Talk:Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch

Influenced by London church?

I've had it suggested to me via email that the cathedral's spire was partly influenced by a church in north London, close to several other buildings which G.G. Scott worked on - All Saints Church, Whetstone, Barnet (see picture [1]). is this just idle thinking on my emailer's part, or is it possible? Grutness...wha? 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

photo

I have a photo of the cathedral and will upload when things are more normal. Schwede66 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've added a small number of external links to three photos of the damaged cathedral. The aerial shot in particular provides some context, and I hope it's retained even after we have photos of the damage in the article. The other two (one of which [2] is a legitimate copy of the infringing image that until recently was in the article) may be made extraneous if free images are added. TJRC (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth that image at Brisbane Times isn't legitimate either, @tesswollcock isn't the original phototographer and couldn't identify who was (I explored that in my attempts to make the earlier image legitimate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.240.135 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reporting

I feel in a state of frustration, amounting to despair over the extraordinary failure of the media to report the damage to the ChristChurch Cathedral accurately!

It seems as if today's reporters are totally, completely and absolutely (any superlative you can think of) incapable of looking, seeing, assessing and stating facts! Given that it takes (in Australia and New Zealand) very high pass marks to study journalism at University, how can they be so utterly stupid and unreliable? If anyone out there can answer, please do!

The problem lies in the use of the words "total", "absolute", "complete", "ruined", destroyed", "crushed" etc. Terms like "utterly destroyed" and "totally crushed" are being bandied about without any consideration of what these fairly simple second-grader terms actually mean, and what implications they may carry when a member of the public reads or hears them used inappropriately.

Examples

• Early film footage of the earthquake, which I will locate and reference, came from a helicopter which flew directly over the cathedral, while two reporters described it, at least twice, as "totally destroyed". This is the cathedral they were talking about, not its spire, and they had the building, (or film of it), clearly in view while they were uttering these words. That is, clearly visible with its walls and 90% of its vast slate roof intact. They finished the video with "...well, the cathedral's gone....". What sort of idiots could be employed by a news service to so grossly misinform their public? Anyone who heard the report on radio rather than seeing it, would gain a completely false impression.

• Even the BBC can't get it right. BBC, [3], "First look inside collapsed Christchurch Cathedral", 22 February, 2001. Note that none of the exaggerated verbal reporting ("collapsed cathedral", "ruined cathedral", "total" and "whole side") is supported by the evidence of the film itself. It is clear from this film that the "whole side" (i.e. the north aisle) is not destroyed, just the section immediately adjacent the tower.

• NINEMSN: "Bus totally crushed". It clearly wasn't, and although there were many casualties, people on the less damaged side of the bus were rescued.

And of course other news services have followed the lead. SENSATION wins over fact every time, particularly where headlines are concerned.

What worries me is that if this sort of stupidity prevails in the professional reporting of something that is clearly visible, how can we, the public, possibly trust these stupid clowns to accurately inform the world over events that are politically sensitiive, and possibly imflammatory? Are the English language reporters who described recent events in Egypt and Tunisia more or less reliable?

Amandajm (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The impression I got watching this footage and hearing the reporters talking was that the Cathedral, though not yet reduced to a heap of rubble, was damaged beyond repair, and would collapse of its own accord unless what remained was demolished. This certainly seems to be the understanding of everyone who has spoken about the condition of the Cathedral. Perhaps someone has suggested it can be repaired; if so, I haven't heard this. Not particularly sensationalistic. The cathedral has been effectively destroyed; it just hasn't fallen over yet. Important to remember that these remarks are made on the hoof in live broadcasts, not read out from a professionally edited news-script. Koro Neil (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, since I made the foregoing remark, there has been talk of restoration as a viable and desirable option. Koro Neil (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

I suspect that if there's any way at all of restoring it, it'll become a high priority once the immediate aftermath is over, simply to help in the psychological healing/recovery of the city, as some form of symbol of the place's rebirth. And if it's not restorable, it may well become some form of memorial, similar to Coventry's cathedral. But it's all very early speculation at the moment. Even assessment of the building's long-term stability is a fairly low priority at the moment. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Guideline for Talk pages: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

I am not unsympathetic to the frustrations expressed above by Amandajm. I would suggest that the contributions under the heading "Reporting" fit the description of "general discussion" and I invite Amandajm to delete the whole section including this response. In saying this I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what he or she says. It simply does not seem to be suggesting improvement to the WP article. Spathaky (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the main point being made by Amandajm, in that there is / was a lot of inaccurate and contradictory reporting on the earthquakes and the Cathedral, for whatever reason (and I don't disagree with the reasons given). Given the importance of this to the subject of the article (the Cathedral has a demolition order and ceases to exist if it goes through), then the accuracy of sources is critically important to the accuracy of this article. In this case it should be possible to demonstrate these contradictions, quite how this would normally be done here I don't know, just giving my vote of support for it being probably as real as s/he says, especially as the facts are coming out now. --Adx (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

CamelCase in cathedral name?

Is the name of the cathedral properly spelled Christchurch, like the town, or ChristChurch with the interior "C" capitalized? The article distractingly switches back and forth between the two, and as a non-resident I'm hesitant to make a correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.92.98 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The camel case is the correct spelling for ChristChurch Cathedral. If it's not right everywhere in the article, your help with tidying it up would be appreciated. Schwede66 03:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this is an old thread, but the spelling seems so unusual it should be remarked on in the article. I can't imagine it was originally spelled "ChristChurch" when the cathedral was first built. When and why was the strange spelling adopted? To me it seems glaringly odd. -- 118.90.37.127 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't. It's some modern nonsense from the NonChristian Church. Reliable sources refer to it as Christchurch Cathedral, so I will be fixing the article over the next couple days. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)