Talk:St James Church, Franz Josef

Naming the church

I have removed "The church was named in honour of the Reverend James Young." I am aware of the citation. A church is not a dog. Eddaido (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The saint in question was chosen in honour of Rev James Young. I believe that is worth saying and it is sourced. Comparisons to animals is silly, all sorts of things get named after people. DrThneed (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

People give dogs all sorts of names. A Church of England church will very probably but not necessarily be dedicated to a particular saint or saints. The citation says the church was named in honour of James Young. This is plainly wrong. Mind if I revert your revert? Eddaido (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I see there are a number of other points that need to be remade. Eddaido (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps how these legends arise?

• A letter from the dedicator:

WAIHO GORGE CHURCH. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir —With reference to the photograph you printed this morning of "St. George's" Church, Waiho Gorge, which you kindly stated was designed by me, may I be allowed to correct a mistako of your contributor? The chief beauty of *thc church's design, tho plato-glass window framing the view of the Franz Josef Glacier, was tho idea of the Dean of Christchurch; although I was responsible for interior decorations and certain alterations to the plan, the architects were Messrs Turnbull and Rule, of Timaru. Tho church was dedicated to St. James, not St. George. The first donation to the church building fund was made five years ago by the then vicar of South Westland, the Rev. James Young, now Archdeacon of Wanganui.—Yours, etc., ALWYN K. WARREN. April 28th, 1932. see A K Warren

It is not clear to me what your objection to the statement is. You accept that the source says the church was named in honour of James Young, but according to you this is "clearly wrong". I do not see why that is clearly wrong. The quote you have included is someone correcting a mistake made in a caption to a picture where the name of the church (and other details) was wrong. It says nothing about why the church was named St James. If you want to revert again you need to provide a reliable source that says the church was named St James for some other reason (and even then I would be inclined to include both pieces of information so that readers know there is uncertainty). DrThneed (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The church was named in honour of the Reverend James Young." simply does not make sense on its own. The church was named in honor of Saint James, that's it's name. The source has one line with no context. Somehow you have to explain why a Saint is used to honor a Reverend. If you can not explain this I think the sentence should go. Sammy D III (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The church was named after St James in honour of the Reverend. I don't think the majority of readers would need it spelled out why choosing the name St James honours someone called James. DrThneed (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The church is dedicated to St James and called St James' church. The church of St James. The letter above is from the person that did the dedicating. It seems to be clear you don't have an understanding of the subject. You say "the church is named St James". I will go and correct the opening words of the article now that I know why they have been chosen. Eddaido (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

DrThneed, you have not marked this as in New Zealand English yet. You want to put up a flag or at least put a section above this one saying so.

I don't know anything about this religion and am reading from US English but that sentence seems strange and possibly offensive to devote followers. I don't understand it as it stands alone like that.

When you imply I am stupid with "I don't think the majority of readers would need it spelled out" you are looking at it from your own insular POV. You have no more right to speak for "the majority of readers" than I do.

When you ask someone else I would suggest someone who speaks UK English and might know the religion. Sammy D III (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think our difference opinion is anything to do with variants in English (I am English). Thank you for at least saying that the sentence might be offensive to some people as written. I don't agree that it is, but at least you have finally said what your objection is. I don't agree with your changes but I do not have time to continue debating over something relatively trivial.DrThneed (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not language, is it? I thought I was dealing with some local pride deal. I think you are mixing us up but it doesn't matter. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I have two reliable sources in front of me that clearly state the church is dedicated to St James, and that name in part honours Rev James Young for his role in the community and in having it built. If you have sources that say that this is a myth, please add them. Otherwise the rephrased sentence I've put in should cover the bases. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Why there is a church there

@Paora: Hi Paora, I've seen your nice photo from the riverbank. You may not have realised how close it was to the old hotel. You twice summarily removed my perhaps hamfisted note of the church being in the nature of a mountaineer's chapel. Would you mind telling me your objection to that, please. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A link and a news clipping Eddaido (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with material being added when it is supported by references. Unfortunately, the material that you added, stating that St James was built as a mountaineers' chapel, is not supported by any of the references, including the two that you have just given above. I have carefully read the two references you have given above, and these refer to The Hermitage Hotel at Mount Cook Village, on the other side of the main divide, some 37 km as the crow flies from Franz Josef, and make no mention of the Franz Josef Hotel. The news clipping refers to a memorial hut being built, but no mention of a memorial church anywhere, let alone at Franz Josef. Paora (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was the church built and why there? Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The question is answered in the "Background" section of the article. Paora (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To summarise that section: Parish created 1867, church proposed 1925; site donated by Grahams; Archdeacon Julius suggests wooden church with views of river. Why was the church built? Why did the archdeacon suggest there? Eddaido (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction required

@Giantflightlessbirds and Paora: The correct name of this church and the article is St James's Church, Franz Josef. Eddaido (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree most churches dedicated to St James spell their names St James' (not St James's, the last 's' is dropped for Biblical possessives), but the official sources like Heritage NZ don't seem to, and nor does the church itself: the signboards I photographed said "ST JAMES ANGLICAN CHURCH" and "St James Church", as you can see in the Commons category. I just created the missing redirects from St James' and St James's versions to the main article, though. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I see this has been changed again: once again, the church's own signboards and literature call it St James Church, as do the majority of reliable sources like Te Ara. If you want to add an apostrophe, please demonstrate that its official name has one: it doesn't have one in the official listing of Anglican churches in the Christchurch Diocese for example. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

AND once again look here: not to mention the national library. Did you make the signs yourself? it looks like it! Eddaido (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That Facebook page actually spells it both ways about 50/50, sometimes both ways in the same post, which is why Facebook groups aren't a reliable source. The Facebook page does link to the list of Anglican churches which is a RS, and which doesn't use an apostrophe. I'm not sure what your remark about "making the signs myself" implies. It seems a bit patronising to the congregation of St James, who actually made the signs. –Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just received a call back from the Diocesan office which confirmed the apostrophe remains. Eddaido (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, a "call from the Diocesan office" isn't a reliable source either. WP:OR —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but it sort of looks like you may be talking about commonname vs. officialname? Maybe not, just a thought. Sammy D III (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The official Diocese name in its printed material doesn't use an apostrophe, nor does the Church's own signage and publications. If we wanted to override that using WP:COMMONNAME, we need to show St James' is "the commonly recognizable name as shown by the prevalence of the name in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". But I haven't seen that demonstrated yet. I just did a quick search in Papers Past and coverage from the '60s and '70s (as far as it goes) seems split between apostrophe and no apostrophe. I couldn't find any recent media coverage to compare. Eddaido, if you could do a thorough survey of media, books, and other recent reliable sources, and demonstrate that the name with an apostrophe is the current majority spelling, I drop all my objections. (I'm wondering if the motivation for adding an apostrophe is because that's grammatically correct, not because that's the commonly-used form? Unfortunately the common and official names of a lot of places and buildings in NZ don't use correct punctuation, and we just have to deal with that.) —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

First, language. I would think that "you" (plural) would throw up NZ English tags anywhere you can. That would give you a jump on the rest of us, who have no idea what you use (even before the Māori gets mixed in). You have Project NZ banners but some people don't realize the different language (I used to think Aus.). I don't know if anybody else edits them, though.

Well, I'm more than confused, been here before. I thought you were pro-Common, instead you are disputing what the Official is? That's a battle of the documents? Whose signature is more important? What they use on their printing would be more for Common?

For Common "split between apostrophe and no apostrophe" is sort of a wash to start with, and Official is going to bias toward one side of Common? (I sort of expect a flurry of official documents, maybe not). I'm not sure I would bet much on a wooden sign, at least here signs are stylized all the time.

Do any other NZers care? I stalked Eddaido and usually lean Official, but I'm not NZ and aren't following you all over the page. It looks like you are beating each other bloody over "is so/is not". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like lot of fuss over an apostrophe! Obviously we can't have the church spelled one way and the article title the other. I've set out my arguments that both Common and Official sources seem to favour no apostrophe, and Eddadio hasn't produced any evidence that either Common or Official sources lean the opposite way. We obviously disagreee; the next step would be a Move proposal so a third party can adjudicate. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)