Talk:Hartlepool/Archive 1

Main Page verification

Can someone explain what the problem is with the main page - all looks true and proper to me or is it just one of the cyber nerd moderators opinion - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.10.107 (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your note. The problem is that an article of this size (20.1kB) should certainly have more than just a single citation. Without citations to reliable sources there is no way to verify whether the information presented it correct or not. Without citations somebody could make up whatever information about the town they wished; negative, positive, or just silly. Including proper references (preferably using footnotes) not only keeps the page within Wikipedia' policies, but it also helps the regular reader have confidence in the factuality of the information presented. I hope I have addressed your concerns, please feel free to write again if you wish to discuss this further. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Liverpool Lemur

It seems every town and city has it's skeletons in the closet, but you have to dig very hard for some of them.

Check this out:

http://lemurbob.sky.prohosting.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.221.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Monkey hanger" is not an insult — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of embedded list

A new article titled West Hartlepool War Memorial was created to solve this issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Kelly (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(NOTE ADDED BY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRIBUTING SUMMARY OF VERIFIABLE FACTS IN THE ARTICLE ON 'HARTLEPOOL' RELATING TO THE WAR MEMORIALS ERECTED IN THE TOWNS OF THE HARTLEPOOLS ON THE NORTH EAST COAST OF ENGLAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, SUBSEQUENT TO THE GREAT WAR, IN PARTICULAR IN RELATION TO THE FIRST RAID ON THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM THE SEA IN ITS HISTORY SINCE ITS CREATION IN 1707 ACT OF UNION, AND THE DEATH OF THE FIRST SOLDIERS TO DIE ON BRITISH SOIL BOTH IN THE GREAT WAR AND IN THE HISTORY OF THE UK AS A CONSEQUENCE ....

Am I unable to understand things everybody else can understand without problems on this site, WIKIPEDIA? If so, I am sorry. The principal problem with the internet (i.e. the worldwide web in particular) is anonymity. I remain anonymous for the time being, but these are international issues. Thank you for providing me with a platform for at least a month ... but no longer! You now publish lies and misconceptions, both within the article Hartlepool on the Wikipedia site and in related internet articles to the new article by referring, amongst other things, to the death only of civilians, and incidentally with an incorrect date for the East Coast Raid, and no reference whatsoever to the Hartlepool War Memorial in Redheugh Gardens dated 1914. With all of these things I dealt in the article which is presumably that to which you refer as 'embedded'. Thank you for your attention; however, I am losing faith in Wikipedia, like many other people, unfortunately. It is useful, like the Internet, but like the Internet, it is impossible to rely upon it as necessarily correct.) Footnote added 14 July 2008 It is indeed true you (Wikipedia) are by any earthly standards formidable in your proposed dictatorship in the form of the monopoly of what you wish to call the worldwide truth. Other things may lie ahead in the future, please be aware, in particular when as in the present case you publish evident lies with regard to architecture in contravention of the law of intellectual property and do nothing to correct them. Perhaps I may finish for the time being by referring to a French language site relating to ‘High-Tech’ and traditional encyclopaedias which make clear they intend so far as possible to react in consequence: http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/podcast/pleinecran/0,,3865262,00-plein-ecran-juin-que-wikipedia-dans-vie-.html Is it not therefore the case that you gentlemen should pay more attention to the possible adverse consequences of your policies, in particular, as in the present case, on the relationships between America and Europe so far as the interpreation and application to the present time of history is concerned?; these are perhaps already in question, gentlemen?. You will have noted perhaps in this connection that the French President has invited to the Victory Parade in Paris today (14 July 2008) numerous European nations and has included Syria as well as the Secretary of the United Nations. If there is a representative of the United States then I have missed that piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.229.250 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The above text (italicized and struck through) should be understood as now withdrawn (in October 2010) by the author. Peter Judge

The entirely separate article or page within Wikipedia resulting from this decision was of course in the first place created by one of the people (as usual not easily identified) who decided that this should be done. The person in question included what is shown on this page on Hartlepool as reference (3)([1]). That was some time ago of course. I wish to inform your readers that this has now been removed from that particular page West Hartlepool War Memorial and the reason that is given by myself in an e-mail to the managers of this site (also sent today) is as follows (I quote my own email):

Dear Sir of Madam A reference to your website as indicated in the subjectline was provided a good while ago by some person other than myself within the Wikipedia article entitled 'West Hartlepool War Memorial'. I am sorry to have to inform you that I myself believe it to be significantly misleading so far as the history of this particular area (which in fact was for many years during the Victorian era and for some years afterwards entitled the 'Hartlepools' comprising 'Hartlepool' and 'West Hartlepool') is concerned, and it has today been removed as an external link. You may see the reason for this belief of my own that this happens to be a significant issue on the website so far as history is concerned on http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-432718-war-memorial-in-redheugh-gardens-hartlep/photos. If you have any comments I must ask you, rather than replying to this email, to put them into the 'talk' page on this article in Wikipedia entitled 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' so that we can discuss this matter in public on the Internet and I am afraid that I must inform you that until this is done I see no reason whatsoever why this link should be restored on this particular page. I shall therefore until reasons are given continue to believe that it should be removed.

Peter Judge 31 May 2011

Well, it seems the above text no longer applies, since one of the two memorials created within the separate towns after the First World War has been given its correct name as contained in the relevant public document (Council minutes of date 1923) 'West Hartlepol War Memorial'. The reference to this history within any website is therefore at least to that extent something to which there can be no longer any objection by myself, for which I am duly grateful. The again officially entitled 'Hartlepool War Memorial' on the headland (which relates directly to 1914 and therefore to the East Coast Raid in December of that year, the memorial having been opened together with other forms of memorial as indicated in the site on British Listed Buildings, here quoted) is however, may I be allowed to point out, equally relevant, the two memorials being in fact arguably connected in a number of ways even if this has never been acknowledged or discussed elsewhere, so far as I am aware.

Peter Judge 1 June 2011

Tall Ships Photos

Does anyone have photos of the visit of the Tall Ships in August which they can download to this article? Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange Hartlepool Map and Recent History

Something is really incorrect with that map. It's misleading because Hartlepool is not in County Durham, just like Stockton On Tees isn't. In fact not much is mentioned about the last 40 years of the area in there. Is there no way of changing it so it either just shows Hartlepool or Teesside/Tees Valley/Cleveland with Hartlepool highlighted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemens12345 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Most suitable area name for Hartlepool

Hello everyone, just to let you know I have added Tees Valley to Hartlepool's location. The message I wrote to somebody who changed this is attached below. :-)

Hello, by the looks of things, you do not live in Hartlepool despite perhaps having come from the area originally. Being 61 years old would mean that you were probably born when Hartlepool was still County Durham. I however, like all people under 45 was born in County Cleveland. From then on this meant Durham was no longer the county of Hartlepool, and Stockton. Although the Cleveland county was disbanded in the late 90s, the term is still used, and spoken. In addition the new name for the area is the Tees Valley. If you could to refer to Hartlepool in the ceremonial county of Durham, what on earth is it supposed to mean? Ceremonial county? What is that? Under this assumption Redcar is part also of the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, yet is not part of Yorkshire and Humberside but is still part of the North East. Can you understand the confusion this is causing? To resolve this confusion and to continue the Tees idenity, Tees Valley was introduced, a new region formed from the old county Cleveland with the addition of Darlington. As a result Hartlepool in now in the TEES VALLEY and by saving county Durham you are basically confusing generations of people even more with this old term. In Hartlepool, I send a letter with a TS postcode. I receive a letter with a TEESSIDE Date stamp, I receive a bank statement with a HARTLEPOOL, CLEVELAND address, I listen to TFM (Teesside radio), I look for things on the visit TEES VALLEY website, I look for a jobs on Teesvalleyjobs.co.uk, I rent a house with the TEES VALLEY Housing associatiom, I find bus and train information on the Connect TEES VALLEY transport website, and births, deaths, and marriages are at the TEES VALLEY indexes in Middlesbrough. So I hope you understand what the issue is about, either write Tees Valley or don't write anything at all.

http://www.connectteesvalley.com/bus.asp http://www.myteesvalleyjobs.co.uk/ http://www.middlesbrough-indexes.co.uk/ http://www.teesvalley.org/services_care_supaccom_yp_hp.php http://www.visitteesvalley.co.uk/site/explore-tees-valley/hartlepool http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/info/100011/transport_and_streets/1462/national_driver_offender_retraining_scheme_n-dors/14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemens12345 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Tees Valley is not an officially recognisd administrative area. It does not appear in Unitary authorities of England, List of English districts, Metropolitan borough or Subdivisions of England. The article on Tees Valley does not have any verifiable references and suggests some disagreement concerning re-branding of the area. Your listing of any number of web sites with 'Tees Valley' in the title is nor a verifiable source and does not make it an officiallt recognised area. Wikipedia is a collaboration of many people, and not based on personal opinions. If you are going to make changes to multiple articles, you should seek approval on the Talk page. If you do not understand what a Ceremonial County is try looking it up on Wikipedia. I will be reverting your edits which deleted verifiable facts. And please sign your posts to Talk Page, see WP:SIG. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing "Seaton Carew in the County of Durham) is only personal opinion. If you were living here then you perhaps also see the roads entering and leaving the town to the north. Entering Hartlepool "Welcome to Hartlepool, in the Tees Valley" and Leaving Hartlepool " Welcome to County Durham". Since when is an official centre of births, marriages and deaths "tees valley indexes" not a variable source? Where are the verifiable references that Hartlepool is Durham? For now, the word County Durham will be removed from this Hartlepool as it seems the only thing that can be agreed so far is that Hartlepool is in England. Hartlepool is most certainly a unitary authory which has not belonged to Durham since the introduction of Cleveland just like Stockton on Tees. As for Tees Valley, this is simply it's district. Royal Mail and Hartlepool Council would surely varify this.--Clemens12345 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To help you understand how Wikipedia works, could I suggest that you take a look at WP:GUIDELINE and in particular WP:VERIFY. Regards. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only is "Tees Valley" a made-up name, Hartlepool is neither near the Tees nor in a valley. You also need to read Ceremonial counties of England. You could have looked this up yourself. KenSharp (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Angle pirates

This is the line from the page regarding the original founding of Hartlepool.

"After the Roman Empire abandoned its province of Britannia in the early 5th Century, its North-Eastern sea coast began to be piratically raided by the Angles from across the North Sea in Scandinavia."

The Angles were not Scandinavian, but Germanic, from Angeln. The did come from the North Sea.

Perhaps someone with the skill could edit the entry.

Dantes Warden (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hartlepool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015102245/http://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/durhamlightinf18btn-gw.php to http://www.wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/durhamlightinf18btn-gw.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518183807/http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=543&pageNumber=4 to http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=543&pageNumber=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927013119/http://www.investinhartlepool.com/pdfs/Hartlepool%20Economic%20Assessment%20-%20Draft%203.pdf to http://www.investinhartlepool.com/pdfs/Hartlepool%20Economic%20Assessment%20-%20Draft%203.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127052732/http://www.easytide.co.uk/EASYTIDE/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0188&PredictionLength=7 to http://www.easytide.co.uk/EASYTIDE/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0188&PredictionLength=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hartlepool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923075209/http://www.history.uk.com/history/hartlepool-brief-history/ to http://www.history.uk.com/history/hartlepool-brief-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716084642/http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=616&pageNumber=2 to http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=616&pageNumber=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Information needs adding under the 'Emergency medical service' sub-title on the 'Governance' section of the article

In my opinion, information needs adding under the 'Emergency medical service' sub-title on the 'Governance' section of the article as it is currently empty. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Related links could be added to the 'See also' section of the article

In my opinion, related links could be added to the 'See also' section of this article as said section is currently empty. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)