Talk:Canterbury Cathedral

More Plans

Are available in this ebook from PG. 128.175.100.123 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

It's unverified and contains weasel words - it doesn't have a ring of truth to it, as all the old cathedrals in England used to be RC and now are not. This is just fact, not "controversial", and this is the first time I have heard of such a strange complaint. It's creating a negative section in the article for spurious reasons IMO. I'll remove it in a week or so (feel free to revert) if it isn't improved or discussed here. Lethesl 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, and actually removed the section as part of general improvements to the article before seeing your comments here. I did a quick Web search first just to make sure, and there is no evidence of "any" Catholics making such a complaint, let alone "many." HVH (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Stained glass

The caption with regard to the image of Becket was misleading. The window, which is quite large and contains many narrative panels, was assembled in 1919. This does not mean that the invidual parts of the window, such as the portrait of St Thomas, were created from fragments at this date. It means that the various intact panels from several windows were put together in a single window, which is exactly the same process as took place with the typological "Poor Man's Bible window" and the very large west window and south transept window. Amandajm (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

what are u talking about? i am catholic and i know that if a catholic makes a stain glass window he is portraying the truths and events of our religion.

The stained glass was not made by a Catholic, Caldwell Jr. (who's father, Great Uncle and Great Great Uncle before him operated as the in house stained glass maintainer and restorers, which in many cases led to damage and recreating) created it, claiming it was a medieval. Correspondence with customers also show that he sold certain pieces and used parts from old frames in some pieces. While he worked there, for over 60 years until the 1960s, he was the sole person responsible for ALL of the glass, bringing much of its authenticity into question. The restoration process of his relatives also often involved more "improving" and replacing than repairing individual pieces of glass, as suited the aesthetic at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.190.66 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Achitectural importance

This one is of top importance Amandajm (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dating convention

(Augustine) was sent by Pope Gregory the Great in PC 597... PC 597? What is PC? Should be 597CE or simply 597? Trappist the monk (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) King Henry VIII built himself a palace in Canterbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.112.16 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Catherdral

The Cathedral's history goes back to 597AD when St Augustine, sent by Pope Gregory the Great as a missionary, established his seat (or 'Cathedra') in Canterbury. In 1170 Archbishop Thomas Becket was murdered in the Cathedral and ever since, the Cathedral has attracted thousands of pilgrims, as told famously in Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New Image

Does anyone else think the page needs a new heading image? the picture there at the moment is heavily distorted - I tried to upload a new one, but it was deleted immediately JRok246 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If the photo is your own work and you fill in the licencing data it should not be deleted. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons --Charles (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Article relating to the Screen

For other work, I came across a newspaper article by Charles Cotton in The Times from 1935 that describes the screen of the six kings at Canterbury Cathedral. Article is at s:The Times/1935/News/The Six Kings and I see that Commons has requisite photos at and . — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions

I can't find any information on the height of the nave. Does anyone know? It would be a useful addition here, and to List of highest church naves. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can track it down. Amandajm (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We found it on the Reference Desk, apparently it's about 25 metres high. It looks a lot bigger! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Stained Glass Fakes and Controversie

In the near future when I have my sources together (largely by Professor Caviness) I am going to add a section about the stain-glass windows, how many of them are fakes and how other "restorations" in the previous centuries (largely the 20th and 19th under four generations of one family) destroyed original pieces, or as they would have said in the 19th century, improved certain pieces. This isn't something I am an expert on by any means, I attended a lecture at my university's history department and was surprised to learn there is no mention on Wikipedia and not that many on the internet themselves (a minor exception to that, the French Wikipedia's description of the "Saint Thomas" piece, http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fichier:Tomwindo.png, gives the gist although there is evidence of more wrongdoing on the part of Caldwell, including the selling of pieces). Not surprising as many of the tour guides and certainly the gift shop don't seem to be aware themselves. Any help, constructive or critical, is appreciated. 76.10.180.211 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This would be a useful addition. Just remember that it must be worded in encyclopedia manner. "Fakes" is probably the wrong term to use. 19th century reproductions which replaced the original glass would be better. Amandajm (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The maintained ones might count as reproductions, as pieces in the 19th century would be repaired by replacing parts and reprainting in a new more aesthetically pleasing style. In the 20th century under Caldwell Jr., new pieces were added that were claimed (and continue to be claimed as such by tourist brouchures and such "The artist may have even seen Saint Thomas", for instance) to be Medieval by Caldwell. The famous piece with a bishop and S Tomas behind his head (http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fichier:Tomwindo.png) is a prime example, dated to 1919, he claimed it was centuries old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.211 (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Hatch

Changing "Joseph Hatch (bellfounder)" to "Hatch bell foundry" would avoid the redirect for him.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it would. I have no strong opinion on this either way, I just wonder if WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply. Thoughts? Nortonius (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly that the redirect should be eliminated; I'll have a look at WP:NOTBROKEN.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems you are right according to this policy; it appears to be so complicated an issue that many editors will not keep it it mind when editing.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it seems a complex issue. I put the idea of avoiding a redirect up for discussion in a small way recently, albeit under somewhat different circumstances, but the response was negative and, I feel, confirmed the general approach.[1] I have sympathy with the idea of having a redirect for Joseph Hatch – though I did create it myself – because his name does crop up outside WP, so people might well come to WP looking for him. Nortonius (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Combine Roman and Anglo-Saxon sections?

Should the Roman and Anglo-Saxon historical sections be combined? The Roman section has Augustine of Canterbury being sent as a missionary to the Anglo-Saxons. (Also, I'm not sure what connection Augustine of Hippo has with Canterbury Cathedral.) Perhaps combine them into a single "Roman and Anglo-Saxon Period"? Foreignshore (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Benedictine Abbey?

Were the monks of the Abbey here Augustinian or Benedictine? Or both? Slightnostalgia (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Quire/Rood screen

An editor has changed the caption "choir screen" to "rood screen" without source for this. The text refers to this as a "choir screen" and is referenced to Cook (1949). The first problem with the change is that there is no evidence of a rood surmounting the screen, whereas there clearly is a chancel and quire beyond. Next, normal practice would be to place the rood to the west of the pulpitum, the eastern screen being sometimes called a pulpitum screen. The reinforcing arch between the western piers of the pulpitum is exactly where one would expect to find the rood beam. I'm reverting the change therefore: BRD, if anyone disagrees or has further information to add please do so here. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Later - Reference found and added. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Choir/Quire

In general "choirs sing in quires", which makes defining the height of the choir at 71' (22m) quite alarming! More seriously though, both "choir" and "quire" are used within the article, though for some strange reason "choir" is the more common. The Cathedral itself (which I suggest is acceptable as a WP:RS) uses the term "quire", see here, as do most English churches and cathedrals that I have come across. Unless someone objects in the next day or so, I'll go through the page ensuring that the choirs and quire are properly distinguished. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done, a bit later than planned. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)