Talk:West Hartlepool War Memorial/Archives/2012/September

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 [[Royal Albert Hall].

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has certain standards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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 [2] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article. It all gets to the intention and guidelines for Wikipedia 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 Borough 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Legal threats

:::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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.131.118 (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK now it get serious, one very strict policy is Wikipedia:No legal threats, and you bringing up the perjury act, is getting very close to that line. I have now reported the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#West_Hartlepool_War_Memorial.--Salix (talk): 08:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

:::::Please, given the national significance which I have not of course completely detailed, get this particular page changed in the way I have suggested. that is by adding necessary information concerning the character of this originally as designed nationally significant memorial itself (but not now created or maintained by the modern Council itself) known as the 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' in accordance with the documentary information as provided to you (or even better perhaps Sir or Madam given the national context as here detailed and formerly detailed in the article as prepared by myself I hope in a convincing fashion by myself why not now choose to remove this article altogether? All concerned might welcome that). I am sorry but you and your colleague as detailed above may otherwise stand, I repeat, liable to legal certain involvement in action without of course yourselves being the persons directly accused and subject to clear requirements as to the reasons which have led you to act in the way that you have. You cannot yourselves make law or change what is clearly, in that respect, common sense (you had better I think explain exactly what you may mean by 'legal threat' which is an entirely new expression in the English language itself so far as I am aware when any 'legal threat' is clearly by yourselves to the law itself as is made clear in the section I have here cited, Section 7 of the Perjury Act 1911). In conclusion I do once again thank you for enabling me to get all my original article published here. A lot of people lread it at the time. Unfortunately the present actions make clear what I should perhaps have realized better, that there are certain elements very possibly not within Wikipedia itself who having also read it have almost certainly for some time been doing their best for getting it removed altogether in my own version and getting myself thrown out at the same time as a person with no possible involvement whatsoever, while having the article prepared by others in order to firstly completely disregard in every sense the truly historically significant documentation as made clear previously and now again made clear on this Talk Page and apparently also wishing to justify by implication in the form of referances the evidently so far as I am concerned complete nonsense that at present time exists both within the Council and on their Internet websites. Whoever you are, Sir or Madam, you are I fear another in my view completely useless Wikipedia contributor I am afraid, so far as its long running possible significance and reliability to the public in general is concerned, as distinct from its very evident form of reliable mechanical character. Please remember the history, remember the architecture which recalls the history, remember the coming centenary which requires all possible correct information, bear in mind the future and please stick to the national UK (and incidentally international so far as architecture is concerned in particular in Europe) law not your own apparently entirely personal version of it as you now quote it (I do not necessarily refer to the people who in effect control Wikipedia, this may be something that remains to be established, they have my e-mail above which I now repeat, I shall not myself contact them unless you or they themselves now choose to remove what I have recently been saying on this Talk Page in addition to removing the article, as seems possibly I am afraid the case). In conclusion, instead of making points like this that you have now just made condemning myself why do you not actually refer to and discuss the actual documentarily confirmable facts that I have made clear to you and others in what I believe is indeed the true interest of Wikipedia and the Internet in general for its reliability? I have to inform you that a similar point has been made today to the relevant section of the Hartlepool Borough Council website (another clear example, I repeat, at the present time of the complete absence of any sort of order as required by the legislation so far as the internet is concerned, and this within the local government itself). I repeat I have no friends and no allies (what I have instead historically is extraordinary documentary evidence). Peter Judge (peter.judge@laposte.net)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.165.254 (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:LEGAL now. Continuing to make legal threats is only going to get you banned from editing. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

::I am sorry Sir or Madam I have made clear that what I might do in the future is as I myself believe in accordance with the requirement of law itself and I am afraid I see no point whatsoever in reading the further section in this website to which you now refer me in addition to all the others as already mentioned by other contributors. I am afraid I shall not under any circumstances change my mind and if you or anybody else wish to band me from editing and succeed in doing this (I am already in effect quite clearly banned from this particular article) then this will I am afraid in my own opinion at least be another extemely clear issue to be made to the court making clear that the internet is entirely out of any sort of legal order as in fact required by the law itself (given in particular the fact that you publish comments from the general public at least in principle, so far as I am able to understand). To conclude, I think that everybody knows that the particular character of the internet is something completely new from an historical point of view and therefore one that needs to be sorted out as soon as possible. I also repeat that what is involved in this particular issue (architecture and history) is not simply the legislation of the United Kingdom but also at a general European level involving I think all the nations, or in any event the more significant ones, as the result of a particular form of legislation involving I believe the Council of Europe, as I think I have made clear, this being defined within your own site as a body that has as a mission (since of course the Second World War and presumably because of all the historic difficulties that arose as a result of the two wars that had occured within the same century and at a world level) the creation of an "international organization promoting co-operation between all countries of Europe in the areas of legal standards, human rights, democratic development...", and this including particular reference to historical architecture. I repeat your own lack of any mission within this objective in the way that I have now suggested, if you wish to demonstrate it, will perhaps have to be mentioned both within this country and abroad by myself. That may not be done straight away even if you now choose to ban me from editing on Wikipedia, but please rest assured that it will almost certainly be done at some time eventually if you do this, presumably within the centenary years of the two world wars, and this may lead to certain recomendations from the Council of Europe concerning the character of the internet at an international level if not within any particular country. For what I suggest is in question is architecture the character of which should be recognized under this legislation or should be removed altogether within any particular country (that is of course entirely their own decision). I think everybody already knows that this will eventually have to be done. You have been warned, Sir or Madam. I shall have no more to say on these matters unless you have any particular questions which I think need to be answered by myself. In the meantime I note that you and the others here involved have so far failed to show any interest whatsoever in the inclusion of the immediately relevant documents concerning the West Hartlepool War Memorial within your article as identified by myself. You should be aware that if you now agree to that, and demonstrate it in practice within a reasonable period of time, then my supposed "legal threat" as defined by yourselves will be confirmed by myself as having been completely withdrawn so far as your own Wikipedia is concerned (I must otherwise conclude that the courts may arrive at the decision that your refusal to publish this information is a clear demonstration of your failure to act in accordance with Section 7 of the Act already cited, the Perjury Act 1911). Please remember all those that died everwhere and the complete devastation that must have followed (at least on a personal level) after the two world wars in Europe and presumably also elsewhere, and please also include in this sort of reflection the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the 1914 East Coast Raid in a particular fashion relating to the Hartlepools which can if you wish be made clear (like everything else it is and has been for many years completely ignored and in fact contradicted by the immediately relevant local authority, the Hartlepool Borough Council, at least so far as its officers and its Mayors have been informed by myself and are therefore directly concerned). Peter Judge

That's a hell of a lot of writing for something that doesn't actually have a point. What exactly is your problem with this article. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Peter, if you continue to make legal threats, we will continue to block the IP addresses you are using - and if necessary, we will protect this talk page and the article page to keep you off them. Also, you really must check what perjury is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter, "perjury" cannot be commited on a Wikipedia talk page, since our comments here are not written under legally binding oaths given in court. It seems to me that you have done some research in the local libraries about the debates around the creation of the monument and the location. If you can provide the details of the sources, including page numbers, we can add that material to the article. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue remains what exactly is the difference betwenn what you call "legal threats" and the requirements of law itself in accordance with confirmable facts. You are not yourselves lawyers I imagine and it will have to be perhaps the courts itself that decide this. In the meantime, if the others involved on this Talk Page had made clear the requirement that you now make of yourselves as now seems to be shown (which I must admit is reasonable and with which I shall of course and as soon as possible do my best to confirm) this might have saved a good deal of trouble. As it happens, and as you must be aware, nobody did say this, or indeed anything else that happened to be reasonably relevant.

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.136.205 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, please stop talking about law and perjury. It's irrelevant. If you are genuinely interested in improving the article, then either learn to write in an encyclopedic way, or let others help you to do so. Obviously you are using the contemporary booklet "West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919, Unveiling & Dedication", which is an entirely legitimate source. Again, if you provide the details, the relevant content can be included. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Peter, concerning "the requirements of law itself in accordance with confirmable facts", there are no legal requirements for any facts, confirmed or otherwise, to be included in this article - and you need to drop that line of argument, or I will continue to block your IPs and I will protect this page to stop you editing it. As for nobody making things clear on that before, well, you launched into legal threats pretty much straight away - and that generally closes off people's willingness to help very quickly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

Indeed you are right and also indeed you are wrong I am afraid since I have never eikther said or implied that there was any legal sort of requirement for the the information of any particular issue "confirmed or otherwise" in any sort of published material by ordinary members of the public other than in the particular situation which I made clear involving perjury by other parties who are themselves subject to law. Please if you wish to deal at all with this sort of matter do go to the trouble Sir or Madam of reading what is said the Perjury Act 1911 in particular in Section 7 and if you should do so I think you will not be able to disagree that this is something very different to what it seems you say and it is furthermore something which can very easily apply to anybody including I am sorry to say the people contributing to Wikipedia (or do you think this particular form of statement is not subject to any sort of law, and if so on what basis exactly?). The other immediatly relevant issue in my own view at least is what I had myself said and demonstrated within this article and over some period of time on the basis of evidently valid documentary evidence at least in my own opinion all of which has as you must know been removed now recently but presumably by some person or persons aware of what had been stated by myself and upon which it seems that so far at least they have never wished to commit themselves to declaring that it was incorrect or impossible to confirm as evidence for legal purposes in regard to this particular war memorial, thus confirming statements made by the local authority that are arguably in contravention of the Perjury Act as stated but at Section 5, not Section 7. I am afraid that I continue to be unable to understand why it is that people apparently believe that Wikipedia is itself something completely outside the law of the United Kingdom when it has an office in this country and this in addition to publishing material by persons whom it is completely impossible to identify for any legal purposes. The ultimate issue remains of course with regard to the persons directly responsible under the law, not anybody in Wikipedia but in this case one of the local authorities, as identified, in regard to a particular form of identification of war memorials donated to them by the public 'in the public interest' and accepted as such, and this whether or not they happen to be also subject to the completely separate law of the Charity Commission (but again I admit that involved in all this is extremely complicated history and politics which I can hardly work out myself). Peter Judge,

Peter, as you are continuing to allege that contributors to this Wikipedia article are guilty of breach of the Perjury Act of 1911, you are not permitted to edit here, in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:No legal threats policy. I have therefore semi-protected this page, and the article itself, to prevent you editing it. Further, I have also blocked your latest IP address. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A search on the internet finds many comments about the war memorial from Peter mostly incomprehensible and difficult to fathom out what he is on about but he appears to be using primary and contemporary documents to argue that the borough council and many other public bodies dont describe the memorial in the same words as the 1920s material. But that is only a guess as his language is difficult to fathom. Perhaps I can suggest that if Peter has a point then he needs to write short sentences in English that we can understood and possibly help improve the article, although before that he needs to say he is withdrawing any legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919, Unveiling & Dedication

Ahhhh, It is very apparent now. I was overwhelmed by the amount of information and rewrote the article from scratch. It is very obvious - now that it's pointed out to me that the leaflet: West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919, Unveiling & Dedication - was intended to be a cited source.

If we can get the following information, I will go through the previous material and cull out what is information that is not currently in the article that is of encyclopedic content.

• Title: West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919, Unveiling & Dedication
• Author, if known:
• Publisher:
• Date published:
• Any other citation information available (ISBN, where published, etc.)

I believe the pages are noted with the content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a locally published dedication booklet. They were commonly produced for unveiling events. It will probably have been published by the council itself. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How would it be, based upon your comments, for the citation to read: West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919, Unveiling & Dedication. Assumed publisher information: West Hartlepool Council, West Hartlepool, Durham, England. 1923.

And then add whatever pages were provided in the previous version of the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure you can assume anything about the document without further evidence and it would be best not to include guess work as to its source. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That booklet and other documents from the event are held by Harltepool library [3]. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out from help how to do this. How is: West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914 - 1919 : Invitation to the unveiling of the War Memorial in 1923. Hartlepool Central Library: 22 page digital copy (pdf), shelved at 940.465. 1923. Bib Id 300313.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's catalogued under "West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914 - 1919 : Invitation to the unveiling of the War Memorial in 1923.", but he's clearly using the other document, "Unveiling & Dedication", listed in the same file in the bracketed section: "(PDF file also contains two other documents Order of Service, and Unveiling & Dedication)." Obviously these are scans of original documents, so it would be best to have the details of those, but I'm sure it would be acceptable to give the library reference to the archive at the local history area of the Reference library. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got you. Unless you disagree, I'll use:

West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914 - 1919: Unveiling & Dedication. Hartlepool Central Library: 22 page digital copy (pdf) of the West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914 - 1919: Invitation to the unveiling of the War Memorial in 1923, Order of Service, and Unveiling & Dedication, shelved at Reference library 940.465. 1923. Bib Id 300313.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'm in the middle of something right now - and when I'm done I'll work on this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Article name

I found in the version of the article just prior to my edits that there was a clear declaration that the memorial had been named after the square in Hartlepool (West Hartlepool until 1966/1967). Here are some variations of the memorial names that I gathered by clicking on the links in the reference section of the article page:

• Victory Square War Memorial. the leaflet West Hartlepool War Memorial 1914-1919 - Unveiling & Dedication - Thursday, 11th October, 1923 (no page reference).
• Victory Square War Memorial - Hartlepool Borough Council
• War Memorial in Victory Square - The British Listed Buildings
• Obelisk 1914-18 Victory Square - North East War Project for WWI memorial
• Pillars 1939 & later Victory Square Place - North East War Project for WWII memorial

The West Hartlepool War Memorial comes from

• HARTLEPOOL (WEST) WAR MEMORIAL Roll of Honour, Durham
• Men and Women of Hartlepool UK National Inventory of War Memorials
• West Hartlepool War Memorial - a non-reliable site that I added to the external links

Both

• Victory Square – West Hartlepool War Memorial - in the title of a This is Hartlepool newspaper article

I'm in a quandry about this. The memorial was to commemorate those from West Hartlepool - so it's nice to keep that name. But the prevailing use of the name appears to be Victory Square, particularly among the Hartlepool Borough Council. And, there's no longer a West Hartlepool.

I wonder if we should:

• move/rename the article to Victory Square War Memorial,
• keep the redirect that will be made from the move from West Hartlepool War Memorial to the new name
• have both names bolded in the intro/lede section

Are there any thoughts about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would leave things stand as they are. At least the current title gives some kind of guide as to the location of the monument; Victory Square could be anywhere and many other towns named such squares soon after the armistice. As Victory Square War Memorial redirects here nobody will get lost. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding info to the article

As an FYI, I'll summarize what seemed to be encyclopedic content that I'm finding sources for from the previous version of the article.

Was able to add (clear identification of sources for citations)

• Victory Square - where the monument is located, created for the monument
• Victory Road - previously Cambridge Road, renamed in honor of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee
• Victory Square section - historical information about the decision to create the square, cost, related "Cottage Homes" project
• Connection between 2 memorials: East coast raid (aka Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby), Earl of Durham was scheduled to do both unveilings

Unable to add (not able to find references)

• From previous version of the article:
  • That the monument sits on what was the parade grounds in Armoury Field, being occupied from c. 1870 by the military, which since 1907 was known as the "Territorial Force" (TF). TF is currently named "Territorial Army."
  • Still unable to open the Ordnance Surveys on visionofbritian.org.uk/maps...).
  • I can find citations in books that the Territorial Forces were formed in 1914 in Hartlepool, but not mention of the Armoury
  • unveiled on 11 October 1923: the twenty fourth anniversary of the declaration of the Second South African (Boer) War in 1899, coincidence or not - cannot find a source that connects this to the monument
  • Royal Garrison Artillery attendance and an escort to the unveiling - It's not clear to me that came from the unveiling document. It seems likely, but the mention in that paragraph of the unveiling documents seem to relate to the scale of the monument.
  • Items that get into a lot of detail about Redheugh Gardens War Memorial - that's not relative to this article
  • "The unveiling..." paragraph - some of it's duplicative, some of does not appear to be relevant (United Nations, Greek, etc.) and some of it is duplicative of early info.
  • The inscriptions 3rd paragraph. I am lost, but it doesn't appear that there's anything of encyclopedic content.

I'm done and need a rest - I've got a huge headache and am having a hard time sorting out if there's anything new in the 3rd paragraph of inscriptions and the "The unveiling.... paragraph of [this version], but it doesn't seem like it. If anyone finds anything new that should be covered - feel free to take care of it or let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments about article updates

"Old Hartlepool" is the town labeled "Hartlepool" that runs from right to left at the very top of the map; West Hartlepool is the larger section taking up much of the map space. The West Hartlepool memorial is roughly about the "T" in "WEST" on the map. The Redheugh Gardens War Memorial is in the upper right - near the lettering for "Light F. 84 ft" that goes into the sea.

I couldn't find whether the memorial only records death of people from "west" Hartlepool. There are clearly other memorials but they seem to be for specific events or social groups. One of Peter's pet preoccupations seems to be the distinction betwen 'west hartlepool' and 'old hartlepool', so I'm not sure whether the title reflects his concerns or standard usage. Still, the offical site calls it this, and it's also called the Cenotaph. Paul B (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of clean-up on the West Hartlepool article and I believe that: Old Hartlepool was the previous town of Hartlepool before it merged with West Hartlepool. There's a map that shows "Hartlepool" (which I believe is Old Hartlepool) and "West Hartlepool" in the West Hartlepool article (Is there any other way to get more Hartlepools in one sentence? This article may help, too - such as: "For many years West Hartlepool and Old Hartlepool were separate towns but merged together as one town, under the Hartlepool Order of 1966. "

Do you mind taking a look at the section just above this one about renaming the article to Victory Square War Memorial - it's a bit of a sticky situation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, Victory Square War Memorial didn't show up as a red link - it's a redirect to this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be two memorials. One in Old hartlepool (standing in gardens with a winged statue on top) and the one in West Hartlepool (tall plain obelisk in a paved square, surrounded by smaller plinths bearing names from later conflicts). Photographs of both are trackable on Google. Does that help? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! There's one in the original part of Hartlepool - the winged one you mention - and the other is in Victoria Square - the West Hartlepool version. Thanks! There are quite a number of nice ones for the first of the two monuments on commons. Did you by chance notice if any of the images for the West Hartlepool / Victoria Square version were public domain pictures? (I've added external links to photographs, but none of those appear to be in the public domain)--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article body needs slightly rewording to make it clearer that it is referring to the monument built in what was Old Hartlepool and does not relate specifically to the West Hartlepool memorial. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This article IS in what was West Hartlepool - not Old Hartlepool. It commemorates the people of West Hartlepool who died in WWI and WWII. You know, I'll see if I can make a google map that shows both memorial locations for external links. I did add a satellite image of this memorial if it helps. You may want to refer to my response in the 2nd indent of this section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the cenotaph - thanks for that! I found a citation and added that in two places.

Regarding the memorial for people in West Hartlepool - that's found in the inscription "men and women of this town". When the memorial was built - and decades after - the town was named West Hartlepool.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

West Hartlepool Armoury

Not sure the relevance of the bit about the RGA and DLI with respect to the memorial, men from 75 different units were commemorated I am not sure we should mention them all. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mention all the names? No. We are not a not here as a memorial site. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood but the comment is why mention just these two units out of the 75. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I thought you meant all the peoples names. Are the two mentioned specifically notable or well documented (in regards to this memorial)? If not then we shouldn't really name any. 75 would be overkill. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)#

I am not sure that the Connection to East Coast Raid is relevant either, I cant find any evidence that the memorial has any connection with the raid, it is likely that those killed if not local would not feature on what is a general war memorial. Suggest that all this section, which included the RGA and DLI mentioned above can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The 41 killed in West Hartlepool were all civilians, the eight soldiers were killed in the other Hartlepool. As this is a military memorial it is unlikely that the 41 civilians would get a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, to be honest, I was having a hard time making the connection, too - but was trying to bring back as much of the previous content as could be put in the article. I will delete the section on the East coast raid (if that wasn't already done).--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I also went back to look to see if there was anything else I needed to address from your comments and I think we're good. I'm going to let it sit for a bit - so my mind is fresher an come back for copy edits - and then close the book on this one for me. Thanks for your comments! Very helpful!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the work you have put in to improve the article, perhaps needs a ccopy edit at some point but no rush. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - and agreed - I'm sure it does! I will do it within 24 hours.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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 (Wikipedia:Article size), encyclopedic content (such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) and Wikipedia: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).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

References