User talk:Adam Bishop/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Adam Bishop

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Llywrch (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 15 September 2003 (more comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

(changed Elaine Ike Benes to Elaine Marie Benes....Elaine Ike Benes? Huh?)

There was an episode of Seinfield (the specifics escape me) where Elaine made a joke about her middle name being Ike.

Found it... episode name "The Big Salad": 

George: Elaine, Julie.
Elaine: Hi.
Julie: Oh, hi.  Elaine's my middle name.
Elaine: Oh, mine's "Ike".
-- goatasaur


Ah, that is true, I remember that now....but there are times when Jerry calls her "Elaine Marie Benes," which is presumably her actual full name. Thanks. Adam Bishop 23:32 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes, her real middle name is "Marie". -- goatasaur

Welcome Adam,

You have done a good job so far in Wikipedia, also called 'Pedia or WP. I can see that you're a serious Wikipedian interested in improving our project. If you stay for a while, you'll discovered that collectively, we're a cooperative and friendly community. We are all here to learn, and hopefully can give something back. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Just keep in mind that while relevant discussions and constructive criticisms and are welcome, anything unproductive and/or destructive in nature is not. More importantly, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Who knows? Perhaps you'll soon become a Wikipediholic and/or one of Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians! :-) --Menchi 23:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! This place is fun, although it is still a little initimidating...there is so much I don't know! But I look forward to adding as much as I can to the site. Adam Bishop

Good work on the Group of Seven. How about the "Beaver Hall Hill" artists? Joe Canuck 22:41 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever heard of them...who are they? Adam Bishop 22:46 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A bunch of quite proper ladies from wealthy families in Montreal who in the 1920's painted together and were associates of some of the Group of 7. (There was a romance with one but can't recall who. CBC-TV stuff.) Prudence Heward et al. Heward went to Paris. Try Google. Good luck. Joe Canuck 22:53 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I started an article: Beaver Hall Group Joe Canuck 23:06 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Cool...nice work. Adam Bishop 00:02 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Adam -- Re London, Ontario: Do CFPL radio and TV still have the same owners? Good additions to the article. Jfitzg

Thanks for checking it out, Adam. For some reason it never occurred to me to do it myself. I guess I was in a hurry this morning, but more likely it was just too early. Jfitzg

Hey, welcome to wikipedia, if only there was more time in the day. I have had this idea to cross reference all the questions in the Stanford archives with wikipedia (1) to make sure that wikipedia had an entry on any tossup-worthy question and (2) to add useful facts (after checking them of course). I only got through one pack (ACF '94 Emory I believe), but if every active quizbowler did one pack a week, we would be done in no time. One can dream. Anyway, spread the word, this seems a perfect trap for wayward quizbowlers. dml

If you want to do the Byzantines, that would be excellent.  :) I was planning on doing it, but I've had a couple of beers, and after having slogged through the US presidents with that I'm not sure I trust myself to do it right at the moment. *grin* - Hephaestos 01:58 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the Joseph Brant article, its a good start. Your interest in that area of history makers me want to explain part of my 'to do list'. I've created a couple of references, and plan on two articles to be labeled Invasion of Canada (1775) and another for (1812). I've got notes building for the 1775 article but will probably never get further than a stub for the 1812 one. I just wanted you to know were I'm headed, since we'll probably cross paths again. Thanks again ..Lou I 22:21 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all those Byzantine emperor blocks. (Quite a lot of them, and the succession wasn't exactly smooth either.) - Hephaestos 06:51 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ditto on the Byzantine Emperor blocks -- & I see that you are now working on the Roman Emperor blocks. (The Roman Emperors & the Popes are the two major lists that don't use this template for some reason.) But I have a quibble here: you stated that some of the Roman Emperors were Byzantine ones that really don't fit that category (e.g., Gratianus). I think we need to determine some division point -- either the death of Theodosius I or an important milestone afterwards, OR use both titles to some point between Justinian & Heraclius' death. -- llywrch 04:52 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was fixing up some of the Roman ones, but I don't know as much about them...I could still add the template though. I was thinking the same thing about when the Byzantine emperors start...in the case of Gratianus, the Valens page already had him listed, so I just kept him. Personally, I would start with Constantine, but my main Byzantine history text book that I've been using starts as early as Diocletian, and the roman-emperors.org website starts as late as Arcadius. Maybe Adrianople could be the cut off, and the list could start with Theodosius. Adam Bishop 06:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, Theodosius is well known as the last emperor of the undivided Roman Empire, so I would say that Arcadius should be considered as the earliest Byzantine Emperor in the title blocks. One can also make an argument that Justinian is considered a Roman (in distinction to a Byzantine) emperor because of his work codifying Roman Law & his reconquest of Africa, Italy, & part of Spain. And many of his predecessors played a role in the politics of Western Europe.

Obviously, this is a POV issue, which needs noting somewhere in Wikipedia. (Yes, I have seen many Byzantine Imperial histories start with Constantine I, so this is an acknowldeged POV; however Gibbon's classic work traces the Roman Empire to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, so there are other opinions on this subject.) Unfortunately, the Roman Empire article is woefully incomplete, most likely because of the size of the topic daunts most who attempt it, so perhaps this should be added to the Byzantine Empire article.

Do you think it would a good solution to list the emperors from Arcadius to Justinian as both Byzantine & Roman Emperors? -- llywrch 16:23 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We could list both eastern and western emperors, on the Roman Emperors list. Then when there are no more western emperors, that could be the start of the Byzantine list - in that case Zeno I would be the first on the Byzantine list. Adam Bishop 17:34 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, now that I look at the Roman list, it's already like that, sort of... Adam Bishop 17:35 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Take a look at the changes I made to Gratianus (which I confused with Valens above -- the Valens article was the one you used the new template on), Theodosius I, & Flavius Augustus Honorius for an example of what I was thinking of doing. If you don't like the dual listing under Theodosius I, feel free to revrt. -- llywrch 21:50 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think that's fine, unless someone comes up with something better...the only clearer way I can think of is to include big family trees :) I'll try to come up with a note for the List of Byzantine emperors page, too, that might help. Adam Bishop 22:09 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good job with the additions to the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. I'd written most of the previous article, and it's definitely much better now. I'd been intending to do more stuff with crusader state related articles, as there's much to do. I don't think there are articles on any of the other crusader states, for instance. Anyway, just wanted to compliment you on the good work, and urge you to keep it up. john 01:20 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! I was planning on writing about the County of Edessa as well, and maybe Antioch. I don't know much about Tripoli, but I do have a bunch of textbooks I could use...I think I'm learning more about the Crusades from contributing here than I did by taking a class about them! Adam Bishop 04:29 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'd recommend Runciman's three volume history of the Crusades, if you haven't read it already. It's well-written, and probably the best narrative history of the period, and it focuses on the crusader states much more than on the western crusaders. It's particularly good for the 13th century stuff, which most people seem to ignore (including, for the most part, our article, at the moment, for which I am probably most to blame) It's a bit light on analysis, though. I'll try to write a bare bones (at least) County of Tripoli article, and leave Edessa (and Antioch?) to you. john 05:54 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've read most of Runciman. I would also recommend Setton's history, which is even longer than Runciman's (six volumes). Joshua Prawer wrote a lot of great stuff too. We didn't really focus much on the 13th century in the class I took, I guess because the kingdom wasn't very powerful by then...anyway, I'll see what I can find for Edessa, at least. Adam Bishop 06:08 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)



Oh, by the way, one of my profs was friends with Runciman...when Runciman died, he spent a whole class telling stories about him, like that he learned Thai just for fun. Adam Bishop 06:27 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Per Colin McEvedy, dating the Byzantine Empire from Heraclius' reign does make a bit of sense: Heraclius was the last Emperor to hold territory south of the Tarsus mountains -- i.e. Syria, Palestine & Egypt. After that, the Byzantine Empire acquired its "classic" realm of Asia Minor, Greece, the Balkans & the foot of Italy. It seems that the story of the Byzantine Empire gets under way when the following themes are in the forefront: (1) the struggle of Emperor & Christianity; (2) constant fighting with the Muslims (first the Arabs, then the Turks); and (3) Greek culture & literature. While all of these play a role in the history of the Roman Empire from Constantine the Great on -- & several historians have pointed this fact out -- IMHO they don't become primary until after Justinian, & perhaps not until after Heraclius. -- llywrch 06:00 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey, for the Raynald of Chatillon article, do you think that title is appropriate? It comes, I imagine, from the 1911 Encyclopedia, and I've always seen it spelled "Reynald". I might move it, unless you think "Raynald" is better. john 06:35 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could you give some comments on "The living or the dead?" in Talk:Canadian Confederation? Thanks. --Menchi 05:15 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I checked some websites and they said the band's name was The Guess Who, not Guess Who. I presume unless the websites are wrong (which is quite possible. I am no fan of google searches) you dropped the definite article because wiki normally does that. However it does not do that if The is actually in the title, eg, The Irish Times, unlike the Pope, the Irish Independent. As the band's name apparently does include the definite article as part of the name , I have moved the article to The Guess Who. lol FearÉIREANN 03:03 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well I guess I learned something new tonight. I never heard of either Guess Who or The Guess Who. Band names can be so much fun. In Ireland we have a band called Therapy? and they cause chaos in newspapers. Invariably there is some sub-editor somewhere who has never heard of them and changes Therapy? to Therapy, leading to major rows and complaints to the newspaper from horrified fans. (At least The Eagles who are playing on my computer's iTunes right now (to be followed by Depeche Mode and U2) don't cause too many problems, though a member of Bono's family tells the story of a British newspaper that did a report on one of their gigs. As we used to do, the copy was read in over the phone. But the copy-editor was either not a rock music fan, was half asleep or hated U2, and so typed up the text as Ewe too. They also got the location wrong, so U2 play Slane was typed up as Ewe too play slain and it made it to press, as somehow no-one noticed it before the paper was put to bed. (journo-sleep for finished) Oh well.)  :-) FearÉIREANN 03:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I hope I haven't caught you too late. There is an error in the Governor-General template. It is missing the hyphen in Governor-General. (It is in as Governor General!). lol FearÉIREANN 21:28 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid it definitely is hyphenated. (I've recently had to write 50,000 words on the Irish Governor-General, and that title was taken directly from Canada.) Basically the key word in the title is governor. The general is a qualifier which means in effect overall, ie, superior in rank and constitutional to all over governors (provincial, state, local etc). In modern english if being created now it would probably be general governor. But the words were reversed and hypenated. (As in president-elect, Attorney-General, etc, the key word being president and attorney). In contrast Lord Deputy or Lord Lieutenant aren't, because the key word isn't Lord but Deputy or Lieutenant. Some hypenated words have lost their hypen over time (through illiteracy rather than a deliberate decision) but Governor-General hasn't.

As to the official website, that sounds a classic case of what some Irish civil servants call the OSMS meaning Oh Shit Mistake Syndorme. What happens is an outside expert is commissioned to do something (usually design a website). A mistake is made. The civil servant spots it, presumes it would be dead easy to fix, so easy that it would be embarrassing to have to ask for it to be fixed. Except that in reality he doesn't have a goddamned clue how to fix it. So, like someone who dinges their partner's car and is too embarrased to admit it, he walks away and hopes that no-one will notice or that if they do, they will know how to fix it. Or else a junior civil servant who doesn't know about the hyphen or doesn't think it important had the site designed and has never spotted the mistake. And the senior civil servants who would know aren't very computer-literate and so haven't visited the site and so never noticed. I've lost count of the number of major websites I have come across with monumental errors because of this. As a result I have learned never to trust websites and treat Google searches not so much with a pinch of salt as a bucket of salt! (eg, a user on wiki tried to put on a ludicrous definition of the terms Royal Prerogative and Divine right of kings on wiki. He was blocked so he had now put it on a separate website. So a google search will throw up his nutty theory as a real definition.

Even a google search shows clear evidence of the OSMS. Some documents use a hypen, others don't. Some have spelling mistakes. GG is hypenated in some parts of a document, then loses it in others. The 1982 Constitution Act in some versions hypenates it, others don't. Some bizarrely even have a Governor general, one I found governorGeneral!!!

The site called Governor General of Australia contains he following paragraph:

In 1936, the Commonwealth reopened Admiralty House as a Sydney Residence for the new Governor-General, Lord Gowrie. Successive Governors-General have since used Admiralty House as their residence when in New South Wales. Formal title to Admiralty House finally passed from New South Wales to the Commonwealth by Crown grant in 1948 on condition that the House be used only as a residence for the Governor-General.

So the article is de-hypenated, but the text hypenated! The 1996 installation of the Aussie GG uses governor-general. An earlier one doesn't.

So as in some many technical areas, the net is unfortunately a very poor source of information. (It would be nice if google had an authenticated sources search as opposed to a anything written on the topic no matter how much bullshit it contains search.) But technically and grammatically the words are hypenated and were so in hard-copy versions of the primary sources. We should aim to achieve primary source accuracy where possible rather than contribute to net confusion, at least in theory! :-) FearÉIREANN 23:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The official web site of the Governor General of Canada does not use a hyphen. I would think that Her Excellency (and her staff) would know her proper title. - Cafemusique 21:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I checked the hardcopy version of the two reports of Australia's Republic Advisory Committee. Volume II does into detail on international governors-general and presidents. It was prepared by a professional secretariat for then Prime Minister Paul Keating. (A copy also went to the Queen). It also contacted each state and quotes and refers to various commonweath constitutions. All GGs are hypenated, including the Canadian governor-general, in the document. Given the document's importance and prestigé and the fact that it dealt directly with governors-general directly, it is unlikely that they would have used the wrong form.

BTW it is more than likely that a state would use either the same outside agency or the same in house team to computerise all their records so there is nothing that surprising about all state web pages in Canada you found not using hypens if the same team of people had had the task of computerising all the major constitutional documents and setting up websites.

Even if perhaps for linguistic reasons to do with French speakers, it was decided in Canada to de-hypenate the governor-general, it probably would make sense to apply the same standard spelling to the office worldwide. Otherwise you could have a repeat of the czar/tsar mess or the problem with two methods of westerning Chinese names. The Irish gg was 100% written as governor-general not governor general. The formal document installing the last governor-general of Australia used a hypen. Formal state documents in New Zealand use a hypen. Hypenating some governors-general and not others would produce a textual nightmare on wiki, with someone seeing a de-hypenated gg in Canada and removing the hypen in Ireland. Then someone reinstating it in Ireland and installing it in Canada. People constantly de-hypenating and re-hypenating governos-general in Ceylon, Belize, New Zealand, Australia, etc. On balance, even if the Canadian GG is de-hypenated, (and I'm not convinced!) it would probably make sense to keep a general wiki standard wiki-wide. FearÉIREANN 22:56 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've copied the above in an attempt to consolidate discussion at Talk:Governor General of Canada. - Cafemusique 00:30, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re Edessa: Sorry about that! Didn't realize you were working on that part. - Hephaestos 20:49, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Hey I was trying to figure that out too, I was reading the talk page about Mac. Basically what I did was jusr revert what the user had change. I think some of the stuff could have been left as R. O . M and not FYROM, but what should be listed ROM vs FYROM ?

I would think anything tied to international groups ie UN would have to be FYROM but some of the geography things maybe could be ROM. User:Smith03

Non-1967 Confederation Father

At Canadian Confederation article, I was trying to give some examples to the mini-paragraph "latter "fathers" for bringing in additional provinces to the original four are not usually called as such...", but I could not think of appropriate ones, and my most familiar Joey Smallwood is often called "the last living 'Father of Confederation'". Perhaps these "founders" are indeed frequently called "Fathers"? What are the names you've heard to describe them? --Menchi 05:26, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Cool! You clarified that before I started writing this! :-o --Menchi 05:28, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

VfD

When you list a page on Votes for deletion you must say "Listed on Votes for deletion" on the page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get deleted. --mav 23:51, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, yes I'd certainly welcome some help with the wikiproject battles. Your articles on the 1812 war look good. TeunSpaans 12:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) Do you also have some info on the many byzantine wars and battles? TeunSpaans 12:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I'm really sorry - I just mistakenly deleted your image Image:Justinian.jpg! I meant to revert and deleted instead. Many apologies - I'm just about to go through my cache and see if I can recover it, but if you can re-upload that will probably be quicker. Sorry again! -- sannse 19:25, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A silly mistake - I was uploading a compressed version of the coin image, and with the similar file names of the two images (Justinian.jpg and Justinian.jpeg) I overwrote the wrong one. So I tried to fix my mistake and deleted instead of reverted! I herby revoke my admin privileges for the next five hours ;) I'm glad you got it back OK -- sannse 19:44, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the pictures from http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ were ok because I noticed the site said "Copyright © 2001-2003 historyofmacedonia.org All rights reserved". Sorry to bother you if this is something that's already been cleared up. M123 20:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm the guy that kept changing "Wikipedihol" to "Wikipedia." What exactly do you mean by "Wikipedihol"? Lypheklub 06:22, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, There appears to be an incomplete sentence in your article on The Birds. --Jose Ramos 07:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Adam. Thanks for correcting me in the Betazoid article, but I'm not sure your correction was correct :). Visit the Talk page for Betazoid please. -- Tjdw

Hi Adam! In response to your question:

it doesn't seem that Nestorianism and Monophysitism came after Pulcheria...Nestorius, at least, was a contemporary, and the Nestorianism and Monophysitism articles say both were condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, which she helped organize (though that article is pretty stubby and doesn't mention either). That is also the understanding I got from the Byzantine history textbook I tend to use for Byzantine articles. Have I misunderstood something somewhere?

Working thru the materials about Nestorius, Ibas (who some say helped promote Nestorianism), Severus of Antioch, etc., it appears that Nestorianism actually developed in the generation after Nestorius, adhering to a version of Christology that Nestorius briefly advocated, then anathemated. According to Kenenth G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, he advocated it one Sunday at the pulpit in a misogynist fit at Pulcheria. Obviously, she took offense, & pulled the necessary strings to have him deposed & exiled.

Ibas has been creditted with espousing Nestorianism, but he, too, is a victim of historical misinterpretation, & having been dragged into the Three Chapters Contraversy. (He is recorded as having anathematized Nestorius.)

As I understand it, Nestorianism has nationalist sympathies with Persia, & did not become a self-conscious faction until late in the fifth century. But then, the only motivation I can understand behind all of the fierce contraversy over these subtle distinctions would come from local connections; i.e., enough people felt, "This is how my teacher/my parents taught me was right, & I'm not about to let someome in Constantinople tell me what's right!" Feel free to correct me for espousing a POV ;-).

Another problem is that until the Council of Chalcedon, these differences were not seen as significant. Unfortunately, the imperial politics in the generations that followed defined factions according to their Christological beliefs, & their harmony with the Patriarch of Alexandria. So I base the fact Monophysitism developed as a defined belief or faction in response to the political enviornment following Chalcedon. This "heresy" doesn't even have a consistent name in the historical literature, called in various places acephalism, Severanism and Eutychianism.

Note: I am not a theologian. I don't even attend church regularly.

But I agree with you more work needs to be done on the Council of Chalcedon. -- llywrch

(Oops, forgot to sign my article.) Well, Adam, I you may think I know more about this topic than you, but you are definitely my superior at the number of edits. Good work. -- llywrch 19:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, you said that you don't know what ban is. Well, you could just look it up in Wikipedia ;) Nikola 09:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 18:52, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam! Thanks very much! I can now make lists of everything (i'm a bit list-addict) except consuls that is already done. With wiki-love, Muriel Gottrop 09:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • Llwyrch just told me (and i should have suspected) that you are also interested in Roman issues. I would apreciate your opinion on my Ancient Rome Proposal Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:08, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletions

You might want to correct an article rather than deleting it. Hands Across America could be transformed from graffiti into the beginnings of a decent article with about 5 minutes work on your part. Just do a search on Google, read a web page or two, and summarize what you find.

Fixing is usually better than deleting, although I do commend your vigilance in ridding the 'pedia of graffiti! --Uncle Ed 14:18, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam! About the first bishop of Jerusalem, according to Eusebius that was James the Just. I think James the Less was another Apostle, along with James the Great -- neither of whom were related to Jesus Christ, as James the Just is said to be (according to such sources as Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19). I'll be honest: I'm not certain about all of the relationships between these people (e.g. whether one or more of these James is fictional), & the matter isn't any clearer due to Christian dogma about the nature of Jesus Christ, which forces the logical conclusion that He was an only child. (Although there is sufficient evidence that He had a number of step or half siblings.)

BTW, I wrote the article on James the Less, & right now I'm not very happy about it: it suggests erroneously that the first bishop, James brother of Jesus, & the writer of the epistle all were the same person, when the matter is still under debate. It also needs some more suorce citations. If I find the time today, I'll fix it. -- llywrch 18:13, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You wrote:
That's what I thought...I always get confused about the various Jameses. Isn't there also a James, Son of Zebedee? It's crazy :) The reason I was wondering is because I linked to James the Less in the Patriarch of Jerusalem article. The source I had said "James the Lord's brother", so if that's James the Just I'll fix that link.
I just took a look at the article Patriarch of Jerusalem, & it has the same link to James the Just I put there. Are we talking about the same article? (And yes, all of these Jameses are enough to confuse anyone. I figure to successfully graduate from a ministry, one of the questions has to be on identifying all of these homonymic people in the 1st century. ;-) -- llywrch 00:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Adam, I had a look at the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem article, & it looks good. (You already made the change of James the Less => James the Just.) A couple of ideas:
  • From my most recent reading of Eusebius, I've noticed that although he follows the succession of Jerusalem closely, he gives pride of place to the archbishop of Caeserea. The Council of Nicaea confirms the fact that (in at least the 2nd & 3rd centuries) Caesarea was the seat of the metropolitan of Palestine in the language they use to promote Jerusalem's bishopric. There must be a story to tell in this.
  • Unlike Alexandria & Antioch, Jerusalem did not suffer a schism in its Patriachate. That is an item worth investigating.
(I don't expect you to know the answers to these points. But they serve as a place to start for someone who is interested in further research.)
  • I think the list of bishops/patriarchs should be split off into its own article, a List of Patriarchs of Jerusalem. In any case, the names need to be put into English forms (e.g., Justus instead of Ioustos, Juvenal instead of Iouvenalios). Some of these figures are already accumulating links (Juvenal of Jerusalem is one who comes immediately to mind.) -- llywrch 04:27, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Bishop/archive7&oldid=1442642"