The Cenotaph is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 11, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
I've read through the article and have a few comments.
I hope the above is useful. I'll try and help out where I can, but that should be enough for now. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Noting here a dissertation on the topic, which may or may not be suitable for inclusion in the article. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Another (possibly non-free) picture of the Paris catafalque is here. That site also contains other pictures of that monument from various angles. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Are the Union Jacks on the Cenotaph the civil/state flag (1:2) or the war flag (3:5)? Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
In the replica section of Cenotaphs there is an exact replica of the London Centaph in Middlesbrough, England which I feel should be in this article. Tony ( talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It was removed as not being a reliable source, but I think this (rescued and placed in external links for now) is a reliable source on a fascinating subject that would enhance the article if included. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
There will be huge numbers of mentions and longer writings on this topic in cultural history and social history books and similar sources (as well as the standard histories). It won't be easy to cover this aspect of things, but hopefully it will be possible. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Links to some photographs where it does not seem possible to upload them:
Carcharoth ( talk) 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Starting a discussion section for sources that should be used in the article (I've given what I think is the most recent edition). The first three are from a discussion on my talk page.
Bit of trivia, while rummaging around Wikipedia articles, I found a reference to the Cenotaph in the film Jackboots on Whitehall (no, I'd never heard of it before either). Carcharoth ( talk) 12:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
A fair amount has been written about the poem 'The Cenotaph' by Charlotte Mew. Not sure where is the best place to have a summary of that? Either its own article, or in Mew's article, and maybe a bit here? Several pages on the poem are in The Remembered Dead: Poetry, Memory and the First World War (2018) from page 119 onwards. There is lots of other commentary on this poem as well. So it would be possible to flesh out the bare bones of what is currently in this article, but am wary of putting too much in - there is also a need to balance the coverage (lots will have been written about the other poems as well, especially Sasson's anti-war poem). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/police-dispel-rumours-cenotaph-being-18360724
Apparently the vandalism didn't actually happen. Is this a reputable source, and can anyone find the quote from the Met about it? Amekyras ( talk) 21:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I just found this in Bryan, Rachel (February 2021). "Unlived Lives, Imaginary Widowhood and Elizabeth Bowen's A World of Love". The Review of English Studies. 72 (303): 129–146. doi: 10.1093/res/hgaa043. which perhaps could be worked into the article somewhere appropriate: "Writing to the architect Edwin Lutyens, who had been responsible for the Cenotaph’s design, David Lloyd George outlined why the British public had been given these two distinct centres towards which to direct their grief: ‘The Cenotaph’, he observed, ‘is the token of our mourning as a nation; the Grave of the Unknown Warrior is the token of our mourning as individuals’" which in turn is cited to "David Lloyd George, ‘Letter to Edwin Lutyens, 17 November 1920’, quoted in Hanson, Unknown Soldier, 462." DuncanHill ( talk) 14:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
(Following up a talk page ping.) Just quickly adding (to follow on from the above section): the current treatment of the unveiling of the Cenotaph doesn't quite capture how the event was tightly bound up with the burial of the Unknown Warrior. If you read the account at The Unknown Warrior, the unveiling of the Cenotaph is depicted as part of the overall funeral procession. But this article (about the Cenotaph), doesn't quite strike the same tone. The Salisbury painting captures this well. No other specific suggestions, other than to say thanks for including the Edkins reference. I thought the 'ter Schure' reference might be too obscure. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
An excerpt (the introduction) from Bergson and History is here. It does seem too abstract, but Leon ter Schure does explain what he intended with his chapter 1 ('The Case of the London Cenotaph'), which is described as an "evaluation of a current debate in the philosophy of history", where the author makes the claim:
that the Cenotaph succeeded in turning the past into a 'disquieting presence' [that] interrupted the official narrative of the war.
As I said above, maybe this tidbit on Henri Bergson may only be suitable for further reading? I've tried to obtain a copy of the work to assess it further, but have not managed it yet (free samples only give part of the chapter). Carcharoth ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
To be meaningful and make sense, should not the quote read that events at the Cenotaph 'succeeded in turning the past into a quiet presence that supports the official narrative of war'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.122 ( talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, in what respect did the "Cenotaph succeeded in turning the past into a 'disquieting presence' [that] interrupted the official narrative of the war"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.122 ( talk) 20:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Less attacking, more attempting to highlight the true meaning of the quote. To be clear, does not saying that the "Cenotaph succeeded in turning the past into a 'disquieting presence' [that] interrupted the official narrative of the war" suggest that the state event is in some way anti-govt - when the Remembrance Service is clearly a state-driven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 ( talk) 10:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Harry - It’s looking good. Somewhere, but I can’t remember where just now, there’s a book reference, with illustration, to Lutyens’ original sketch - on a napkin? It’s probably Vita Sackville-West, given her mother’s connection with Lutyens, and I think I came across it when doing Sissinghurst. I’ll try to dig it out this weekend. I’ve unfortunately not got time to pick up the GA in full, but will be delighted to read it through and lob in any thoughts. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 20:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Just a quick note to point out that the two funeral processions for the Queen in central London both have routes that include going past the Cenotaph on Whitehall. In the first one (on Wednesday 14 September), the news media picked up on the fact that those in uniform saluted as they passed the Cenotaph, but those not in uniform gave a different response, as reported in 'The Independent': "This rule also meant that Prince Harry and Andrew bowed their heads while passing the Cenotaph, a war memorial on Whitehall, during the procession, rather than saluting like their family members in uniform.".
Depending on who is in the second procession (on Monday 19 September) going from Westminster to Hyde Park Corner, there will be similar observances. This is not a suggestion to put this topic in this article (arguably it is not 'encyclopedic' as was discussed in the FAC nomination), but noting it here. It is possible it may get mentioned in articles relating to the funeral, but possibly not. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Recentism or not, this event has been widely covered by reliable sources and widely condemned by public figures. It's practically the british equivalent of the Charlottesville march. There has to be enough coverage to warrant its own article. Wikipedia regularly reports on recent events as they develop. Why is there not a single mention of this one? 46.97.170.46 ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@ HJ Mitchell and KJP1: as most recently active on this talk page (though obviously anyone else watching and reading as well). I was reading through the article again, and noticed that one of the final sentences of the 'Appreciation' section is possible slightly ambiguous. It currently reads:
"the Church even petitioned for Armistice Day ceremonies to be held in Westminster Abbey rather than at the Cenotaph in 1923, but the proposal was rejected after it met with widespread public opposition."
While this may technically be correct, the reader may think that this means that no service was held in the Abbey in 1923 on Armistice Day (when there very much was an Abbey service held then as part of an established tradition) - i.e. the (rejected-by-public-outcry) proposal was to move the focus from the Cenotaph to the Abbey by abandoning the Cenotaph ceremony, as opposed to replacing the Cenotaph ceremony with an Abbey ceremony. This is clearly laid out here (a delightful transcript courtesy of The National Archives of a memorandum from William Joynson-Hicks, Home Secretary, in 1928 (10th anniversary of the Armistice) concerning the BBC and commemoration of the Armistice). In that document, the following is said (apologies for the extensive quote):
"In 1923 when Armistice Day fell on a Sunday it was first decided that there should be no religious ceremony at the Cenotaph and that the King, attended by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, should be present at a special service in Westminster Abbey, His Majesty depositing a wreath on the tomb of the Unknown Warrior. So soon as the proposed arrangements were announced in the press there was so much public outcry at the abandonment of the service at the Cenotaph that the decision had to be reconsidered and eventually two services were held- the main service at Westminster Abbey at which The King and The Queen were present and a subsidiary service at the Cenotaph at which His Majesty was represented by The Prince of Wales. My own feeling is that the procedure adopted in 1923 was somewhat of a mistake and it would be better this year to observe Armistice Day in the customary manner, the main ceremony taking place at the Cenotaph on the usual lines with a special service in Westminster Abbey attended as in ordinary years by representative Service detachments. An alternative suggestion would be that The King, the Cabinet and others taking part in the usual short service at the Cenotaph should proceed at the conclusion of the Silence to a second service in the Abbey."
Given that, should the wording be slightly tweaked in this (Wikipedia) article to make the sequence of events a bit clearer for reader around the tension between Abbey and Cenotaph at that time in 1923? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)