britain and as recorded in The Builder without of course being in any way obligatory, this leading to them being disregarded by numerous War Memorial Committees in the name of independence) the memorial in this case having been, in its relation to the existing architecture, already decided upon, this being therefore a precondition of any architect's proposal of design in the competition.

5. Readers can find this in the external link - not notable content for the article

It (the architect's monument and platform) was unveiled and dedicated together with the 'Square' two years later on 11 October 1923 the twenty fourth anniversary of the declaration of the Second South African (Boer) War in 1899 (whether by coincidence or otherwise).

6. IF there's a citation for this specific bit - it could be condensed and added to the article

It was unveiled on his father's behalf by the son of the Lord Lieutenant of County Durham, the Earl of Durham, and was dedicated by the Lord Bishop of Durham (East and West Hartlepool being historically, and at still that time, within County Durham and the county Lord Lieutenant or 'Lord-Lieutenant' being constitutionally the ex-officio president of the County Durham units of the TF and as that person acting on behalf of the King or Queen as the Head of the Armed Forces, at the time King George V, with the text on the north elevation of the Monument based on the message sent by the King-Emperor after the First World War to the next of kin of the casualties of the British Empire as recorded in the Imperial War Museum in London, this having been apparently the most widely circulated document that was ever issued).

7. Too long / relevance / ency content

Having previously provided, upon this occasion, a formal escort in the parade from Church Square for, in particular, the son of the Lord Lieutenant, himself a Captain, and as such unveiling the memorial, men of the Royal Garrison Artillery ('RGA') are shown on the plan entitled Plan showing the Site of the Memorial and Positions to be taken up by the several Bodies Assembling as having lined up on a section of the Square under the title GUARD OF HONOUR together with a total of eleven other groups or parties including the clergy, a band and choir and military buglers, with 'Section 1' entitled DISABLED EX SERVICE MEN & SERVICE VETERANS and an unnumbered section entitled 'PLATFORM' (next to the 'platform' as described within the text under THE MONUMENT DESCRIBED in the leaflet entitled West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919 - Unveiling & Dedication - Thursday, 11th October, 1923, p. 11, this being a plan which can be held - upon due consideration of its scale, 1 inch to 92 feet, and its character as a plan - to have been intended as a vital source of information so far as both the character of the war memorial - with regard in particular to the relationship between the monument and the platform as described on p. 11 and the war memorial site - and the intended significance of the ceremonies held on 11 October 1923 are concerned); today (ninety years and another world war later) it seems these issues, together with their relationship to history, continue officially in question.

8. Should be in an article about the war - although some of this is still too long

The 'East Coast' Raid upon the 'Hartlepools' opened at first light on 16 December 1914 with a fifteen-minute bombardment of the Hartlepool Coastal Defence Unit or 'battery' by all three German High Sea Fleet battleships involved in this section of this three-part raid which included a separate raid on Whitby and a joint raid on Scarborough. Historically, this section of the army (the RGA) were the armed forces which at the time (1914), together with the Durham Light Infantry, occupied the Armoury and manned batteries both in the 'Hartlepools' and at other coastguard stations throughout the British Isles (including perhaps Scarborough, where it seems possible that there was in fact a battery that was at the time of the raid unmanned. This raid led to the death of the first soldiers to die in British soil as a result of enemy action and was on the documentary evidence considered a major disaster by everybody in Britain prepared to consider the matter in an unprejudiced way; the Admiralty in general wished to suppress its history so far as possible and if possible have it ignored altogether; however, Winston Churchill (at the time the United Kingdom First Lord of the Admiralty related to the person holding within the Admiralty the position of First Sea Lord) used the raid on the 'undefended' town Scarborough in a recruitment campaign with no reference to the raid on the Hartlepools (a defended port of the Royal Navy and consequently a German victory, their battleships having returned home with no British naval counter-attack which achieved any success even if there was a brief engagement, upon the approach of the German ships to the Hartlepools, with considerable courage in ships not of the same fighting category).

9. Relates to another war memorial not this one

The principal feature of one section in historic (East) Hartlepool of a memorial designed by Philip Bennison is a statue which is described in the local press as a 'winged figure in bronze' representing 'Triumphant Youth' (Northern Daily Mail 17 December 1921 a copy of which is included within a public document, the minutes of Hartlepool Borough Council, December 1921, held at Teesside Archives), this being a statue in Redheugh Gardens upon a pedestal with four cartouches, two of them (northeast and southwest elevations) in the form of 'achievements of arms' with one of them (eastern elevation) showing what is perhaps the now removed Lighthouse Battery with the inscription FOR US THEY DIED and the date '1914' and another (western elevation) the historic coat of arms of the town Hartlepool, later transformed in a different fashion for the amalgamated local authorities under the same name, but already reflected in the arms of West Hartlepool.

10. Interesting, but too long / not ency content

Effectively the relationship between the 'Hartlepools' ('East' or historic Hartlepool and the Victorian new town) in respect of the 'Great War' (or 'First World War') exists historically in a number of ways apart from their common involvement in the East Coast Raid, but in particular in the form of the war memorials erected in both towns. Both were unveiled either by the Earl of Durham or by his son on his behalf. The unveiling by the Lord Lieutenant himself in Redheugh Gardens was followed by an unveiling by the Chairman of the (East) Hartlepool War Memorial Committee and his wife on the immediately adjacent Promenade (tablets dated 1914-1919 with the inscription TO THESE UNCONQUERED DEAD) and another unveiling by the Commanding Officer of the Coastal Defence Unit, Colonel Robson, of a war memorial tablet on the Lighthouse Slope somewhat further removed and in a different direction.

10. A different war memorial

This tablet is placed on the 'Lighthouse Slope' next to the Coastal Defence Unit batteries (the Heugh Battery and the Lighthouse Battery, the Heugh Battery with a Union Jack immediately adjacent to the tablet) and records the death of the first soldiers to die on British soil as a result of enemy action in the first raid on British soil since the creation of the United Kingdom in 1707, these matters being as reported in two articles by the press (Northern Daily Mail) apparently on the same day, 17 December 1921, seven years and one day after the raid, together with an illustration of both the 1914 memorial and the 1914-1919 tablets elsewhere on the Promenade within a separate article entitled HARTLEPOOL'S WAR MEMORIAL Unveiled by the Earl of Durham apparently by the sculptor Philip B Bennison, showing the tablets within Redheugh Gardens and the achievement of arms of Robert Bruce, the Scottish king, associated with the history of Hartlepool, on the south elevation of the pedestal (both in line with the 1914 East Coast Raid tablet on the Lighthouse slope, when these were not, as can be confirmed, in either case the points at which they had in fact been constructed, providing something which requires a certain degree of consideration as to what this may be supposed to mean, if anything, in particular since the documentation in question is as mentioned included in copied form within the Council minutes dated 17 December 1921, it being a possibly significant fact in this context that these and other relevant governmental documents in the United Kingdom have, as from 2010 under the Open Government License, become more widely available for the use of and publication by interested parties than was previously the case).

12. I've already commented on this - info already provided. Stopping comments here... no need to go further

The unveiling (together with a dedication by the Lord Bishop of Durham) some two years later on 11 October 1923 by the Lord Lieutenant the Earl of Durham (in the person of his son as representing him in view of the fact that he was unable to be present himself) of the 'West Hartlepool War Memorial', the war memorial here immediately in question, with the inscription 'THE GREAT WAR 1914-1919', was of a memorial which held, as detailed, a 'platform' approached by 'five steps symbolizing the five years of the Great War'. This featured four rises within the 'platform' with a further first rise combining, architecturally, with the ground level, as this existed at the time the rise being at the eastern end at six inches/15.2 cm identical with the rises within the 'platform' but, at two inches/5 cm, not so at the western end, constituting a confirmation, when taken together with the description of the 'five steps' under the title 'The Monument Described' at p. 11 within the leaflet referred to in External Links under 'National Archives' and given certain other structural elements varying at each end within the 'platform' itself in the length from west to east, of the intended relationship of this monument through the various features of the 'platform' with the site of the former Parade Ground; the precise character of this relationship certainly is something which ninety years later remains to be established and possibly set out in a documentary form; it may be possible to demonstrate that what is in fact here in question historically is one element within the purposes of the German Empire with regard to both the first High Sea Fleet or Kaiserliche Marine raid on Yarmouth which did not involve any bombardment of the coastland and the second raid which did, both having been carried out with the approval of Kaiser Wilhelm II, so far as it is possible for these raids to be understood as a German reaction to the blockading (early in November 1914 following the halting of the German offensive on the Western Front) of the North Sea by the Royal Navy, this being a theory which is as it seems confirmed by the references in the speech of Colonel Robson in relation to the 1914 Lighthouse slope tablet as unveiled by himself at the time of the unveiling of the (East) Hartlepool War Memorial, 17 December 1921 as this was reported in the press and later included within the Council minutes of Hartlepool Borough Council, these being references which although with no specific reference to the blockade of the North Sea by the Royal Navy in the form of a declaration of the North Sea as a war zone on 1 November 1914 include one to the German raid on Yarmouth which followed the blockade, or declaration of the North Sea as a war zone, two days later on the 3rd of that month and to the fact that the German shells in that first raid fell in the sea and not on the land, with a First World War memorial dedicated by the Lord Bishop of Durham in February 1921 (who later in October 1923 dedicated the West Hartlepool War Memorial) and unveiled by Colonel Robson (who had later in November the same year unveiled the tablet to the first soldiers to die on British soil at the Coastal Defence Unit) on a coastal site (The Green in Seaton Carew) was within the same area in the sense of containing a coastal defence battery manned by the Royal Garrison Artillery, modest in its structure architecturally, but being in the form of a Victoria Cross not modest by heraldic implication, lying at a distance to the south-west (as measured from the Redheugh monument or from the nearby tablets on the Promenade) of exactly two nautical miles (formerly known as the 'Admiralty' mile) across Hartlepool Bay (that is from coast to coast, the nautical mile in question being equal to 1853m), there being a possible implied reference to the message In Hoc Signo Vinces, 'Under this sign conquer', as seen in AD 312 in Greek together with a visionary cross by the Emperor Constantine I before his battle with Maxentius (q.v. labarum in relation to the Roman Empire and, regarding the following developments within the European continent, heraldic flag, a particular form of symbolism which is now extended in a more political and national fashion throughout the world as currently reflected in particular within the grounds of the post-second world war United Nations building in New York, successor to what was created by post first world war world wide treaty obligations to which the United States refused eventually to commit itself and which did not include Communist powers, known as the League of Nations with its headquarters in Switzerland, Europe); it would be naive to suppose that it is simply the result of coincidence that (it being arguably implied in various ways within this particular memorial of date 1923 as also within the other originally entitled 'Hartlepool War Memorial' of date 1921 and in particular within the Scottish National War Memorial by the Scottish architect Lorimer, 1927) it happens to occur as an inscription in the Welsh National War Memorial by another Scottish architect, Sir Ninian Comper (probably the last constructed major memorial within the British Empire after the First World War, its date being 1928), with all of these matters being quite clearly related, in terms of architecture, to the form of the British flag (the "Union Jack") even if it seems that this clearly nationally implied subject matter has never at any time been expressly stated or even recognized at all by the interested parties (which must perhaps, although this is of course debatable in legal terms, be held to include the more governmentally responsible officers of Great Britain, national or local). To return to the memorial dated 1914 on the Headland (according to public documents entitled 'Triumphant Youth') these three crosses, in different forms (as historical achievements of arms rather than present-day flags, but clearly related to the flags) are indeed the designs included within two of the four cartouches on the (historic) Hartlepool War Memorial (with a possible relationship to the sword held by a male winged figure in the Welsh National War Memorial, being a sword in the form as incorporated into a Latin cross within the cemeteries of the Commonwealth War Commission), the figure in the 'Hartlepool War Memorial', as originally named, being described as 'Triumphant Youth' in public documents (council minutes) and in the local press; these perhaps arguably related elements may be considered together with a memorial containing a Greek cross within a wreath in Seaton Carew (this being, not presumably by any coincidence, in a form related to that of the 19th Cent. military medal, the Victoria Cross and—when taken together with the present subject matter, the Victorian new town 1914-1919 West Hartlepool War Memorial together with the historical 1914 and 1914-1919 -- with the Queen Victoria's own early 20th Cent. memorial, this form of cross being directly involved in the history of these matters as a result of the participation of one hundred of those who had won it in the burial of the British Unknown Warrior within Westminster Abbey in 1920, a grave originally below a Union Flag which flag was after the Second World War moved elsewhere within the Abbey).

Recent edits

When the article was previously tagged as unencyclopedic and too long - it's because there was a lot more information on the page than was needed to provide an encyclopedia article about the topic. It's also important when adding information to ensure 1) it's cited and 2) if text is inserted into a cited paragraph - that the new information is actually in that source.

It did have a lot of interesting information - including historical background - that might be well suited for a blog or other such site, though.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the comments in the edit summary, I'll explain more fully here why the info was rolled back:

Regarding 1) it's cited - the additional paragraph added was not cited:

The original memorial including as stated the land was created at a national level under the Charity Commission (something later completely ignored by the local authority when the new single town was created, very much in accordance with the general political motives as from the Second World War) and it was intended to have particular references not simply to the history of the 'Hartlepools' (historic and Victorian, at the time and until 1960s under separate local authorities) but to the history of the country in general, with particular reference to a number of factors which proceeded the war, and including in particular the history of Queen Victoria, as witness the text on the south side, identical with that on the .

Regarding 2) if text is inserted into a cited paragraph - that the new information is actually in that source. - the information added about military barracks,etc. was not in the cited source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

of a particular form, together with the memorial itself, relating to what had originally been since the 19th Cent. a parade ground including a military barrack of a particular form relating to the Victorian new town which would face Municipal buildings on the north side (they were never created until many years later after the Second World War when the First World War memorial itself was at the same time completely dislocated in contradition of its original historical intention)

There's a way to resolve this peacefully by talking about it. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and we'll calmly get through this. For instance, it looks like you want to add a bit more history. We can do that - it just needs 1) to be cited and 2) to be concise.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not finding a WP:Reliable source for the information about the parade ground and military barrack. I went back to the article before I started the clean-up revisions - and the links didn't mention this either. Can you find a reliable source for this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I fail to understand your sort of action at all since you would have found all the necessary external links, at least in my own opinion, within the section under that title "External Links" wthin the article. I am sure everybody else will have arrived at the same conclusion. Why after so long do you now remove it apparently without investigating the information that was available in its original form? I do not understand this at all I am afraid while understanding that it is perhaps the logical result of present official actions.

Well, Sir, I myself believe that the national issue remains and that it will quite clearly have to be sorted out sooner or later. The government, whether local or national, cannot tell lies on important subjects without the involvement of serious risks unless of course I am myself going to be the one who gets damaged and removed by them or of course unless I simply fail to be good enough at making the necessary points. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.176.222 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Victory Square

Moved this item to the talk page.

having been included within the memorial as 'Victory Square' (Russian: Ploshchad Pobedy) with this as now a common name for central and representative squares in many cities of the former Soviet Union referring to the Soviet Union victory on the Eastern Front in the 'Great Patriotic War'.

How is this specifically related to this monument?

This is not in the cited source that it was attributed to. Where is the reliable source that connects this information to the West Hartlepool War Memorial?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire issue of both world wars in every country (and with particular reference in our own to Queen or Empress Victoria whose British monument in London outside Buckingham Palace is sometimes I believe quite incorrectly entitled as simply nothing but a form of Greek 'Winged Victory' and which had been erected at the same time as the beginning of the First World War and with particular reference to her original connection both historically and by name to the Russian Empire and incidentally also of course to France as against Germany) was the character of 'victory' (or 'victoria' in the Roman sense of Nike) and this had been the case for a long time (cf. 'Thine O Lord is the Victory' on the West Hartlepool War Memorial and previously part of the frieze on the Royal Albert Hall as you will be able to see within this article).

I understand these are complicated issues to include within a particular article in Misplaced Pages on a particular war memorial, however relevant it might be, and given the accompanying legal issues to which I have referred I am sorry but I now intend to bring any sort of discussion whatsoever between us to an end (I repeat that at a national level it should I myself believe eventually have to be sorted out one way or another, but I also repeat that I shall not be responding any more Sir to any comments which you might yourself choose to make, wherever in the articles so far in question, unless of course you now choose to restore the text which I had a couple of hours before you chose to remove it included in the article as re-designed by yourself, your new form of article being without any very clear reference whatsoever implied or otherwise to the significance of the description 'Victory Square' in accordance with its original design, together with the still existing inscription on the memorial itself 'Thine O Lord is the Victory' and as I hope has been made clear history at an international level within Europe).

Meanwhile, I happen already to have read your most recent proposal as shown in your proposal contained immediately below, and I am sorry but this does not, Sir, happen to change my mind. I repeat that it seems it is very clearly too internationally complicated for you or anyone else to want to have it dealt with in a sufficient form in this article but I repeat that if you or anybody else choose to restore the text you have just removed, I shall perhaps reconsider and enter into some sort of attempt to discover what exactly all of this may perhaps mean, east and west in Europe, in terms of 'victory'. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.162.27 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like WP:Original research. Information in wikipedia articles must be backed by reliable sources and be on topic for the article. Here is not a place to expand on the meaning of the word victory unless a specific published work mentions it in the context of this War Memorial.--Salix (talk): 09:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly indeed have tried publishing a book relating to Europe as a whole many years ago if I could have had the Administrative Court admit the simple facts relating to the war memorials in Hartlepool, as contradicted over many years by the local authority (the possibility of the provisions of the Perjury Act 1911 does I think remain a possibility, but I have always admitted that these are problems at a philosophical, historical and architectural international level and I do not entirely blame the local authority for having got into a situation of possible authoritarian crime, while being I am afraid entirely unable to understand how it is that correct information on an historical level as contained in their own documents has for more years than I can remember never at any time for many years been provided when required to councillors by officers to the elected councillors as evidently required by the legislation and in accordance with the original acceptance of First World War dated memorials with one of them clearly intended to be understood as in connection with the at the time extremely embarrassing 1914 East Coast Raid 'in the public interest' from the public). Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.179.123 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You may find a different site like blogger.com would be a better place to publish your ideas. Misplaced Pages has certain standards such as Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. I don't think they are going to be compatible with your more discursive ideas. You can see the article history if you want to recover your past work.--Salix (talk): 12:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple attempts to add fold in comments to a cited sentences

Because I've mentioned it a number of times on a user's talk page that information added to the article:

- must be cited

- must not be added to a cited sentence if it's not in that source

I am now going to start a log (from this point forward) with any further attempts to disruptively added unattributed information - but make it look like it's attributed. The purpose of the log is to document a request to have the page protected if the practice continues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly I wonder is what is here described as 'disruptively added unattributed information'? I have already made clear that I am prepared to provide here immediate references to the clear evidence that this is the attribute (if not also in regard to myself) certainly (at the present time at least) on the official website of Hartlepool Borough Council under 'war memorials' (this incidentally relates directly to war memorials but it seems you have no interest whatsoever in this matter, Sir).

In conclusion Sir I wish to make clear on this Talk Page if nowhere else

- As other readers of the article made clear some time ago within the article itself (their comments were later removed by some other as usual unidentified person) there happened to be quite sufficient attempts by myself to provide what could be considered I believe the necessary documentary information within the section 'External Links' (which section has now of course been removed altogether by yourself CaroleHenson, while making yourself as indicated, on what basis I am afraid I am not sure, the deciding boss in every respect, apparently at the request of other parties, including possibly those related to Hartlepool Borough Council ).

- I make clear in the closing paragraph of the preceding section on this Talk Page that unless you restore a certain identified limited amount of text, as identified and contributed by myself, within a fortnight from today which has now (I hope notwithstanding your description and now as I hope made clear) been justified, so far as I myself am concerned, and for all the reasons given, all of this has to be now completely at an end (while thanking the relevant controlers of Misplaced Pages for allowing me to say so much for such a long period of time during which it was presumably read by a reasonable number of people).

In conclusion, I once again confirm that all of this is admittedly a complicated issue, and it should perhaps be sorted out elsewhere at a national level (including I believe the courts and if possible the monarchy) and this as soon as possible, given the forthcoming centenary of the world wars.

Finally, I wish to make clear that what was really in question at the time (the conclusion of the 'European war' later called the 'First World War' or within the West Hartlepool War Memorial the 'Great War') at an international level was not simply the form of war memorials and graves anywhere in Europe but the creation in 1917 in the United Kingdom of the Imperial War Graves Commission, together of course with its relationship with in particular France and its contrast with what had already begun to happen in what formerly had been the Russian Empire (under, of course, the new Russian Communist revolution ).

In these world wars (soon all of them over a century old) we owe them so much and, in any country (including Spain ) they and their friends and relatives evidently suffered so much, something which must be understood in terms of European history, politics and also religion.

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.172.112 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Of this, I think there are two things I can respond to:

1) Search I did on Hartlepool Borough Council came up with 98 items - some of which I'm sure will be about the West Hartlepool War Memorial - so that's a start. Good news! Now we just need to find what of those 98 items are relative to this war memorial - and how much of that is encyclopedic content. Have you identified specific links that can be used as sources of information?

2) You're right, my responding to the suggestion to rectify this article - tagged as being "too long" and needing to be "wikified" -- resulted in the removal of a lot of content. The goal was to keep the content "on topic", concise and encyclopedic. There are a few bits of background that I would have kept in if there had been citations or I had been able to find sources at the time. Most of the external links, however, did not relate directly to the war memorial - they related to the town of West Hartleben. I added the one remaining, working link to the external links of the West Hartlepool article (and commented out 2 others in the event that they begin working again).

I can understand that it is disappointing to have so much of your hard work removed from the Misplaced Pages article. It all gets to the intention and guidelines for Misplaced Pages articles -- and was the reason why I wondered if you had wanted to set up your own site or blog where you got get into all the luscious background information that you have.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: I will admit that I was totally overwhelmed by the amount of information - and it seemed very complicated at the time to determine what could be used. If you can identify the bare links (http:...) for items specific to this war memorial - I'd be happy to help work on culling through the material.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hartlepool Bureau Council

Maybe I'm a gluten for punishment, but I reran the search on the web site Hartlepool Bureau Council there were no hits for West Hartlepool War Memorial - but there were 20 for Victory War Memorial. Of those - most of them had no new information. Here's the following new information.

1. Victory Square War Memorial – From section 4.2, #20: "Responsibility for the physical upkeep and maintenance of the War Memorial

rests with HBCs Neighbourhood Services."

2. Victory Square War Memorial - mentions skateboarders causing damage, needs increases police patrols. I don't think that's encyclopedic content, but others can weigh in.

3. Victory Square War Memorial - mentions bikers causing damage

4. 2 War memorials - Combined 98K pounds for work requested - 54K needed for Victory Square. With details of work needed and funding issues.

5. War memorials in general Corporate Asset Management Group oversight

6. Victory Square War Memorial request for funding approval of 198K pounds - 54K for Victory Square.

My impression is that it would be good to add the info about who has oversight for the memorial. I didn't really see approval of the funding for the war memorials, maybe I missed it - if it's there, we could sum up the renovation work that was needed (and I believe since done). I'm thinking that adding comments about the bikers and skateboarders is not really encyclopedic but others may have differing opinions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well what you say here Sir immediately confirms the complete disregard of the present Mayor and Council officers in relation to the relevant Council (historically contemporary) documents. When the West Hartlepool War Memoril was handed over to the Council in 1923 can assure you this was recorded in the Council minutes (the minutes of what at the time was West Hartlepool Council) a few weeks later in relation to its acceptance by the Mayor in October and what was recorded was that he had accepted the memorial in question as (I quote) the "West Hartlepool War Memorial comprising Victory Square and the monument erected thereon", immediately proving that what you have cited on the present version (September 2012) of the Council internet where it is described, by implication, as presumably a memorial within a square and not including the square, as incidentally confirmed elsewhere in the Council documents on the Internet, is complete nonsense from the point of view of both the title of the memorial and incidentally its architecture.

Incidentally since in the local authority contemporary minutes (as currently available to the public in Hartlepool and so far as the programme is concerned near the railway station at Middlesbrough in the Teesside Archives) this is I repeat the text as quoted it being the case that it is also the text which happens to be the first words in the programme issued by the people who created the memorial and handed it over to the Council, under the programme title of the page in question, namely if I remember correctly "meaning of the war memorial".

This of course is only one of the elements to which I have myself referred and in which it seems that you have no interest whatsoever (I can understand this since you presumably have no easy access to the relevant documents). It is however the case that it seems that on the conrary you wish to disregard what I have told you and you have decided to keep on searching for whatever reason Sir what I have described as the nonsense on the contemporary (21st Cent.) internet programmes, and this notwithstanding the way that I have now described this and have tried to demonstrate it.

I am completely unable to understand the way you have decided to deal with these problems I am afraid and I regret that this once again confirms my decision to move out of this exchange of opinions on this Talk Page altogether unless that is within a fortnight either you or some other person returns the brief text which I had put most recently in the article itself as quoted above amd incidentally I must now add also reply to the particular point I have now made in relation to your own comments as shown above in relation to the Council internet as qoted by yourself.

Let us I hope close this business altogether for goodness sake (I cannot I am afraid see at all how it is in any event likely to be worth the trouble given the apparent belief that you are of a completely separate degree of authority within Misplaced Pages, as against myself).

I close making clear that the actual title as contained within its own documents in the form of minutes will be the one which they (the officers) should evidently be using in the Council minutes in accordance with the requirements of the Perjury Act 1911 , and this even if it does not happen to apply to yourself or any other member of the public unless you misrepresent it deliberately to justify the incorrect versions of the Council itself. Do not therefore in these circumstances repeat this nonsense or other similar rubbish. You have perhaps never had the opportunity to read either the minutes or the programme as mentioned but you should be aware of the possible danger that people reading this Talk Page might believe also applies to apparently rather authoratative Internet contributors such as yourself my rather unclear if evidently intelligent friend (or do I misunderstand you? you could make this clear, but I do not see how you will be able to do so, and I repeat let us close this business as of now, please).

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.155.142 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I've been trying the best I can to help with what's available to me - mostly because I see how passionate you are about the topic. But both of us are feeling unheard - and it looks like we're no closer to getting cited info we're both happy about so. Yep, let's stick a fork in this and call it done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then let us indeed conclude, but very possibly I am afraid only for the time being since there may be another necessity for us to deal with each other at a wider national and international form of consideration in relation to war memorials and incidentally the Commonwealth War Graves Commission throughout Europe given that so far as I can make out you have completely removed on this article page all the evidence in this respect that had previously been provided by myself and I shall be extremely concerned indeed if you now also choose to refuse to include any reference to what is clearly I think the immediately relevant documentary evidence within Hartlepool and Middlesbrough concerning the originally intended name and character of the war memorial entitled 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' (which should incidentally be of course correctly named and defined by what is now the general "Hartlepool Borough Council" combining the two original Hartlepools, that is including the Victorian new town, but with what seems complete disregard at the level of the officers of the Council, including in particular the Chief Solicitor, if not the councillors themselves, for the historic Hartlepool which had been one of the most historically significant towns in the whole of the United Kingdom over a period of many centuries and including of course the Germans and the First World War in regard to the 1914 East Coast Raid on what at the time was both 'Hartlepools' and which led to a registered charity relating to both of them together and in one format so far as the character as charity was concerned that is together with the West Hartlepool memorial, this other particular section being still at the present time duly registered if not that of the West Hartlepool War Memorial itself which likewise and at the same time had been created a charitable format including of course land in the original form of 'Victory Square', itself created in exact relationship and with certain architectural significance on the Parade Ground of the West Hartlepool military next to Victoria Road as was shown within my own version of this article on the basis of generally available maps referred to the section in "External Links", that which has alas now been removed by yourself altogether as though it meant nothing!).

How is all this going to end? I am afraid Sir that I now have to remind you once again of your possible personal liability, (together with Misplaced Pages itself of course if they do nothing to correct these matters and it can be shown that what is in question is a deliberat refusal to do other than support the present Hartlepool Borough Council notwithstanding that they were aware of the actual facts as now detailed by myself) under Section 7 of the Perjury Act 1911, namely that "every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or suborns another person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and published as if he were a principal offender", etc., etc. (the immediate section so far as the local authority itself is concerned being the previous section, Section 5, in this Act).

You may Sir think that having completely removed my own version of this article you can now do whatever you want but I am afraid that I have to advise you (and anyone else who now chooses to contribute to this article and now reads this Talk Page) to perhaps act rather more sensibly so far as your own reputations and that of Misplaced Pages are concerned, and as the first step to take care in the sense of considering the request that I have now made to yourself personally so far as inclusion of certain references within the article itself is concerned, confirming the name and character of the war memorial, and as detailed here.

In conclusion I confer once again that this has taken me endless time and trouble over many years and I consider it to be a truly national issue so far as our political character in this country is concerned, for at least so long as we contine to maintain a monarchy, this being the particular element which for a number of reasons and at a national level are I believe the most directly involved (I remind you of the fact that the inscription on the West Hartlepool War Memorial coincides with that on the Royal Albert Hall in a significant form, 'Thine O Lord is the Victory').

Au revoir (if you prefer to contact me by e-mail the address is peter.judge@laposte.net.

Peter Judge

1. Germany's High Sea Fleet, Chapter 6
2. ^ Triumphant Youth 1914 memorial http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-432718-war-memorial-in-redheugh-gardens-hartlep/photos This site is currently (November 2011) described by some unnamed party on the Internet as follows: "British Listed Buildings is a comprehensive online resource including text from the statutory listed buildings register, location maps, user-contributed comments and photographs", but unfortunately the term 'comprehensive' is clearly incorrect since it seems that there are on this site no references whatsoever (other than as may be provided on the 'comment' pages by members of the public) to legally valid historical evidence within either the site itself or the official (governmental) extremely brief 'listed building' descriptions which are quoted, nor are there any references whatsoever to what may prove to be historically relevant maps which as in the case of the memorials in the 'Hartlepools' here referred to may also have the character of evidence valid in point of law. It can therefore be argued that the 'description' as cited (the description of the website) is itself extremely misleading, emphasizing the difficulties that surround this subject matter in particular within the United Kingdom if not elsewhere in Europe. Cite error: The named reference "TY1914" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. See , where the 'war memorial tablet' (as it is named in the Council minutes of date 7 December 1921) is entitled (with OS site reference NZ 53 33) 'Memorial Plaque near Heugh Battery'. Unless the contrary is demonstrated by any interested party including Hartlepool Borough Council it seems clear that there can unfortunately be nothing whatsoever to justify the current January 2011 title on this site as on the source of origin, 'Wikemedia Commons', known as a 'freely licensed media file repository', Heugh Battery Memorial Plaque, a title which is on the contrary in the more profound sense possibly entirely misleading given the true character of this tablet in relation to other contemporary and directly related memorial structures on the Headland, that which can be demonstrated on documentary and geographical evidence in the form of OS plans, including those of the present time, and which ultimately can be shown to relate also to the present subject matter, the First World War memorials, in the area originally known as the 'Hartlepools' (namely the 'Hartlepool' 1914 Memorial in Redheugh Gardens in the historic town, with separate memorial structures opened on the same day, seven years and one day after the 1914 East Coast Raid, together with the Victorian new town 'West Hartlepool' 1914-1919 War Memorial opened in 1923).

   11. Again info about the battles, should go somewhere else

   For the general history of the East Coast Raid on the towns known at the time as the 'Hartlepools', see Hartlepool (sic) raid 16 December 1914 by Rickard, J (23 September 2007), the relationship between the two towns, the new (or 'Victorian') and the historic town, being however arguably significant in relation to both the Raid and these memorials and more generally at a national level (this site although it refers to relevant documents likewise fails to record the fact that the four military casualties killed by the first two German shells were the first to die in the UK in a period of centuries as from its creation and that the German 'East Coast Raid' has proved to be the only naval attack on Great Britain in time of war in this same historical period and extending down to he present time).

4. Cf. the Field of Mars parade ground in St Petersburg, architecturally historical in common with the city, having (as stated on the site quoted) a very 'long and varied history dating back to the very beginning of the city's history', and so named after 'the conversion of several buildings into the quarters for the Pavlovsky Life Guards Regiment'. It was used for the burial of revolutionaries in 1917 after the revolution in February of that year, and after the 1917 Communist revolution in October, six months before the proposal in West Hartlepool by this particular War Memorial Committee, distinct from the Council, and as recorded in the press, that the 19th Century West Hartlepool Armoury Field or Parade Ground (which unlike the Russian 'Field of Mars' or parade ground named after the one in classical Rome, had never been architecturally a square) should nonetheless be named 'Victory Place or Square' (this particular motive could of course have been combined with others as referred to elsewhere in the form of OS map features relating to the Parade Ground). In St Petersburg, in 1918 under the newly founded Communist regime, it (with various historic names over time) was renamed 'Zhertv Revolyutsii Square' as a burial place for those who died in the 1917 revolutions together with monuments and memorials and it remained so until it was named 'Field of Mars' in 1940, the year before the entry of the USSR into their ‘Great Patriotic War‘. In 1957 it was reconstructed as a memorial together with an Eternal Flame by S G Mayofis (see the St Petersburg Encyclopaedia) together with the construction of memorials throughout the nation named 'Ploschad Pobedy' or Victory Square]  being squares usually in central locations but not so in St Petersburg itself. Although this has it seems never been suggested elsewhere the essence of the relationship with British First World War memorials at the time in question (including those in what is now Hartlepool, ‘Victory Square‘ with the monument in West Hartlepool, ‘Triumphant Youth‘ in Redheugh Gardens in Hartlepool relating to the Promenade and a memorial in the form of a Victoria Cross in Seaton Carew) is perhaps based on a combination of records of actions over a period dating back to the Napoleonic wars together with architectural design in various countries over a long period but with particular reference to the Communist revolution in Russia so far as foreign European elements are arguably involved.

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed visual arts articles
• Unassessed public art articles
• Public art articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Stub-Class North East England articles
• Low-importance North East England articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class military memorials and cemeteries articles
• Military memorials and cemeteries task force articles
• Stub-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles