Talk:Canterbury Association

message: *The text of this article (created anonymously) appears to have been taken word-for-word from the Christchurch Public Library website Dr pda 14:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have rewritten and expanded the previous version of the article to avoid any possible copyvio Dr pda 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is not true that the "religious nature of the colony shows in the same poster's requirement that the clergyman of their parish should vouch for applicants, and in the specific earmarking of some of the proceeds from land sales for church endowments". It was normal for applicant's for any position to be vouched for by local clergy. Church endowment was also normal for an organization aiming to build roads, communities and amenities.101.98.163.177 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What utter rubbish; it's well recorded indeed that the Canterbury Association was an initiative formed by people who all had a strong association with the Anglican church, and their activities were guided by religious principles. If you went to the trouble to read about them, you'd quite readily see that. You could, for example, get the following book from a library and read section III:  Schwede66 08:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim of the "religious nature of the colony" 

message: In the list of ships, I noticed some discrepancies with the dates of arrivals of some ships so I checked the Shipping News in the Lyttelton Times in order to determine the actual date. In one case I found the date given was the date of publication on the Lyttelton Times. In the case of the Duke of Portland the date confusion appears to have arisen because the ship visited twice around the same time of year in both 1851 and 1852. Consequently, I would treat any information that is not from the Shipping News column of the Lyttelton Times with caution as the source might not be totally accurate. To mitigate any suggestion of Original Research I have cited the Lyttelton Times and quoted each Shipping News arrival entry concerned. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a list with arrival dates; someone else has gone to the effort before. Schwede66 18:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship arrival dates 

message: There is a lot of material about the ships on Commons, uploaded by someone from the National Library. I didn't catch those people early enough and there are now thousands and thousands of NatLib files categorised as "New Zealand", which is less than helpful. However, they were more onto it when it comes to file names, and searching for the ship's name returns the files; easy when the ship's name is relatively unique (e.g. in case of the Isabella Hercus). Some of the files can give a deeper insight and confirm beyond doubt that the ships were hired by the Canterbury Association, as for example contracts and tender documents are included. Schwede66 08:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the Columbus is not something where the National Library folks have uploaded the usual swag of documents. It's also not included in this list. Schwede66 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I derived my information from a different list and cross checked with the Shipping News column Lyttelton Times. I cited with a quote of the entry because this one is a grey area.  Because the ship stopped in Nelson first, its onward journey to Canterbury might not be counted as a Canterbury Association "ship" but someone of the same surname as the cabin passengers appears to have settled in South Canterbury and one of the cycle trails behind Lyttelton and a road in Mount Pleasant also includes the name Hornbrook, after the runholder. I thought to include this ship because of all of that evidence. Excluding it would change the arithmetic which was taken from the cited source too. Happy to argue whether my inclusion criteria are appropriate but one could consider this inclusion akin to the modern day equivalent of code-sharing - a suggestion is these passengers were on Canterbury Association tickets but had a place on a ship chartered by multiple companies. Perhaps it is because Columbus was one of the packets run by Henry H. Willis & Co. rather than Filby & Co. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on Commons