Talk:Christ the Redeemer (statue)/Archive 1

Sentence Removed

"The statue was given an electric force field in 2000, making it durable against nature throwing just about anything at it."

Removed this because of the lack of citation and formatting.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.181.125 (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 

Irrelevant and misleading information removed

There's absolutely no need to describe what phrases the vandals graffitted on the statue. Only the fact of graffitting by itself is just explicative enough to we, users, understand what happened.

The description of the graffitted phrases only add publicity on a crime and hence therefore should be avoided. The plain fact is that the statue was graffitted, no value on knowing WHAT exactly phrases or symbols the vandals used.

Additionaly I put the information regarding the value of the reward offered by government officials, since in Brazil R$ 5,000 is a lot of money (approx. US$ 2,200). --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First Picture - Error

The first picture is outdated. The pedestal of the statue was renovated. Currently, the pedestal does not have this hole. Here is a picture with the real base, all black, without the old hole (in the Brazilian Wikipedia): http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Cristo_Redentor_Rio_de_Janeiro_4.jpg Thank You. I'm brazilian of Rio de Janeiro. Bye Bye and thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.234.30 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

replica

Statue of Christ the Redeemer - Free Paper Model not available at RecorteCole from Brazil

Pages titles

I know Corcovado is the mount, while the Redeemer(the name) is the statue. When I first saw the article, it was called "Corcovado", while it only talked about the statue. All I did was to move that info to a page with a proper title (this one) and turn the Corcovado page into a redirect, until someone could fill it up with actual info on the mountain, which is what you did. – Kaonashi 05:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Is this an article about the statue or a tourist brochure about Brazil??? For example: a symbol of the city and of the warmth of the Brazilian people, who receive visitors with open arms.. It could definitily be more factual... I'm rephrasing the sentence... --Konstantin 10:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Origins

Is that history correct? I was under the impression that the statue, much like the Statue of Liberty, in New York, was a gift from France. Brazil was told in [way] advance that it was going to get it though, so what happened there was a process to select a venue for it to be placed and, once that was chosen, construction of the surrounding monument (the pedestal and the entire structure on top of Corcovado mountain — I do not believe, however, that Brazil or Brazilians had any part in the construction of the actual statue, and thus in selecting its appearance). I can do further research on this, to be certain. But what was the source for the information that is in the article now? Regards, Redux 10:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The statue was not a gift - it was paid for with donations collected by the Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro, under the supervision of a Brazilian engineer, Heitor da Silva Costa. The final design was done by a Franco-Polish architect, Paul Landowsky, and parts of the statue were built in France as they already had experience in building large statues. antiuser 17:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This particular issue has just been addressed in a report of ‘Mais Você’ (TV show broadcast by Globo network) about the exhibition being currently held in Rio about the statue (‘Exposição Christo Redemptor’), and they mentioned that although the story about it having been a gift from the French, that’s a historical lie/legend with no concrete basis other than parts of the statue having been built in France (as mentioned by antiuser above). Psi-Lord 10:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

copyvio

Note that text prior to revision as of 05:19, 28 February 2006 was not copyvio. I would suggest reverting to this revision. akaDruid 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was never properly submitted as a copyvio, as it was never added to the WP:COPYVIO page. That page clearly states that articles should only be so listed where all revisions have copyright problems, and this article has over a years worth of non-copyvio revisions, so that is probably a good thing. As the article was never properly listed, the copyvio template's injunctions not to further edit the article are null and void. I'm therefore following the correct procedure for this case, again as described in WP:COPYVIO, and reverting the article to the most recent revision not containing copyvio. -- Chris j wood 18:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The world's three Christ statues

Hello all,

Someone might want to point out in this article that there are three (I think it's three) of these statues in various places throughout the world - one in Rio, one in Havana, Cuba, one in Europe I believe. All of the statues intentionally face one another. I thought I had a photograph of the statue in the Havana suburb of Regla but alas, it seems to be lost.

Cheers,

Goatboy95 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the one in Europe is the Cristo-Rei, in Lisbon, Portugal.

Daniel

I agree that this is good information to include in this article, although you might want to mention that the Rio version is by far the largest. Is there a link to the Cuban version? - Robert Rapplean 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo Caption - Needs to be changed

i would love to know how they got the statue up on top of the mountain? It's to heavy to be lifted by crane or to be pulled up by ropes so how was it erected?

Height - Wrong

I'm not typically a Wikipedia editor, so i didn't fix it, but i do know 32 meters does not equal 125 feet.

Still wrong. Come on, guys, decide whether you're shooting for 30 metres or 38 metres and give the imperial conversion for whichever one you settle for - 30/105 or 38/125 (more or less)! Captain Pedant 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (comment before wasn't by me)

Size Comparassion - Wrong

Furthermore, the statue measures 30 meters from heel to head, 3 meters short than Statue of Liberty. The statue has a total of 38 meters, 8 meters being the height of the pedestal. Comparing the size of the STATUES only, head to heel, Liberty Statue is 3 meters taller, unlike the graphic of the size comparassion, which shows the Liberty Statue without the pedestal, and the Christ Statue without the pedestal but with total height that should include the pedestal.

Copyvio again

I removed text from World Architecture Images added by 203.27.235.5.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NEW WONDER

Elected onde of the new seven wonders of the world, the Christ Redeemer finished up as the one of the new wonders, leaving behind others like the Statue of Lyberty and Eiffel Tower.

It is questionable whether mention of election as one of the "New Seven Wonders" should appear prominently in the description. Does mention of this add to the importance of the statue, or is it inflating the importance of this "New Seven Wonders" list?

Also, is it worth mentioning twice?Ntveem 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The only notability of this designation is the number of voters that participated.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning twice. Sancho 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of size

Interesting that the "my *cough* is bigger than yours" brigade was happy to include the base of the Statue of Liberty but not the base for the statue of Christ the Redeemer. Take away the bases, and they're much closer in size (if you exclude the upraised arm of Liberty and the outstretched arms of Christ). I if I was any good at image management, I'd do a little cutting and pasting myself.

Oh, I did that my self... I didn't mean to have it being a "mine's bigger than yours", it was just something that I thought would make people who are familiar with the statue of liberty more easily appreciate the size of the Christ the Redeemer. Bigger isn't better. I did include the split between the base and the statue so that it was clear. Should I take away the base completely? Sancho 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering what else I could put in the comparison... is there a better tall structure that people are familiar with? Sancho 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a point on comparing sizes at all. Both are pretty impressive statues but there are much bigger statues in the world like those of Buddha in India and the Mamayev Kurgan in Russia. And since is an article about Christ the Redeemer, what's the point?201.81.34.48 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know how tall 36 m was. The comparison is to give people a sense of how tall 36 m is. I changed the comparison image now also. (PS. please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes, like: ~~~~. The software will turn them into a signature when you save the page.) Sancho 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such a comparison in the Statue of Liberty article. As in any other statue article as far as i checked. I still fail to see the point.201.81.34.48 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has as such an intuitive grasp of height as you do... please consider that a lot of people can't read a height on paper and picture how tall that actually is. Just because it hasn't been done before, doesn't mean that it's not helpful. Sancho 16:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Felix Baumgartner ?

Does anyone want to add how Felix jumped from the statue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.121.182 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This video explains in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PsviSStA8 -User:Wjs23

What idiot keeps on making it 700,000,000,000 tons

O my gosh, some person keeps on adding stuff like blood suckung creeps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.136.167 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of how they got the damn thing up there and stood it up. Is there room for a crane up there? Since it is obvious they didn't use a helicopter...or was it aliens? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.203.11 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   Of course it was the aliens! Or they had to work around with the land... could be anything, 'eh? - Un-logged-in user

Seven Wonders campaign

The article states: "Additionally, leading corporate sponsors including Banco Bradesco and Rede Globo spent millions of dollars in the effort to have the statue voted into the top seven.". I have seen it was taken from a newspaper (magazine?) article, and even read it, but seems to be some kind of mistake in the reproduction. It suggests that an large amount of money was spent in order to promote the statue, but it doesn't actually means millions of dollars. It's just used to represent a large sum of money, she even used quotation marks. If she was referring to a specific amount of money, she would say "x million Reais (2x million dollars aprox.)

Personally, I even doubt they spent more money because of that than the usual amount they spend in publicity (clearly they were using "old" footage, from the archives, and both mentioned corporations have always used the monument in their commercials. Actually, most of commercials targeted to Rio audience those images). Also, I'm not willing to trust in a magazine/jornal article that has a number of other mistakes regarding the monument (i.e. saying it can be seen from any point of Rio. Actually, it just can be seen from about 40% of the city, in a clear day).Diana Prallon (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Name: Please Discuss

I'm torn about this. On the one hand WP:English says we should have article names in English. However, as is the case of well known monuments like the Arc de Triomphe the original language name is often more well known. Add to the fact that the statue is often referred to as 'Cristo Redentor' in English--I've heard and read more often people say "I visited Cristo Redentor in Rio" than "I visited Christ the Redeemer in Rio"; the video game Civ 4 uses 'Cristo Redentor' when using English, etc.. It might be appropriate to begin a discussion if the article should possibly be renamed to 'Cristo Redentor', i.e. it may be the case that the Portuguese name is used in most languages making it more recognizable than using a local translation.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, indeed, since nobody says "January River" when referring to Rio de Janeiro, for instance. But I suppose we need to change a lot of titles accordingly, as that of Sugar Loaf article to Pão de Açúcar, for example... RobertoRMola (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lightning

In History section we can read the following statement: "The storm caused havoc in Rio, but the statue was left unscathed because soapstone(highlights mine), the material forming the outer layers of the statue, is an insulator". More ahead another statement: "...previous lightning strikes eroded parts of the face of the statue". There are some corrections to be done. First, an insulator is not a good protection against lightnings - metals are. We are talking about 120 kilo-Ampéres, 350 coulombs and several millions of volts. Any insulator touched by such enormous energy became conductive and, worst, resistive. Resistance in this case means thermal destruction. That's why buildings got lightning rods at the top. By the way, the Christ statue IS protected by lightning rods. Second: the first statement nullify the second one. Third: the references #9 and #10 leads to newspapers (tabloids) notes with no reference to that "explanation" about soapstone electrical properties. I'm modifying the text accordingly.RobertoRMola (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your revision because you removed information that was sourced and replaced it with unsourced info. If you find a source that substantiates the facts you've added, then feel free to readd it with a reference. Otherwise, as logical as it may be, it constitutes original research, which goes against policy. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The references #9 and #10 are bad links (no reference to soapstone, lightning damage to the statue or any relationship between lightning and soapstone), so they MUST be deleted and the text revised. I can insert sound references regarding the technical aspects of lightnings and its effects, but at this moment I prefer that you perform such research , after all, it's you who's defending the quality of that links (hint: look inside the very Wikipedia). Observe that my "original research" was made entirely using Wikipedia sources and that all that technicalities was inserted at discussion page, not on the article text. I will re-revert your revision soon, waiting for your response. Sorry if I'm being nuisance, but all that story about soapstone, lightnings and The Redeemer is far-fetched argument, and I'm VERY curious about its origin. Meanwhile, take a look at http://igrejadesantana.blogspot.com/2009/02/raio-atinge-o-monumento-ao-cristo.html. There's an important information about lightning protection on the statue (Brazilian site in Portuguese) and no reference to soapstone ("pedra-sabão" in portuguese) RobertoRMola (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a blog doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Try to find a news article, doesn't matter what language it's in, as long as it's from an established source it will be okay. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the remark about soapstone being an insulator, since the sources cited don't mention anything of the sort. Please do not add the bit about the lightning rods back until you have a reference from a reliable source. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're definitely not reading, nor researching before posting!! THAT "blog" refers to several reliable sources like INPE, IBAMA, Tijuca National Park administration, etc. Read again what Wiki says about Self-published sources - it is not completely disqualified (read it again). It seems to me that you didn't feel challenged or worried to check the information I gave. So, here you are:

1) Insulators as lightning protection. According to Wikipedia, "Insulators suffer from the phenomenon of electrical breakdown. When the electric field applied across an insulating substance exceeds in any location the threshold breakdown field for that substance, which is proportional to the band gap energy, the insulator suddenly turns into a resistor, sometimes with catastrophic results (highlights mine)...".

2) Lightning Rods. According to Wikipedia "a lightning rod (US) or lightning conductor (UK) is a metal rod or conductor mounted on top of a building and electrically connected to the ground through a wire, to protect the building in the event of lightning. If lightning strikes the building it will preferentially strike the rod, and be conducted harmlessly to ground through the wire, instead of passing through the building, where it could start a fire or cause electrocution (Here's your "bit" about lightning rods...). Remember the statue's reinforced concrete structure, like a conventional building. The installation at the summit of Corcovado mountain turn things even worse (according to the same Lightning Rod article in this Wikipedia) .

3) Daily Mail and The Sun (sources that incidentally got poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight - see reliable source again) doesn't mention that soapstone issues in any portion of the link, but you were considering (until few moments ago) THAT references as the reason for reverting the text I've modified. As I told you, I'm (still) very curious about the source of such ridiculous information. Congratulations for removing that remark, since you didn't "have a reference from a reliable source". However,

4) The statement about the statue "left unscathed" was maintained, what is absolutely false. An easy and quick research (something you didn't), found information on the inverse. Read now "Christ the Redeemer (statue), punished by lightnings, go by ample refit" ("Cristo Redentor, castigado por raios, passa por ampla reforma" at http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/brasil/2010/04/01/cristo+redentor+castigado+por+raios+passa+por+ampla+reforma+9445658.html). Other source: "...Pieces are missing on fingertips, head and eyebrows, cracked by lightning which mainly affect the tips of the statue..."("...Faltam pedaços nas pontas dos dedos das mãos, na cabeça e nos supercílios, rachados por raios que atingem principalmente as extremidades da estátua..." at http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,cristo-redentor-vai-passar-por-restauracao-ate-junho,532383,0.htm). My question is: Are you going to revise that statement or I do? I say again: I'll wait for your response.

I'd like to take this opportunity to alert you, antiuser, and the whole Wikipeople (users and sysops) to became alert and distrustful with information regarded as "references". That wasn't the first time I saw biased information being "formalized" or "certified" thru the so called "sourced" information. Sometimes editors indexes and references to an external link without properly check them for authenticity, regarding them as true by its mere existence, only!. When I read an article here (whatever), I do not avoid myself the boring task to check (read, read, read!) nothing but ALL links on References section. I got many surprises so far, this one being just one of many. Have a good weekend! RobertoRMola (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a challenge, it's not about one-upping each other. If the sources are on the blog, then cite those same sources. According to WP policy, blogspot is not a reliable, verifiable source. If you read what I just posted, you'll see that I removed the soapstone reference as indeed it isn't mentioned by the sources cited. If you know the facts to be different and have sources that confirm your assertions then by all means, edit away! Like I said on your talk page, I do believe you to be correct regarding the insulation matter, but if you don't cite any sources, that assertion does not belong in the article. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please take a step back and look at the policy, being confrontational with other users doesn't help better the article. XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact 1: Foreign “The Sun” and “Daily Mail” tabloids vaguely stated the statue was not damaged by lightnings. Fact 2: Local “Estadão” and “Último Segundo” online newspapers (among several others) interviewed management and maintenance personel related to the statue who confirmed statue really suffered damage by lightning. Fact 3: Rio de Janeiro State Government confirms damage and are currently performing restoration work.

I will revise the text accordingly. RobertoRMola (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just keep in mind to cite the references when you do and it's all good. XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it when revising the article text. But here I'll discuss freely with you and other wiki users whatever we need in order to enhance an article - citing references or not. Feel free to research and verify whatever we are discussing here. RobertoRMola (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nyah Nyah ours is bigger

"It is one of the tallest of its kind in the world. The statue of Cristo de la Concordia in Cochabamba, Bolivia, is slightly taller, standing at 40.44 metres (132.7 ft) tall with its 6.24 metres (20.5 ft) pedestal and 34.20 metres (112.2 ft) wide." This is the page for Christ the redeemer, not Cristo de la Concordia...I believe the description "one of the tallest of it's kind in the world" is sufficient enough, it seems like boasting on the behalf of Bolivians unless we want to include every other statue that's taller. Basically I think it's unnecessary and inappropriate to include such a comparison in this article but especially in the first section, it's extraneous info. It's not a competition. --71.84.126.174 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Happily, the "Art Deco" silliness appears to have been resolved, but we still have a problem with "ours is bigger"-ism. Mexico and Indonesia have had Christ statues of similar or greater size that precede the Poland statue, and without question Bolivia's statue, no matter how you measure it, had been the largest in the world since 1994. I'm removing the mention to Poland's statue in the introductory paragraphs.JGray (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, my edit was reverted wholly without explanation. I invite the reverter, Sub-TropicalMan, to explain his position. I believe his preferred language to be factually incorrect, based on my perusal of the tallest statues by height article. Also, as Christ the Redeemer hasn't been the tallest Christ statue in ~20 years, I see no reason to make mention of it. This appears to be a reversion intended to draw attention to the much taller, but much less renown statue in Poland. JGray (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Poland

In Poland there will soon be the largest Christ-Statue [1] --78.54.149.71 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Art deco

The opening paragraph says that this statue is "considered the second largest Art Deco statue in the world". It cites two sources, but neither of them says anything about Art Deco. Can anyone explain this? --Kurepalaku (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It also states "the 5th largest statue of Jesus in the world." Wfoj2 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC) -note my entry date. Further down a graphic implies it might be the 4th largest religious related statue in the world. For the opening paragraph, it should read more definitive.

Coparison chart

It seems that the pedestal some statues are standing upon is being taken into account on their total size, while others have only the actual statue height listed. Isn't this like measuring someone barefoot and then someone else standing two steps on a staircase and comparing both? Weird. FaceGarlic (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Vista360oCristoRedentor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vista360oCristoRedentor.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Cristo Redentor"

Where it says [ˈkɾistu ʁedẽˈtoʁ], local dialect: [ˈkɾiʃtu ɦedẽjˈtoɦ]). For the record, it is not only people from Rio who pronounces the "s" as "sh" (ʃ). You will hear similar pronunciation from other states, such as in the North East. As a matter of fact, this is how European Portuguese sounds. Pronouncing "cristo" as "kɾistu", like people from São Paulo do, is due to the influence of Italians. --Pinnecco (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Depiction in "The Day After Tomorrow"

I see that there's no mention of the statue in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" when catastrophe strikes the earth in various locations across the globe and the statue is seen crumbling.

The font is small

The font of this article seems smaller than on any other article of “Wikipedia” for some reason and I also checked on “Firefox” just to make sure it wasn’t “Internet Explorer”. Is there a reason for this and can someone fix that? Since I don’t how. --sion8 23:42, 04 October 2012(UTC)

Church claim copyright to the Statue

This may be abit old but the question remains: does freedom of panorama exist for this statue? Accoring to this dated article it doesn't. Yet Commons indicates FoP exists for Brazil. http://www.technollama.co.uk/copyright-in-landmarks

131.137.247.6 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

BBC article

Very nice BBC article: [2] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tallest Art Deco statue

The text has recently been changed from "...considered the largest Art Deco statue in the world." to read "... was considered the largest Art Deco statue in the world from 1931 until 2010 when it was topped by the Christ the King statue in Poland."

While the Polish statue is undeniably taller, it does not appear to be Art Deco. Is there any source which says it is in that style? We cannot simply remove the words "Art Deco" from the statement, because there are many taller statues (the Statue of Liberty, for one). Grutness...wha? 00:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as there is no consensus to do so (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Christ the Redeemer (statue) → Christ the Redeemer
• Christ the Redeemer → Christ the Redeemer (disambiguation)

– I don't think there can be any serious doubt that most readers are thinking of this statue when they search for "Christ the Redeemer." 1389 views last month is high for a dab, probably because of this displaced primary topic. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry but in Google Books the most common use of Christ the Redeemer (capitalized) refers to Christ the Redeemer. Rightly or wrongly Christian writings tend to capitalize titles of Christ. In any case, there's more than one art subject too. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are so many names of Jesus, though. Most have their own articles (e.g., Christ, Lamb of God) if sufficiently notable, or amount to a dab mention, such as at Prince of Peace. I'll add Redeemer (Christianity) to the dab, but I still suspect the statue is primary. At most, I think that's worth a "secondary topic" hatnote like the one at Turkey. This article is about the statue. For the theological concept, see Redeemer (Christianity). For other uses, see Christ the Redeemer (disambiguation). If that led to a major spike in views of Redeemer (Christianity), I could be convinced. --BDD (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Per dab style the obvious primary subject of Christ the Redeemer should be bluelinked within the first line of the Christ the Redeemer dabpage, not separately listed as 5th. However being at 5th will not affect the Google Books I linked to. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, there isn't a primary topic. Of course if a decision is made that there is one, it will move per MOS:DABPRIMARY. --BDD (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that I should wait to put Christ in the lead of a dab on Christ the Redeemer? I've already done it unfortunately, but you're welcome to cut and paste Christ back down into the dabs. However if you do so then I think you should really still place him first in the dabs above the icon and sculptures etc. There's something a bit odd about seeing Jesus of Nazareth placed 5th in a list of artworks and buildings named after him. I would say this of statues of anyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately I hadn't pressed SAVE EDITS, so Jesus of Nazareth is still down at No.5. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrase "Christ the Redeemer" is ambiguous between its use as a title of Jesus and as the name of the towering statue. If there were a primary topic, the title of Jesus would probably stake a superior claim based on long-term historical and academic significance. Xoloz (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral but come on, Redeemer (Christianity) has GOT to be in the lead of the disambiguation page, and Jesus probably should be too! Red Slash 16:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Here in England I hardly ever hear of the statue, and "Christ the Redeemer" first means Jesus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism during restoration

One thing that we have to be careful of in Wikipedia articles is the emotive draw of "recentism". The vandalism story seems tome to have been a big story at the time, but in the grand scheme of things - seeing the description, history, and cultural significance of the statue. In 2010, the statue was vandalised - shock! horror! - but this was in the context of a massive refurbishment of the statue. If it wasn't for the scaffolding, the workmen who took part in the event could never have done it. The soapstone which covers the statue was due to be replaced anyway. So - yes, it was a shocking event at the time ... but it doesn't really add anything to the overall story of the statue. What will people remember about the statue? "Oh, that's the statue that was vandalised" ... no, an encyclopedic article should be referring to its significance within the history of Brazil as a nation, its significance within the context of the Brazilian people's Catholic faith etc. A small incident, like a bit of paint, should only ever be a footnote. Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Direction statue faces

The article doesn't say anything about the direction the statue faces; other sources usually say simply "east". Given that churches and other Christian structures often face east (cf Orientation of churches) for theological reasons, I was curious as to what angle the statue faces. Looking at Google Earth imagery, I can't tell, with any worthwhile precision, about the statue's orientation - but the avenue in front of it (which appears to be orthogonal to the statue's arms) doesn't face east. It's approximately 83.6° (where due east would be 90°). It's not facing Jerusalem (or anywhere else of theological significance to Jesus in the Levant) which is about 56.3°. I did notice that the avenue faces the direction of sunrise in the first week or so of April (calc) - and again in September. That's the time of the date of Easter. So, was the statue oriented so it would be facing the rising Sun on Easter (naturally, given that Easter moves around the astronomical year, this can be only approximate)? I can't find any reference to this, but it doesn't seem like it'd be a coincidence. I'm well aware that, without a real reliable source, this is pure OR and I'm not suggesting adding this to the article without proper sourcing. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)