Talk:Peace Arch

Untitled

If someone wrote an article on the Peace Arch Park, which certainly deserves one, then this article would no longer be an orphan. heidimo 02:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now this article is no longer an orphan since it is linked from Sam Hill. heidimo 05:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It's also linked from George Matheson Murray, who helped instigate its construction, and should anyone ever add mention of the various border demonstrations articles on Amchitka and various others will be linked.Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Included better photo

Hopefully this works for everybody. :: Colin Keigher 07:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, hm, CanEng vs USian....

Noting the reversion to the original Canadian English this article was written with, it's an interesting problem given the bi-national nature of this structure and its park....."first come gets to spell it" almost works as a principle...the clincher might be that its construction was instigated by Canadians....I just woke up gonna have to think about this but really needs a joint decision/input from WP:BC and WP:WA people, I think.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the general process as I read it on WP:ENGVAR is:

1. If the article is about a subject with strong ties to a particular nation, that nation's variety should be used.
2. If not, if a consistent style has emerged in the article, use that.
3. Failing that, use the first variety to have been used in the article.

Number 1 doesn't apply here, because the article's ties to Canada and the US are equally strong. #2 does not apply, because there seemed to be a mix of Canadian ("honour") and US ("meter") variety. That leaves #3, the first variety used. Looking back to the very first edit of the article in 2003, [1], it was using the Canadian variety ("metres"), so I went with that.

I personally am in the US and ordinarily use US spelling, but it looks like Canadian is the way to go on this one. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Triumphal arches in the United States

The category Triumphal arches in the United States was removed from the article with the note Drop category not supported by article text. Isn't this supported by the text?

According to triumphal arch,

A triumphal arch is a monumental structure in the shape of an archway with one or more arched passageways, often designed to span a road.

The Peace Arch is a monumental structure ("The Peace Arch is a monument..."). Unless I misunderstand "passageway," it has a passageway and meets "has one or more arched passageways." It is not used to span a road, but as I read it that's not a requirement. So it seems to meet the requirement for a triumphal arch.

It's partially in the US, so it seems to meet "...in the United States" as well. True, it's not entirely in the U.S., but there are a number of other categories included based on its partial presence in a particular geography:

• Category:Buildings and structures in Surrey, British Columbia
• Category:Buildings and structures in Whatcom County, Washington
• Category:Monuments and memorials in British Columbia
• Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington (state)
• Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington (state)
• Category:Visitor attractions in Whatcom County, Washington.

On the other hand... Memorial gates and arches lists it as a memorial arch, and distinguishes the memorial arch from a triumphal arch (although allowing that a particular arch can be both). Is the triumphal arch definition not accurate? I am now not so clear on whether "triumphal arch" is an architectural term describing the architecture itself or the use of a simple adjective referring to the reason for the arch. TJRC (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"built by Sam Hill"

I didn't know he actually built it himself, as that wording indicates. It's also not solely his instigation, BC politician George Matheson Murray was involved in its conception and execution, likely also the recruitment of Mr Hill to fund it (there were also Canadian industrialists who participated in the funding, as I recall, it was a joint project, not only by a USian); that's in his daughter's book about her parents The Newspapering Murrays" by Georgina Keddell. The actual contractor(s) who did build it are what the "built by" phrase should be about.Skookum1 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

International Park?

I recommend removing this section from the article:

"The monument and surrounding park is considered an international park. As such, visitors do not require either a passport or visa to pass through their applicable border crossing so long as they stay within the boundaries of the park.[2]"

The site referenced no longer contains language to this effect. Also, I know from personal experience that it is incorrect, having driven to the Canadian side, parked, and walked back to the US. I had to show my passport to get back into Canada.

12.49.120.2 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peace Arch. 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/20120904112343/http://www.peacearchpark.org/peacearch.htm to http://www.peacearchpark.org/peacearch.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Customs implications

"visitors do not require either a passport or visa to pass through their applicable border crossing so long as they stay within the boundaries of the park and leave the park into the country from which they entered the park"

Does this mean people visiting from either side mix freely within the park? If passports are not checked on the way back into the country someone entered from, what is to stop someone during a busy period entering from one country and exiting into the other as if they had come in that way? What is to stop items being handed over between US and Canadian park visitors so they can be brought across the border without customs checks? Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger

This article is heavily duplicative and there is simply no need to have separate articles for this and Peace Arch Park. Any content about the arch is relevant to the park. Description paragraph 1: actually about the arch. Para 2: about the park. Para 3: about the park. Para 4: about the border crossing. History para 1: about the border crossing. Para 2: actually about the arch. Para 3: about the park. Para 4: about the park and arch. Sources about the arch also cover the park, including the NRHP nomination form.

If you'd prefer the article be at the Peace Arch title and have it also cover the park that's fine, but splitting material into two articles when there's basically one topic is a disservice to readers. Reywas92^Talk 01:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The monument itself has enough coverage that could be used in a good-sized article. There are other examples of monument-and-park articles that coexist but are not merged, so I don't see why we should be so hasty here. SounderBruce 02:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What are those examples? Maybe I should merge them too. Or maybe they are more distinct than this here. Sure, add more content and coverage about the monumnet itself, but if you then remove the content that's about the park or border crossing area in general, there's not much left, or you otherwise have significant duplication and redundancy because the park article should also cover the history of the monument! This does not help readers to separate content about the arch and the park surrounding it because they are integrally related, and the "good-sized article" would naturally cover both as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 03:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hiroshima Peace Memorial and Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park are examples of separate articles with a clear difference in scope. There is sufficient coverage of the park itself, primarily for its unusual rules and role during the COVID-19 pandemic, and sufficient coverage of the monument itself for its design, conception, and dedication. SounderBruce 06:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but that park also has the Children's Peace Monument and the Rest House and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and the Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims and a Memorial Cenotaph and more. These are obviously not comparable since the Peace Arch Park doesn't have any other major features. The COVID-19 section is short. The monument's design is short. It's already that the Park article covers everything just fine without size or organization issues and having two articles is not helpful. Reywas92^Talk 17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)