Jump to content

User talk:Adam Bishop/archive7: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Wurkwurk (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 283: Line 283:
: Yes - when I was a student in the '80s, Runciman & c were still the historical orthodoxy. But over the past year or so I've been catching up on over 20 years' worth of new work. I've been reworking some of the articles as I've come across them, to acknowledge the differences. (Have done some tweaks on Balian of Ibelin). What's interesting is that so many of the earlier historians took on board the prejudices of some of the chroniclers without question - even when they were obvious political players like William of Tyre, with his sour grapes over not getting the Patriarch's job. (I'm reminded of Stubbs's 19C introductions and notes to things like the ''Itinerarium Peregrinorum'' and Roger of Howden - as vicious in the notes as in the text about Conrad!) I enjoyed Kedar's ''Outremer'', the festschrift volume for Joshua Prawer - good pieces on Guy and Eraclius.
: Yes - when I was a student in the '80s, Runciman & c were still the historical orthodoxy. But over the past year or so I've been catching up on over 20 years' worth of new work. I've been reworking some of the articles as I've come across them, to acknowledge the differences. (Have done some tweaks on Balian of Ibelin). What's interesting is that so many of the earlier historians took on board the prejudices of some of the chroniclers without question - even when they were obvious political players like William of Tyre, with his sour grapes over not getting the Patriarch's job. (I'm reminded of Stubbs's 19C introductions and notes to things like the ''Itinerarium Peregrinorum'' and Roger of Howden - as vicious in the notes as in the text about Conrad!) I enjoyed Kedar's ''Outremer'', the festschrift volume for Joshua Prawer - good pieces on Guy and Eraclius.
[[User:Silverwhistle|Silverwhistle]] 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Silverwhistle|Silverwhistle]] 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


==Crusader Image==
It came from a tapestry. According to the tapestry store...
This tapestry was inspired by a fresco depicting the events detailed above, and was painted in 1420 by an anonymous painter known only as the "Master of Manta". The original can still be seen today in Manta Castle in Northern Italy. This tapestry is lined and has a tunnel for ease of hanging.

- [[Wurkwurk]]

Revision as of 01:10, 22 February 2006

Archive: June 10-December 30, 2003 Archive 2: December 30, 2003-July 15, 2004 Archive 3: July 17-December 30, 2004 Archive 4: January 1-July 13, 2005 Archive 5: July 17-December 31, 2005

Steven McKinnan "nonsense" Controversy

Listen Bishop, I don't know what your fucking game is, but you deleted Stevie McKinnan's article because it was "nonsense". What the fuck is up your ass?

McKinnan fought in the Extrasolar Wars. Where were you during the Wars? Snug in your little house I bet, while men like McKinnan fought for your intergalactic freedom. Prick.

Can you actually disprove anything that was on the page? No, I didn't think so. Stevie did all of these things and is a Scottish legend. He even had his own wikipedia article.

- HNC Professional Writing

Rumours about sexuality

We've all seen the page Adam, what gives?

I heard that Bishop almost sparked an international incident by not catering to the demands of Scottish natives. - Mick

Little help? I'm defending them on the Talk page against charges of being a figment of someone's imagination. Choess 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Minim" (palaeography)

Hi, as a contributor to some of the paleography-related articles, could you perhaps come and have a look over at Minim (palaeography)? There's some material there I find highly dubious. (Just stumbled across it as I was dealing with "minims" in music the other day.) Lukas 11:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for correcting that article! Great job. Lukas 20:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page help

I was wondering if you could put this page, List of Lexx episodes, to the Episode lists page. Thanks. --DivineShadow218 02:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper

Adam, what gives? Why did you unilaterally decide to delete the Saugeen Stripper article that we could not come to consensus on in discussion? What is going on? Tokyojoe2002 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper is now listed on Deletion review which is where it should have been taken if you felt that AfD had been clsoed improperly, IMO. I strongly urge you to reverse your own actions and unldelete this. DES (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Frown

Template:Frown has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Frown. Thank you.

IP Address Blocking

What's your issue?? When someone finds a copyright violaton you block them???


The violation is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s

and

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/fh_aug_chapter21.html By Craig Winn http://www.YadaYahweh.com - All Rights Reserved - 2005

The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s

Some system. They steal content and when you push the issue they block your IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.138.1 (talkcontribs)


Gee, I notice the one of the copyright violatins is gone, but you continue to block IP address 24.147.103.146. It's time for you to unblock and admit you were wrong.

Crusade

Hi Adam,

I see that you deleted my contribution on the article crusade about the crusade against the Stedingers. I know it wasn't a large crusade, but the fact that it was against roman catholic people who were excommunicated for purely political reasons makes it worth mentioning in this article. I also see that there is no mentioning about the 'crusades' (not sanctioned by the pope) against the jews in the Rhineland. A section could deal about that as well. I agree with the deletion of the enormous texts who are already mentioned in other articles.--Daanschr 11:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades against the jews have been mentioned. But i still think that the Stedingers should be mentioned as well, because they were unique.

I think it was unique (crusade against fellow roman-catholics), but i'm not sure.--Daanschr 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an abusive admin

Note this recent post on Wales talk page,

Add Adam Bishop to this list as an abusive admin. Adam blocked IP address 24.147.103.146 when 24.147.103.146 put up a copyright infringment notice on the crusades page. The copyright violation which begins "The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s" has been removed. No apology from Bishop and the IP address remains blocked. I suggest this admin is removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.138.1 (talkcontribs)

Regarding 24.147.103.146

Hey Adam, im writing regarding your block of 24.147.103.146 in response to his edits to Crusade. I've been watching and dealing with this user for a while (heck, ive gotten him blocked myself), and although he is a bit out of line at times in the way he approaches copyright violations, I dont think what he was doing qualifies as vandalism. All of his edits to the crusade were to add a {{copyvio}} tag, and although the violation turned out to be only two sentences, it still correct. So while ill be the first to agree that his actions were a bit over the top, I think that a one week block for vandalism (with no warnings or notices or discussion on his talk page first) is a bit out of line as well. Thanks for considering. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like I said, I agree with you that his approaches are totally out of line. He knows enough about wikipedia to use the copyvio tag because several of us have been following his edits since about the begining of december (when he first appeared). Originally he did not use the tag, but was told in no uncertain terms that if he did not follow procedure in the future he would be blocked, and we told him how to use it. If you read his talk page youll see a long history of this. Basically, my point is that i agree that he was way over the top here, but I hardly think a weeks blocking is in order, especially with no communication or warning. After all, it wasnt really vandalism, it was just hyper-psychotic copyvio policing. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Saugeen Shenanigans

Adam, I've just come across Playboy's (at www.usedmagazines.com) "Back to Campus issue" of October, 1987 wherein it featured the "Women of Top 10 Party Colleges." My guess is that here is where Saugeen was mentioned/ featured -- a Playboy Top 10, not a Letterman Top 10. City Lights Bookstore in downtown London might have a copy of it or a buddy of mine might. Regarding the goat story, I haven't heard that one, but if you Google "Saugeen-Maitland Hall," you'll find 12 or so pages of stuff about the residence and the recurring theme is that's it been a wild place for years. Barry Wells 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Adam!

! Long time! Listen, how would I find out how to translate a name into Latin? Is there a source for that? For instance, Melisende was translated to Melisendum in the text. I was wondering how to do the same for other names. Thanx!Drachenfyre 16:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William of Tyre wrote "reseditque reginam regni potestas penes dominam Melisendem, Deo amabilem reginam, cui jure hereditario competebat ("the rule of the kingdom remained in the power of the lady queen Melisende, a queen beloved by God, to whom it passed by hereditary right"). This was from Benard Hamilton's artical. Could the -um be because the kingship authority William was writting about is considered a masculin concept?Drachenfyre 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade move

Sorry about it. I would like to know what I did inappropriately to help me in the future (I tend to be an agressive editor). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ref. Thanks! --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frown

Lifted your (userfied) code for Template:Frown for my userpage. If you have any problem with this, let me know. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Contributor

Adam, I've just been looking at your list of contributions on WP. All I can say is you're one heck of contributor on a wide variety of topics, including Canadiana. Kinda makes me feel like a pipsqueak or a little grass snake! All the best Big Kahuna! Barry Wells 01:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I beefed up the Saugeen-Maitland Hall page (my mom worked there for 22 years as "secretary to the Proctor") and agree that the Saugeen Stripper page should be deleted, but remain partial (fond) to the nurse pic. Almost makes me want to get sick for a few days. Barry Wells 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!!!

A Barnstar! This Epic Barnstar is hereby awarded to Adam Bishop for his tireless work on Wikipedia's History entries - particularly concerning the Crusades - thank you for your well-written, researched, and sourced articles!

I saw the comment "Monster Contributor" and took a look at your history contributions (I've seen your entries pop up an awful lot in Crusades-related articles as I've been perusing/studying/editing on that topic lately) - kudos! You also quickly caught a few errors on William of Tyre on my part, and demonstrated a great deal of knowledge and tact - which saved me a great deal embarassment! DonaNobisPacem 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Barry Wells 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Pop

Hi Adam -- yes I wrote the Monterey stuff on Milesago (it's my site, BTW) and the sources are cited there, although unfortunately the main article I drew on is no longer on the web.

Is it possible to restore the stuff I added please? Anything I take from Milesago for Wikipedia is my own writing/research and therefore my copyright (yes? no?), so I can't see what the problem is? I've had the same hassle with the article about Stewie Speer even though it's all my article from my site. *sigh*. Is this going to happen all the time? How do I avoid this? Cheers, Dunks

Thanks

Hi Adam -- staggeringly prompt response, mate! Now I grok the question -- sorry but it's 3.45 am over here so I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I have NO problems with my Milesago stuff being used on Wiki and/or getting copied elsewhere, or I wouldn't put it there. The main reasons I started adding copyright notices on Milesago were (A) not all of the stuff there is my work and I want to protect the people who contribute (although I only ever put MY articles on Wiki) and (B) because some clown of a music teacher in northern NSW copied a whole bunch of stuff off Milesago onto his own website and used it as a teaching resource without asking.

But basically I don't care what happens to my work on Milesago as long as it's acknowledged when used by others. However I'm not familiar enough with international copyright to have thought through the implications concerning copying my articles to Wikipedia. Call me lazy, but I have a house to finish renovating (singlehanded) so copyright law is WAAAY down the "to do" list, haha. Anyway, all the best and thanks for your assistance and advice :) Dunks

Are you really gone?

Are you really gone? I've observed you in my short time as a wikipedian (since November 13) and would be quite surprised if someone of your talent, skill, time here were to leave. Just oh so curious--M W Johnson 06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out the Aegospotamai/Aegospotami thing. I have absolutely no idea how I got it in my head that it was spelled -ai. --RobthTalk 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non illegitimi carborundum

That is all. Best. Choess 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam

-)

CristianChirita

What happened to your User Page, Adam?

Don't tell me that Saugeen Stripper/ Saugeen-Maitland Hall nonsense got the better of you? If that wasn't it, what was it? The January blahs? Barry Wells 00:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January blahs aside, don't let a difference in opinion stand in your way. You have been and remain an exceptional contributor to WP both in content and concience. So cheer up, after you could be me. Nobody needs another one of those around. And, spring is, after all, just around the corner. Hamster Sandwich 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a nice barnstar? Ok, here you go:

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar "Wikipedia is not a student newspaper."



More Olde Frenche

I read you. Yes, obvious might have been an option, though one I did not think of. But remember that Maria Comnena and her daughter Isabella were at least as obvious, which is why Sibylla had to shore up her position, and proper looking struck me as a good rendering... aparoistre meant to become/be visible, or to seem, but had connotations of looking good, unless qualified. There may very well be something to your idea about the term being linked to heir apparent, I could not tell. And I grant I'm NOT an expert in old French, the earliest I read with ease being Rabelais, I never could get proper education in the older dialects. I am relying on more general knowledge of French(my native tongue after all), Latin, linguistics and history. --Svartalf 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Will you edit it to the corrected version, or should I do my autocritic and do it myself? I still think that my version fits well, but yours fits as well, so either will do. --Svartalf 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Price check, Aisle 3

You probably have better sources on the Byzantines to hand than I do: could you examine the first section of Manuel I Comnenus, on his attack on Raymond of Antioch? The writer seems to have garbled two historical episodes: Manuel's response to Raymond's demand for the cession of part of Cilicia (at the beginning of his reign, 1144), and the response to the raid by Raynald of Chatillon on Cyprus in 1156. The close escape of "Thoros of Cilicia" (Thoros II) seems to have been a result of the later expedition (1159); I'm presently working on his article and noticed this. Choess 18:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montferrat

I've done the Marquess of Montferrat page and sorted the links! Silverwhistle 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Quote

Adam, I love the quote on your user page (particularly the bit about the horse's diaper): ""Everywhere I look, someone is breaking the law. Dog, no leash. Man littering. Horse not wearing diaper. Car parked across three handicap spaces." Who wrote it?

You're one of the all-time great contributors to WP. A Wayne Gretzky, a Gordie Howe, a Marcel Dionne, a Mark Messier, a Bobby Orr, a Jean Beliveau, a Maurice Richard, a Terry Sawchuk, a Johnny Bower, a Tim Horton, a Frank Mahovlich .... Barry Wells 00:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Melisende Images

Adam! I found an image of Melisende's marrage to Fulk in 1130! It is from the 'Histoire de la conquete de Jerusalem' by William of Tyre, an exerpt appearing in "The Crusades; An Illistrated History" (found at Barnes and Noble!). It is amazing! It protrays a crownd Melisende and an un-crowned Fulk, the right hand of each is held by the Latin Patriarch. Melisende has golden-yellow hair and appears demure. A crowed and bearded Baldwin II appears behind Fulk, with his right hand facing the back of Fulk's head. What is telling is that Melisende is crowned and Fulk is not.

There are other church officials in the back ground, but I do not know whom they may be. There are richly clothed lords to the left of the picture, and bejeweled ladies on the right behind Melisende.

The illistration appeares exactly in the style of the one on the book-cover of "Queen of Swords", which appears to protray Melisende and party in Acre watching Fulk's ships come to dock. Additionally it seems very close to the image we removed of "a queen accepting fealty from a vassel". Weather or no they are in fact Melisende images I do not yet know. I wish to scane the image of the wedding, and once I get more images directly from the 'Histoire' will wish to publish them here too, mayhap with your assistance and prior viewing. What is the policy of an image from a book but of a clearly older source?Drachenfyre 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

WikiProject Military history The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy e 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! As you may have noticed, I've done significant work on this article with the aim of bringing it to FA quality. Please add your comments here! :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam! Just saw you in other user's page. Nice to know your're still around! :) Cheers, muriel@pt 13:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ease of citing

Thanks for your comments on IRC - it's good to be able to get an independent viewpoint on this sort of thing. You're very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Clarification about ease of checking. -- ChrisO 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GreekChariotBig.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Require your expert opinion

Hi Adam; you were very helpful to me some time back, and if I could be so bold as to ask for your assistance again it would be much appreciated.

I like to stay abreast with articles of interest and prime to that is to see the latest articles that become linked to it. The default for the What links here is to display the earliest written article to the last written article that is linked to it.

I was wondering if that can be manipulated so as to display the latest article first? It certainly would save a lot of time when paging down through reams of links, sometimes in the thousands to get to the latest.

The ability to do this is an option when viewing the User contributions page when you can choose the option of latest or earliest. You may not be able to answer this question or suggestion, but I believe that it would be a worthwhile option for many users that uses What links here similar to how I use it. HJKeats 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping I wouldn't get that answer but I kind of suspected it. Do you believe that it is something that could be requested be changed? I'm sure if you took a survey of the active wikipedians they would all say that they use it this way and to get to the latest can be a pain. How do we go about to force change? HJKeats 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac II

Hi Adam, I realize the Isaac II Angelus Britannica article at [1] can't be viewed in its entirety without a subscription. But it was the reference for the date I added, and the beginning of the EB article (including the date) is publicly visible. I'm not going to put it back, but you might want to, since the date is unreferenced now. I guess I could cite the Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD, which I own, or the paper edition, which I don't own but presumably has the same information, but those are less accessible. Rbraunwa 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[

Not so. In many sources she is referred to as Queen of Caria or of the Carians. Her tyrantship over the largely Greek populace of Halikarnassos was probably in addition to a queenship over the native Carians who inhabited the hill country. The fact that the later ARtemisia is referred to as "Artemisia II" clearly recognizes that she is of the same rough sequence as Artemisia I.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crusader-States.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Crusader-States.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-SCEhardT 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PatroclusChariotBig.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My ban on #wikipedia

I'm not a pedophile. I did say I am an ephebophile, but then again, I am 14, so this is normal (though most adult males are ephebephiles, too). Please unblock me from #wikipedia. --Rory096 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are 14 and attracted to other 14yos you are not an ephebephile: you are a 14yo. You can't be an ephebephile until you are no longer an ephebe. Sorry. Adam 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon

Adam, I could use some here at Parthenon. Adam 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ban on #Wikipedia

I don't miss it that much, but I do have issues with (uhhh...whats his name again? I have to look it up...) User:Jdforrester being the gatekeeper, so to speak. I had an issue with wikipedia process, specifically the appointment of the "Klerk Klub" and was summarily banned with the message "You picked the wrong guy to piss off." Clearly a conflict of interest and bad form on his part, but there is no way I would ask to be "allowed" to use that channel. I have been making some inquiries as to the method of having him removed from this operator position. It seems to me, that the Wikipedia Foundation solicits actual money from the public to keep this ship afloat. I have resolved to never give them a dime, until a more egalitarian approach to administrating it has been established. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Countship" (sic)

User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

If you haven't already, look at some of the vandalism that has taken place on your talk page, here [2]. BJAODN material, in my humble opinion. Ferrit fetish? Too funny, man. Now I'm going to warn the vandal, if no one else has. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam! - Crusade-y and Outremer topics

Just to let you know I've been tweaking a few articles; hope that's OK. I noted that a few articles still retain interpretations that are no longer sustained by contemporary academic historians. For example, Bernard Hamilton has, I think, effectively taken apart the definitions of 'court' vs 'noble' factions in Baldwin IV's reign - it's more about paternal vs maternal kin-groups. The traditional depiction of the king as his mother's puppet is not really sustainable these days. Also, as (it seems) the main (only?!) English-speaking Montferrat researcher, I've clarified a few references about the Williams, Conrad and Baldwin V. Silverwhistle 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - when I was a student in the '80s, Runciman & c were still the historical orthodoxy. But over the past year or so I've been catching up on over 20 years' worth of new work. I've been reworking some of the articles as I've come across them, to acknowledge the differences. (Have done some tweaks on Balian of Ibelin). What's interesting is that so many of the earlier historians took on board the prejudices of some of the chroniclers without question - even when they were obvious political players like William of Tyre, with his sour grapes over not getting the Patriarch's job. (I'm reminded of Stubbs's 19C introductions and notes to things like the Itinerarium Peregrinorum and Roger of Howden - as vicious in the notes as in the text about Conrad!) I enjoyed Kedar's Outremer, the festschrift volume for Joshua Prawer - good pieces on Guy and Eraclius.

Silverwhistle 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Crusader Image

It came from a tapestry. According to the tapestry store... This tapestry was inspired by a fresco depicting the events detailed above, and was painted in 1420 by an anonymous painter known only as the "Master of Manta". The original can still be seen today in Manta Castle in Northern Italy. This tapestry is lined and has a tunnel for ease of hanging.

- Wurkwurk