Talk:Cathedral of Tomorrow

TV series

Wikilinks referring to the television series go here, but this article is primarily about the building. A separate article should be created for the TV show (since it was shown internationally for decades I don't imagine anyone will doubt its notabiliy. 23skidoo 15:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Public Reference

This article probably needs to better note the public mockery that surrounded the creation of the tower and that, within the Akron area, the tower was commonly referred to as "Rex's Erection." 174.34.27.69 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

People Magazine misquotes

The People magazine article from 1981 that was referenced in regards to the SEC dealings had incorrect information, without its own proper sourcing and quotes. It incorrectly stated that he "sold everything but his home" which was an exaggeration (on the part of the reporter or Humbard is unknown). Humbard was not required to sell off the tower, church or home. Those were sold later when he had proper buyers (at different times to different people). I went into the public records to verify and the tower wasn't sold to Kreiger Communications until 1990. In fact, the article never actually states why the construction on the upper portion of the tower ceased (the part that was to hold a restaurant). He still owned the tower until 1990 and could have completed the upper portion, but publically stated in 1995 at the Grace Cathedral (formerly known as Cathedral of Tomorrow) that he had a choice between putting finances toward that or toward an opportunity to broadcast on more stations in South America and he stated He chose the later. I'm not a supporter of his ministry nor every was, but I did have the opportunity to personally hear him speak about this to set the record straight. We must be careful how we reference an article. Besides, People magazine isn't really the best source for complete factual articles. After all, they've been sued and have settled with many celebrities over the years for their misprints. They're a bit more tabloid in style than many news magazines. BookWorm37 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough point on People magazine. I had to take what I could get on free secondary sources. What it replaced, though, was Humbard's story about broadcasting on more stations in South America. With all the criticism that Humbard got over the tower he could have given the broadcast story twenty years earlier. He is basically a primary source on this issue, so it shouldn't have been in the article before. What you put there now is balanced for now. I broke down and paid for an article and am looking for old newspaper articles to learn more, to see if I can find a better-documented cause for the cessation of construction. I did find that Krieger bought the tower at a sheriff's sale on 12/8/1989 (Plain Dealer, 12/9/1989, p. 25), although it is possible that the actual transfer didn't occur until 1990. Can you add a source to the 1990 date? --Beirne (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about putting the county records on Wikipedia. The county has very specific rules in place on usage of their records and you have to agree to them before accessing. I still trust the county records over anything a newspaper reports (especially the Beacon and Plain Dealer), although the sale may have taken place on that date the actual transfer didn't take place until 1990. I'm actually a reporter and know we make mistakes, even though unintentional. Although, I've known some in Northeast Ohio that had a bone to pick with religious figures and would go out of their way in writing a negative story. I'm more unbiased, but we are human and bias can and does slip in even when we don't intend it. Sometimes those things get proofed out, but it also depends on our editor. Hearing an issue spoken of directly by the subject is my best reference, but I did not get paid to do a story at that time when Humbard publically spoke on why he decided to not finish the tower, so no newspaper sources are available on that public discourse. But, as you have referenced, there was no legal reason why he couldn't finish it once the few lawsuits were found to be frivolous by the courts and thrown out. But, I'm thinking we may both wrong in trying to include the tower in with an article on the church building since they were zoned separately, built separately and even sold separately. The tower information already exists on the page about Rex Humbard and we may want to remove the tower subject from the Cathedral of Tomorrow article since they're two different things. The whole part about his other investments really only belongs in the page 'Rex Humbard'. With the information being in both places it seems to be redundant. We need to remove it from one or the other and try not to duplicate. I think its more appropriate on the page about him and not in this article about the actual church history/building/architecture. What do you think Beirne? BookWorm37 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think you would be able to cite public records from the county, but I'm just basing that on common sense, which may not apply in the case of the county. In terms of the newspaper, I'm pretty sure the PD was correct when they said that Krieger won the sheriff's sale the previous day to buy the tower. The legal transfer date I don't know, so I phrased the sentence in terms of the auction because I had firm verification for it. I couldn't find the transfer in the paper, probably because it wasn't newsworthy by that time. The BJ review of Humbard's financial issues is more open to interpretation. I tried to stick to the firmer points from it, and made clear that we don't know why the tower building was stopped. I also avoided articles from more obviously biased sources like the Scene. One thing I learned from the BJ article was that construction stopped before the bond issue hit. My mistake there, and I removed the bond discussion from the article completely because of that. I understand your point about whether the tower should be included at all. Technically it should go into an article on whatever Humbard's Ohio ministry was called, but the ministry is unlikely to be notable enough to merit its own article. Being that the tower is right next to the Cathedral and they were part of the same complex when the tower was built, I'm inclined to include the tower in both articles. The bond problems, which should be covered somewhere, should go into the Humbard article. BTW, I do plan on fixing the tower discussion in the Humbard article, but figured I'd wait until we settled things here before doing anything. Finally, regarding Humbard's reason for stopping construction, Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources, and someone giving their own view on a controversial issue would be a questionable one. It would be OK if he was used as a source for him being born in Little Rock, but on a controversial issue where he could be putting on his own spin at the most it can be presented as his view. --Beirne (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with above. I would like to see Humbard's public statement concerning his reason about the ceasing of construction, which I and many others heard, included in the article, but of course shown to be his public statement. It would have to disclose that his statements were heard during a public speech. That way it explains that it was his own explanantion without adding certainty. If the tower subject is to be in both this article and the main one on Rex Humbard, then his public explanation needs to be in both. Beirne did a great job accessing some very archived material. BookWorm37 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, and thanks! I may look for more info on reasons for stopping construction, but I putting in what he said as his explanation is good. A verifiable source for it would be helpful but I'm not going to oppose it for lack of one. --Beirne (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)