Talk:Holy Rosary Cathedral (Vancouver)/Archive 1

Trivia about priest's LSD experimentation

I have removed the following from the article, as its connection to the main subject is tenuous (WP:REL#Keep_articles_focused), the tone isn't formal (WP:TONE), and its prominence (as the largest of two paragraphs in a stub article) was out of proportion to its importance (WP:UNDUE). Perhaps this information would be more appropriate for the Alfred Matthew Hubbard, LSD, or History of LSD articles, or perhaps it could eventually be reintegrated into this article as part of a much longer and more comprehensive account of the Cathedral's history.

It is a little known fact amongst the locals, particularly church goers, that Reverend J. E. Brown, a Catholic priest at the Cathedral of the Holy Rosary in Vancouver, during the 50's and 60's, had a positive LSD session and recommended such an experience to members of his parish. To become more informed read the book Acid Dreams by Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain. Also visit this page:
http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/capthubbard.html
Near the bottom gives my source for this statement.

154.20.85.244 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of the Murrays

I don't have the book handy but I'm reasonably certain that "Ma" and George Murray were married by the archbishop in his office; due to the groom's Presybterian family over-riding a Catholic church wedding as I recall...maybe it was a small ceremony at the main altar, I don't recall exactly, except that it was kept discreet. Ma was devout Catholic and George's family was mortified etc.; it's in Georgina Keddell's The Newspapering Murrays (she was their daughter) somewhere, I don't own a copy anymore...I believe it was they who made the call to the archbishop to book the cathedral for the funeral of Joe Fortes, got his OK, then called City Hall etc - or so their daughter says....Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell foundry in Annecy-le-Vieux

Check whether the bells were cast at the Fonderie Paccard, as seems the case.--Wetman (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the bells were cast there (by brothers George and Francis Paccard). Added the detail into the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telling it like it is

That first sentence, your introduction to the topic, needs to be accurate. You can't state that a building is "Gothic" unless it is a genuine medieval building. The dates for French Gothic architecture are given in the first sentence of that article. Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whose church is it anyway?

Definition from the old Catholic Encyclopedia: [1]

"Cathedral: The chief church of a diocese, in which the bishop has his throne (cathedra) and close to which is his residence; it is, properly speaking, the bishop's church, wherein he presides, teaches, and conducts worship for the whole Christian community." (italics added for emphasis).

So, saying "Archbishop" in the lead is at least as valid as "Archdiocese". --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saying "Archbishop" is just a valid. However, I prefer using the wording of Archdiocese, since saying it's the "cathedral of the archbishop" could lead people to think it is his own personal church (well, technically it is ceremonially and spiritually his, but not in reality or in the eyes of the law). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reality and in the eyes of the law, if the archbishop wanted to sell his cathedral (let's say he wants to build a new one on another site), who could stop him? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one could stop him, but the reason why he has "control" over the cathedral is because he heads the diocese/archdiocese, not vice versa. Plus, his successor doesn't inherit the cathedral; it's his by the virtue of him being leader of the diocese. And finally, yes, the Vatican has tried to intervene in some cases regarding renovations, but this hasn't proved to be successful.[2][3] (they didn't actually tell the archbishop to stop completely, but voiced their displeasure). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern day" section, problems of

The first paragraph says there was an "increase" in crimes perpetrated by panhandlers in 2007. Unfortunately, neither CBCNews article supporting this paragraph makes such a claim, so, a re-write is needed. The entire paragraph should probably be deleted: it's not news, let alone notable, that there are aggressive panhandlers in many, many North American cities.

The second paragraph tells us that demonstrators "disrupted" Easter Sunday Mass. Our problem is that the text of the Western Star article we're using to make the claim does not say so, only the article headline claims "disruption". My understanding is that we can't use a headline if the fact claimed in the headline is not in the article itself, which is the case here. The second sentence of the second paragraph is about a "splinter group" of the Occupy movement. Is there anything less newsworthy or notable than the carryings-on of a "splinter group" of the Occupy movement? It must have been a slow news day. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said there was an "increase" in crimes was because the article said the cathedral was "under siege by panhandlers" and that "the situation is so bad that women...hold onto their purses tightly during mass." From these quotes, I deduced that there must be an increase in crime (i.e. robbery or attempted mugging) going on, since these extra precautions would not have to be taken if the cathedral was crime-free. And the issue is notable. Sure, panhandlers are common in NA cities. But in a cathedral? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard of any other NA cathedral (or church, for that matter) that has had such frequent threats of pickpocketing. I went to NY's St. Patrick's Cathedral last summer and I didn't see a single panhandler inside (maybe it's because of the security at the entrance). I felt more confident in placing my backpack in front of me. In contrast, I don't dare bring any belongings to HRC whenever I visit (other than my wallet). The smell of urine and the sight of panhandlers sleeping in the pews confirms all my fears of being mugged. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand our policies, if our sources don't say there was an increase in crimes, then we don't say so either. For all we know, the cathedral has been "under siege" by panhandlers for the past 30 years. When did this increase, not mentioned in our sources, begin? The priest interviewed, Fr. Dion Celine(?), didn't seem to feel like he was "under siege"; he seemed to feel that the panhandler behavior came with the territory. (I think the only reason the CBCNews articles got written in the first place is because the perp got caught on camera.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC source does state that there is at least one incident daily and the Vancouver Police Department had to be called in weekly. Clearly there would be an increase in crime at the cathedral. If not, the police wouldn't have to be called in at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument here is not logical, and, we cannot go beyond our sources. Neither article uses the word "increase" or anything similar, and as I said before, the panhandler situation may have been that way for the last 30 years or more. As Father Dion indicated, it goes with the territory. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The cathedral has become noted for the crime that takes place there . . ."

Except that the two CBCNews articles cited make no such claim. The only crime reported in the two articles is the mugging of the 81-year-old parishoner. I don't know Canadian law -- is it a crime when a panhandler asks someone for money in BC? I suggest we stop writing in sensationalistic tabloid style by not going beyond what is reported by our sources. An "incident" is not necessarily a "crime" and just because police are called doesn't necessarily mean there was a crime committed. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC article doesn't even have to make that claim. The very fact that it is reported already makes it noted. Also, it isn't a crime when a panhandler asks for money, but there is crime when the police have to be called in. If there wasn't crime involved, the police would've simply ignored the cathedral's pleas after the first several calls for help (since they would view it as a waste of the taxpayers' dollars). The fact that the police actually take a weekly interest in going to HRC proves beyond doubt that some kind of criminal activity (or what is going to transcend into criminal activity) is taking place at the cathedral. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple RS's would be needed to support such an extraordinary claim. A call to the police is not proof that a crime has been committed; a visit by the police is not proof that a crime has been committed. I thought police always investigated before charging someone with a crime or even determining if a crime had been committed; perhaps they do things differently in our friendly neighbor to the north. Two news stories about a mugging and some panhandlers does not lead to the conclusion that "The cathedral has become noted for the crime that takes place there . . ." Such an extraordinary claim will require several RS's saying so. I suppose you could say "The cathedral made the news when a mugging occurred there", but that's about as far as you can go based on the two CBCNews stories. To me, the phrase "has become noted for" means much more than that one news organization wrote 2 stories about something that happened somewhere. It would require more sourcing than 2 articles about a mugging caught on camera. What you're doing here, Bloom, would be like going to the Vancouver article and adding "Vancouver has become noted for the crime that takes place there . . .", based on the two articles about the cathedral mugging. It goes way too far. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive panhandling is actually against the law in Canada. This article says the Criminal Code was used to charge the assailant in the attack mentioned in the article. Also, BC province has a Safe Streets Act to severely marginalize and restrict panhandling. So, if you want, I could always go into detail (with the above source) stating that panhandling is (to a certain degree) illegal in Canada, although I'm afraid that would be a bit unrelated to the article itself. This syllogism here:
1. Aggressive panhandling is a crime in Canada.
2. HRC has aggressive panhandling taking place inside of it.
3. Therefore, HRC has crime."
is a logical argument and thus, cannot be challenged. So there's no need for any additional sources, although I'd be more than happy to provide you with this one as well. It's from the 1940s, but it still counts a crime of vandalism. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the edit you made, I will also be happy to accept that as a compromise if you still think the claim is farfetched. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bloom. I do still think your earlier wording went too far beyond the sources and could be understood in a way you did not intend. I would like to try to make one point: I'm not contending that your earlier phrasing did not reflect the truth of the situation (I don't know if it's true—I haven't researched it). I'm only contending that if Wikipedia makes such a statement, the statement has to be supported by something more substantial than what is essentially a two-part article about one mugging in the cathedral in August 2007. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holy Rosary Cathedral (Vancouver)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete the review today or tomorrow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

The article is very well-written and has a natural flow. It provides a good broad coverage of the subject, without going into unnecessary detail. There's great use of illustrative stories, images and quotes. It follows Manual of Style guidelines. The article is well-sourced with inline citations, there's just one added citation needed tag. There's no evidence of original research. The article is neutral.

It is now stable, but there was some edit waring and talk-page dialogue in 2012-early 2013 regarding the "Modern day" section. I understand both sides and it seems to have settled into keeping that section, so I have no reason to question that.

There is good use of public domain images - all with proper licensing in commons. I'm not seeing copyright violations in the text, either.

Edits

There were just a couple of minor copy edits and resolution of two cs1 date errors (you only see it if you've configured to see them). See this version comparison.
Since there were only two short citations for Thirkell - and several other books cited - I just changed Thirkell's short citations into long ones and removed the bibliography section for consistency. See this version comparison

Are you ok with the edits and changes to the Thirkell citations?--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm OK with them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There's one citation needed tag that has been added.

I can't find any sources on "nothing serious [arising] from the incident". I was just basing that sentence off the fact that the cathedral is still standing fine and hadn't collapsed. I could just shift the ref to the end of the sentence, or remove it altogether. What would be better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Good point! The thing is, though, the article doesn't say that there weren't major repercussions. How about rewording the sentence to something like:

In April 1959, drilling and blasting commenced in a nearby tunnel, which is believed to be the cause of a minor tilt in the bell tower of the cathedral.

And, then folks can infer that since the bell tower and cathedral are still standing that there wasn't likely further damage. Although, how would we know? There could have been damage to the foundation, etc. that required work that never made it into the paper. (And, in our world, if it didn't make it to print, we cannot write about it - thinking ahead that you might be a member of the church.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the sentence altogether without rewording, since the source didn't say when the drilling and blasting started (only reports on when the tilting began). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds like the best option!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a further reading section if you know of any books that have the history or background information about the cathedral, like
- Marianthi P. Constantinu (1968). Holy Rosary Cathedral: Vancouver, B.C.

Added that book, and one other book – it was the only other relevant book I could fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! You don't need the access/retrieved dates, though, that's only required for citations with urls.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a really great job on the article. This is all that I'm finding.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks for kind words! I've been slowly developing this article for the past two years now. This Wednesday (October 8th) is the 2nd anniversary of this article's DYK (also coinciding with the feast day of the cathedral's namesake). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it nice how everything comes together?--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks great! I'll pass the article. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]