Talk:Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey

User:Neddyseagoon's edits to Jarrow

(moved from Usertalk:Neddyseagoon) Can you please not remove text from the Jarrow page? I've discussed this on 22nd August on its talk page; as there's no consensus on removing text which pertains to Jarrow's history, I propose that the page should remain intact. Thanks,

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 11:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest edit to Jarrow, I think that the new subdivision of its history is an improvement. Your new Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory page is looking good, too. Cheers,

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions to Bede and your new Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory page. I am concerned, however, that an article as long as Monkswearmouth-Jarrow cites no sources. It's good to put the citations in early, while you still have the sources at your fingertips; I usually put in <ref> sources </ref> as I write each paragraph. Recreating them can be such a pain.

BTW, I spent the year 2002-03 at Leicester in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History. --SteveMcCluskey 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been tricky as this page has mainly been a collection of repeats on the separate pages for Bede's World, Jarrow Priory, Jarrow etc, plus some knowledge from a recent visit, plus the guidebook bought there. I'm just trying to chase down the precise Bede references, and any help would be much appreciated! :-) [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

VCH

The Victoria County History piece on Monkwearmouth-Jarrow is available at: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=39877#s102 Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Replica

@Cuoregr: Please explain how it is "not related to the Abbey's current state" to mention the only replica of the oldest stained glass window known? Your comment makes no sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant for Utah to have such a precious copy, but it's not relevant for the current state of the Abbey that part of it is copied somewhere else. It would have been different if the copy was in Jarrow and the original moved to Utah, but AFAIK this isn't the case. Cuoregr (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cuoregr: The article is not about the current state of the Abbey, so that argument holds no water. No article on Wikipedia is about the current state of anything. Articles cover a broad range of history of any given topic, so (again) that argument makes no sense. And the reverse argument is irrelevant. Having a one-sentence mention of it, when (as far as I can determine) this is the only copy of that window outside of the original, makes perfect sense. Given that the Roots of Knowledge article has garnered worldwide coverage, and more than one instance of coverage discusses the fact of this replica, it is not only relevant, it's notable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me too worth mentioning. It might need sourcing, but certainly an interesting and noteworthy fact, especially to readers in the US.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: When I added it, I included a solid source, so it already has sourcing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It had links to other articles, but no references. It seems not to be mentioned in current sources, so could do with its own.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought I had included one. After checking, it looks like I didn't. I can definitely include sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cuoregr: Will you agree to stop removing this? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

??? Why are you suggesting that I have removed this again since this discussion began? Together with the "makes no sense" bit x2, you are being very disrespectful for no good reason. Please stop that. Also: I can see how you're very proud of the copy in Utah, but you don't have sources saying it's the only copy (as you concede yourself). Moreover, again: it has NO place in the section about the abbey's current state - at least that is how I understand the heading Today in the Abbey's article (feel free to convince me that it means something else?). If you really want to include the Utah window on this page (but without the "only copy" claim if you cannot prove it), I would suggest the 'See also' part? Cuoregr (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out if you'll remove it again if it's replaced with sources. If I'm being disrespectful, it's because you are exhibiting ownership tendencies on this article and refusing to allow placement of information you don't like. I'm not "proud" of anything regarding this, so that comment makes no sense (yes, I keep using that phrase because you really are making no sense in you stubborn refusal to allow this single sentence). It was placed in the "Today" section because the copy is a very recent thing, so it only makes sense for it to be in that section. And the "only copy" part wasn't in what I originally added. I mentioned it only here on the talk page as an example of why it belonged here in this article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

'Ownership tendencies'? I have made 1 (ONE) change to this article, and I believe I have been clear as to why I made it. Again, your addition is absolutely welcome in the "See also"-section, like I said in my last reply. Some 'stubborn refusal' that is! Anyway, I'm happy that, despite the childish replies, you agreed on the proposed solution. Thank you for that, and let's continue together to make Wikipedia better. Cuoregr (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

All through this discussion you've indicated you didn't want it in the article, until your second-to-last message here, and your original edit summary indicated that, too. Regardless, it's in the article now. That's all I was trying to do. It would have been nice if you'd instead just moved it down to the "See also" section instead of rudely removing it entirely. Perhaps we can both learn from this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Create redirects instead for now. – robertsky (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey → Wearmouth–Jarrow Abbey
• Abbot of Monkwearmouth–Jarrow → Abbot of Wearmouth–Jarrow

– The majority of sources seem to use "Wearmouth" over the lengthier "Monkwearmouth", which was also the practice of the monks themselves (Bede speaks of Uiuraemuda et Ingyruum, "Wearmouth and Jarrow"). See e.g. The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, The Cambridge Companion to Bede, Medieval England: An Encyclopedia. Zacwill (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Monkwearmouth has more hits on Google Scholar and Google Books, and it is used by The Blackwell-Wiley Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England and Higham and Ryan's The Anglo-Saxon World. Most other academic sources do seem to use Wearmouth, but I do not think there is enough of a consensus to change our usage. Redirects from the proposed names would be satisfactory. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It seems like neither is 'wrong' as such: Rosemary Cramp used both Monkwearmouth and Wearmouth. Historic England use Monkwearmouth in the National Heritage List for England, while English Heritage use Wearmouth (in the context of writing about St Paul's Church, Jarrow). I don't think one is clearly preferred over the other so I'd probably err on the side of leaving the article where it is to minimise disruption. As I was writing this, I flip-flopped between opposing and supporting, not especially strongly in either direction. I appreciate this comment may not be the most helpful! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.