Talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ownership

Well it technically isn't in France as it's Canadian soil. It's surrounded by France, used to be part of France but is Canadian. - JVG 09:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The UN is in New York, even though it is international territory. Seems like splitting hairs to me, especially as its political status is mentioned in the next sentences. But I defer. - Randwicked 13:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Vimy Memorial Site is Canadian owned but it is not Canadian territory in the same sense as an embassy. French laws still apply to the site, of which there are a specific set for conduct of the memorial site. For instance, the ban on dogs at the site is in fact a french law. --Labattblueboy 05:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is owned by Canada, but that is totally a different issue from it being under the sovereignty of Canada. I have added a fact tag to a statement that it is "Canadian territory" and will remove it unless a strong legal source is provided to back up this claim, which will not be forthcoming. Lexicon (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Working Statues

Added section saying that the working copies of the statues at Vimy are now on display in Canada. Burtonpe 16:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

trivia and the railway car

Although Hitler may have ordered the destruction of various memorials, is it not the case that these orders were not necessarily carried out? For example, wasn't the armistice railway car used again in WW2? 203.198.237.30 05:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said the orders were carried out? Paris is still there, right? The article clearly says "ordered", nowhere does it indicate all those orders were carried out. And no, the original railway car is not there, it was destroyed in WW II - AFTER Hitler made them [France] sign the surrender to Germany in it, in a touch of deliberate historical irony.Michael Dorosh 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mike(Michael is the name given above, please do not assume familiarity, especially in the absence of any self identification on your partMichael Dorosh 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)), I hope your first comment isn't an accurate reflection of your character. This kind of reaction is so over the top and against the very essence of WP that the decent thing would be to apologise. Leaving the ironic unpleasantness of your comment to one side, do I really need to point out that regardless of what actually happened, your earlier wording implied they were carried out: "While other monuments in France were ordered destroyed by Hitler (ranging from the rail car in which the Armistice had been signed in 1918 to the entire city of Paris)...". Mentioning the railway car (destroyed) and Paris (obviously not destroyed) together would be potentially confusing to some readers. So yes, obviously not all orders were carried out and I will reinstate mention of the railway car. We could also reinstate Paris but only if we removed any possibility of confusion by including a bit on how area commanders did not follow through. 203.198.237.30 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The railway car was not destroyed by Hitler himself, but was transported to a museum in Germany, where it was promptly destroyed by an American or British bomb in the later years of the war. See Shirer. User:Gerolsteiner 16:10, 23 April 2006

My understanding is that Hitler never any intention at all of razing the Vimy Memorial. While it commemorated the defeat of German forces, he greatly respected the fact that there was no hint of triumphalism at all in the artwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consulzephyr (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the comment, The information provided by the guides at the Memorial was that Hitler specifically ordered that WWI memorials not be touched. So I believe the posted information to be incorrect and should be removed. My understanding, There were only 2 WWI memorials destoryed between 1940-1944 one was an Austrailian that had the German eagle getting stomped on by a solider - in a fashion common in propoganda posters, and another memorial that referred to the Germans as "barbarians". This Triva might be interesting for the Talk section but should be removed from the main article. Wakemp 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "anonymous" user's edit completely changed the nature of the comments. It was not meant to imply that Vimy was ever in danger of being destroyed - it clearly wasn't. I did want to introduce the notion that while Hitler had no qualms about destroying culturally significant landmarks (he did order Paris burned, and he did destroy the railcar, which did not need such a lengthy rewording) he both visited Vimy and had respect for the soldiers that fought there - since he considered himself one of them. I'm not happy with the rewording by "anonymous" and will change the wording to reflect Wakemp's comments.Michael Dorosh 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• MD, great maturity and integrity in your characterisations. My edits were based entirely on your material. The necessary elaborations we now have resulted from that. Nice way to conduct the genuine synthesis which we all usually attempt to strive for here. 203.198.237.30 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Added in the pic of Hitler at the Memorial....not sure about copyright status of this pic, can anyone help with this? Burtonpe 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fair dinkum, mate, but I can't edit the licensing. Reupload it and identify it as public domain.Michael Dorosh 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. – ugen64 05:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for future reference, the image isn't old enough to be public domain (specifically, the creator can't have died more than 70 years ago as per German copyright law because the picture's not that old). But it is fair use so I have tagged it that way. (I could have sworn there was a specific Nazi Germany copyright tag...) – ugen64 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting info; is there a listing somewhere of all the copyright laws as they might pertain to WP listed in a central place somewhere I wonder?Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

the area

how big is the park? Jackzhp 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• 91 hectaresLabattblueboy (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• 107 hectares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.152.49.18 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

pre-restoration photo

I added three more photos, perhaps too many, but was going to replace the pre-restoration photo thinking it should be clearly labelled pre-restoration if it were left, which would be too awkward. I thought better of replacing it though and left it since it is a useful shot. But perhaps it should go on the grounds that the Memorial does not look that run down anymore.Bdell555 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization & Improvement

I have begun a significant edit & improvement of the information in this article. Is there anything in particular that is being requested?Labattblueboy (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cemeteries

I have created a page for each of the cemeteries on the site. Picture contributions would be appreciated.Labattblueboy (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Canadian Cemetery No. 2
• Givenchy Road Canadian Cemetery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Canada Mourning

• Support. Makes sense. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. --BC_{talk to me} 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. But I think it'd make more sense if Canada Mourning was just a separate subheading under this article TheStarter (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger Completed --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

We have a number of pretty good images of the memorial as a whole. Surely we can figure out a better one to use than the one that is currently in the infobox, which is way too dark. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Which image would you suggest? --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This one is probably best for an infobox -- not the world's greatest image, but clearer and better than the one currently in use. My favourite image is yours, but I am not sure that it would work for this purpose. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Memorial Vimy face.jpg is old and before the monument and landscaping restoration (which included the removal of the steps to the tomb) making it inaccurate. With regards to my File:Vimy Ridge Memorial - West side before a storm.jpg you're completely right. Beautiful photo but it doesn't work for our purposes. For our purposes we need a quality front shot of the monument. Were stuck between a wall and a hard place on this one. Do you think the photo can be effectively lightened?--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I overlooked your question about lightening the photo earlier. I dunno. Maybe. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is any good, but there is also this photo which I took on my trip to Vimy and was previously used in the article for a good amount of time. Just another option to consider. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that the image is old is a factor to consider, but I still think it's preferable to the one in use now. Lesser of two evils. Simply make sure the caption states "Canadian National Vimy Memorial in 2003" - we can even add the words "prior to the restoration" if you want. I'm also happy with the image suggested by MelicansMatkin, although the problem with that one is that it doesn't show the whole memorial. Perhaps the solution to this problem, given that all of the choices have drawbacks, is to look to Flickr. There are no decent images of the memorial with licenses acceptable for the Commons on Flickr; however, if we can find one (or a handful) of good ones (without the right license), we can always flickrmail the creator and ask if they would be prepared to change the license so it can be used on Wikipedia. I have had a lot of luck doing that lately. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I did some trolling on flickr today and have sent a couple messages to see if they are willing to modify their license requirements so that they could be uploaded to the Commons (That was a good suggestion).
2. I'm not personally comfortable with the pre-restoration image. It's low resolution, grainy and was actually removed from the Battle of Vimy Ridge article as part of that article' A-level review, in favour of the current one. The current image is dark but certainly an improvement over the 2003 image.
3. For the infobox image, it should be an image of the memorial as a whole. The sub-section on the memorial itself is best used for partial images. If we keep looking and asking I am certain we can find a new image that will meet all our needs, so lets make that the goal for now. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for #1, I'll defer to you on #2, and agree with #3. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)