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

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia, how complicated in some ways you are, while being so extremely and remarkably efficient.

Peter Judge