User talk:Johnbod

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

Archives

/1 to Nov 06 /2 to mid-Dec 06 /3 to Jan 07 /4 to Mar 07 /5 to mid-April 07 /6 to May 07 /7 to July 07 /8 to Sept 07 oct in fact /9 from Nov 07 /10 from April 08 /11 from July 08 /12 from October 08 /13 from Feb 09 /14 from Aug 09 /15 from Nov 09 /16 from February 2010 /17 from June 2010 /18 to Dec 2010 /19 to March 11 /20 to Oct 11 /21 to Jan 12 /22 to April 12 /23 to September 12 /24 to January 2013 /25 to April 13 /26 to July 13 /27 to November 13 /28 to January 14 /29 to August 14 /30 to May 15 /31 to November 15 /32 to February 2016 /33 to 31 July 2016 /34 to 30 November 2016 /35 to April 2017 /36 to December 2017 /37 to April 2018 /38 to October 2018 /39 to April 2019 /40 to September 2019 /41 to January 2020 /42 to June 2020 /43 to December 2020 /44 to July 2021 /45 to December 2021 /46 to July 2022 /47 to January 2023 48 to August 2023 49 to March 2024 50 to Nov 24

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Venetian_Renaissance_Art_and_Architecture_(Fall)

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supportive interjection @Johnbod! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbirolli: Have you seen Otto Klemperer? I did because I wrote the article of his wife ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Adoration of the Magi in the Snow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure that you get the credit on your talk page for thinking of the idea for Category:Snow in art, and then for largely populating it with dozens of links! As always, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Up to 76 now; Russian art was productive, which I suppose is to be expected. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Do Japanese woodblock prints by the likes of Hokusai and Hiroshige count? I haven't checked to see if there are articles dedicated to individual prints. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! There will be some included in print series with articles, I'm sure. Hokusai's painting Tiger in the Snow is in already, plus a Jap screen, I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coconut cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that coconut cups were believed to have medical benefits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coconut cup. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coconut cup), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,706 views (612.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Johnbod, I wondered how fast you (or someone else) would be to revert a change I made this morning to this article: Breeching (boys).

When I viewed the edit history, I see another user had the same issue as I did with the wording just recently. Does it not come off as gatekeeping/condescension to say laypeople may not tell apart depictions of boy vs. girls prior to boys being breeched?

First, it doesn't take complicated terminology or a deep understanding of complex processes to figure out. It's not rocket science or bioengineering. Second, it is a subjective clause that is not informative about breeching.

Third, you could put this on so many other Wiki pages, if we're going to be "diligent" about snobbery. Here's a great example from my personal/professional history:

Laypeople, and sometimes even college students studying operant conditioning, cannot understand the difference between Negative reinforcement and Punishment (psychology) (either positive or negative). I'm a PhD in I/O psychology, and a common mistake is people thinking "negative" means "bad," when in this context it means "absence of something." Do we really need to point out something like "plain folk just wouldn't understand" on a single article, if we're not doing it for all topics tied to a higher degree discipline?

Based on your Wiki profile, I might venture an assumption (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are not an art historian, yet you contributed 275k+ edits to Wikipedia -- so you clearly have a deep interest in many topics in which you are not certified or hold a PhD. So why fight to keep a subjective, gatekeeping, and uninformative clause about laypeople, when more than one person has objected to it in the past 6 months (and maybe others previously, I didn't look that far)?

Thanks,

76.205.180.44 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Kat (I might finally create a username sometime this month so I can have a bona fide discussion with others as needed.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.85.7.113 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please remember to sign all comments on talk and project pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. May I also direct your attention to the essay at Wikipedia:Expert editors. - Donald Albury 21:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other "recent" edit only wanted to change "lay" to "average" (and to "correct" the spelling in a quote). I could have lived with the first, but not the second. So I think you are the first person in over a decade (and over 1.4 million views to the article) to object to this. I disagree that it is as simple as you seem to think, and after, as you say, lots of edits to mostly art history articles and talk pages, I expect I have a better understanding than you on where the average reader's level of knowledge on historic Western dress is. Why subjective clauses are inherently "not informative" I have no idea, nor do I see where you are going with para 2. I see the sentence as gate-opening rather than gate-keeping. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revision in question is this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breeching_(boys)&diff=prev&oldid=1237772579&diffonly=1

Well, I guess point #2 could be #2a and #2b. It is uninformative to say "plain folk wouldn't understand" as it does not add value to the subject of pre-breeched boys in art (and, as I mentioned earlier, because it can be said of any article belonging to a niche in any discipline, per my example), and subjective because it is based on someone's opinion that a layperson wouldn't understand it even if they tried. The gate-opening thing to do is, then, to describe at least most common/prominent examples of how such depictions are told apart, rather than end it there. Otherwise, what's the point of going down a rabbithole on Wikipedia on a lazy evening if knowledge is kept from us philistines? :)

I don't argue that you are leagues above me in knowledge of art history. But I'm also sure that laypeople who have seen at least a couple pre-1900 royal paintings captioned "King X as a child" are bound to not assume by default all depicted royal children in dresses are girls, I know I wouldn't - and when it comes to art history, I am a certified layperson (but maybe an observant or curious one, even if superficially).

Hope that clears up my stance some.

76.205.180.44 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Johnbod I am JulianFleming1 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC) and I am apart of a Wiki Education Assignment here on wikipedia and I noticed that recently you undid, deleted, and rearranged most my my edits that I recently posted to the page for the painting Diana and Actaeon. It is to my understanding that upon making an edit on any wikipedia page, that a publishing summary is necessary to explain specifically what was done in said edit so that other editors may understand and build off of your contributions, however upon checking in to the article last night I noticed that you had gone and made multiple edits to my contributions with no reasoning other than "all sorts of problems" which does not provide myself or other editors with any constructive information as to what was done or needed to be improved. Most of my edits had to do with adding descriptive details and in-depth information about visual and formal analysis while also making sure to delete any biased language that would go against the neutral tone necessary to build a strong wikipedia article, however upon reviewing your edits to my contributions I noticed that you specifically re-added the subjective biased points in the introduction and rearranged content out of its respective topic headings thus interrupting the flow of the article. If supplementary information was added from new scholarly sources then I would begin to understand the overhaul of edits on the page, however after reviewing the new edits it becomes clear that the article was cohesive enough without them in the first place.[reply]

I am asking that you please explain your reasoning for why you saw fit to undo my contributions and restructure the article without explanation or suggestions for collaboration. The goal here is to provide the most accurate information available on the subject so that we may share our knowledge on these works with the world, not to flex one's ego on their self proclaimed knowledge on a subject because they dont believe the contributions of others are up to one's personal standards. JulianFleming1 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there were all sorts of problem; I am not your teacher & it is not my job to explain them all to you. That's what your course tutor is supposed to do. It's nothing to do with my alleged "personal standards", but Wikipedia policies. I'll note that you didn't actually change much of the existing text, and I have left the sections you added alone, except for small corrections. Some of my other edits have more explicit edit summaries. Just a few of the issues:

You changed the article to American English - see WP:ENGVAR

There was tons of WP:OVERLINKING

You don't know where to use "attributed"

You seem to think the grotto actually is a cathedral

You messed up the section headers - look at them in your version.

You added "and is currently housed in the National Gallery of Scotland." - No, it's in London (and "currently housed" is against WP:VAMOS)

and so on, Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two you may want to populate. Someone created Category:Paintings of fruit with five entries. I added a few dozen more and created Category:Fruit in art to catch the leftovers. Added the 'Paintings...' category to Category:Food and drink paintings and only deleted that category from them if the painting was of fruit and no other food or drinks depicted. There should be hundreds of paintings out there, but don't know how many have w. articles. Happy holidays to you, and many grapes. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, & likewise! There will be plenty, and some sculptures too. It's not usually my sort of thing, but we'll see. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted my changes in the Oldmasters Museum article. To be honest, Auden's poem is not even that relevant and could even be confusing, as the 'Oldmasters' museum was officially named 'Musée (royal) d'Art Ancien' in 1929 and there was no post-WW2 name change to 'Musée des Beaux-Arts' (I had temporarily left this in place pending further checks). Actually, the 'Musée des Beaux-Arts' predates the 'Musée d'Art Ancien' by over 80 years and was originally housed in the Palace of Charles of Lorraine, before moving to the current 'Palais des Beaux-Arts' in 1887. The institution housing the 'Musée d'Art Ancien' changed its name twice: to 'Musée des Beaux-Arts de Belgique' in 1919 and again in 1927 to its current name, 'Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique'. In any case, the poem is given too much undue weight, and the fact that it may have somehow inspired the current 'Oldmasters' name is unsourced and/or possible original research. About your sentence that the (Royal) Museums of Fine Arts "(...) has never been a place", this is confusing too, as it did exist in a single place throughout its early history, albeit not anymore. Same for your sentence "An advantage of using an invented word is that internet searches produce the "right" results at the top.". How is this an encyclopedic-worthy entry? Besides, English names (followed by the French–Dutch sequence when necessary) should be used in Brussels-related articles for consistency and neutrality, as per the long-established (2007) naming conventions, so stating that the building's English name misleadingly suggests the poem had an English title is again irrelevant in this context. Finally, you deleted a sourced sentence and added/restored a bare URL, which is quite surprising for an experienced editor like yourself. Jason Lagos (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were messy, in two articles. The point is that your edits said that the poem had a some point had an English title, which it never did. As far as English is concerned, it seems the common name of the museum did change. When you say "The institution housing the 'Musée d'Art Ancien'..." do you mean the physical building, or the managing trust (or whatever it is). If the second, "housing" is the wrong word, is it not? I don't agree that the poem is given undue prominence because as far as certainly people from the UK are concerned, it is the most, if not the only, thing for which the museum is known, as the poem is very widely taught in schools (or used to be anyway). The pathetic description of the collection, which I have started to improve, did absolutely nothing to change this perception. I can't see any bare links, but fix them if you can. What referenced sentence? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite believe that you actually mean "Besides, English names (followed by the French–Dutch sequence when necessary) should be used in Brussels-related articles for consistency and neutrality, as per the long-established (2007) naming conventions, so stating that the building's English name misleadingly suggests the poem had an English title is again irrelevant in this context." It wasn't the building's name, but your edits that said the poem had an English title - read them again. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. To be clear, I never claimed the poem had an English title or anything of the sorts. My latest version reads: "The museum has been known by various names, reflected in the changing titles of W. H. Auden's famous poem Musée des Beaux Arts, as it is now called. When Auden first published it in 1929, this was the Palace of Fine Arts (French: Palais des Beaux-Arts, Dutch: Paleis voor Schone Kunsten), still used as the name of the imposing 19th-century museum building." If you exclude the subordinate clauses, you can see that I am clearly referring to the building. Admittedly, the phrasing is awkward as I tried to work around the poem part, so I guess that is why you interpreted it as such. The bare URL is your link to the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium page and the sourced sentence that you deleted is the following: "This "Palace of Fine Arts" had housed the Royal Museum of Ancient Art (French: Musée royal d'art ancien, Dutch: Koninklijk Museum voor Oude Kunst) since 1887 following the move there of the works of Old Masters (French: vieux maîtres, Dutch: oude meesters)." which gives more details about the above-mentioned historical developments. I trust you about the poem's notoriety in the UK, though I still believe directly quoting from it in the museum's article or hinting it may have had something to do with its current name is undue/original research, at least without a valid source. Simply mentioning/linking it and its connection to the museum, as in my last edit, aptly suffices in my opinion. As for your question, I meant the institution and grouping of buildings that include/manage/house the museum. Jason Lagos (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Johnbod, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nebra sky disc (1800 – 1600 BCE) is my Wiki-Solstice card to all for this year. (Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I have shamelessly stolen your stencil.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec24}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Celebration in deep winter
		Thanks for all the help over the years and along the way. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Classic}} to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." (Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | tålk 13:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Johnbod: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adoration of the Magi in the Snow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (pictured), recently re-dated, is now known to be the earliest of Bruegel's snow paintings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi in the Snow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Adoration of the Magi in the Snow), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for your "card"! Mine is in the ODT section, my first Christmas story this year, about Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91, 300 years today, and its song, 500 years old. Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put KC's article up for peer review with a view to GAN or even FAC, and your particular expertise would be more than welcome there if you have time and inclination. No rush whatever, if you are minded to look in. Tim riley talk 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking over the next week, Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you. You'll put me through my paces, I don't doubt, but the article will benefit. Happy New Year. Tim riley talk 18:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trembleuse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that trembleuse cups and saucers (examples pictured) enabled people with unsteady hands to drink hot beverages? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trembleuse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trembleuse), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-era pottery has been found found across Wales. For example: Holt [1]; south-east Wales [2]; Usk [3]; Cardiff [4]; and Segontium [5]. It has also been found in Scotland, eg [6] and [7]. The source for the section you keep changing is Tyers, Paul (1996). Roman Pottery in Britain. London, it is not titled Roman Pottery in England. Please revert yourself. Opolito (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the kilns at Holt are indeed 100 yards into modern Wales, though I note the source said the product all seems to have been "exported" to Chester. These are all I think pottery made at military sites, probably not reflecting what the local population used. The statement you changed does not say no pottery was made during the Roman period in other parts of Britain (which would indeed be odd). Archaeological RS very often use terms from modern political geography. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all made at military sites. Have you read the Webster article? Your edit summary was "I don't think any pottery production is known from Wales or Sctland in the period" yet now you admit that would "indeed be odd". The sentence in question has said "Britain" since at least 2020. An IP user changed it to "England" a couple of days ago without any reasoning and contrary the source it comes from. Why are you edit warring to retain an edit that introduces an incorrect modern term to replace a correct one from the source? Again, please revert your edit. Opolito (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept it is "incorrect" - the article is full of Italys, Spains, etc. I like the alliteration too. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It disagrees with the source, so WP:V. "I like the alliteration" is a terrible argument as I'm sure you know. You're supporting a change against the long-standing consensus on the page and against the source. Since you are unwilling to revert your change, I will revert your edit. Please do not change it back. Opolito (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the source? I doubt it says anything so specific. The "long-standing consensus on the page" is essentially me and another (very expert) editor who's no longer active. Look at the stats. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the source is "Roman Pottery in Britain". How much more specific could it be? If you look at the significant parts of Tyer's work that are available online, they repeatedly use the term "Britain" and never "England". They also reference pots found outside England in the rest of Britain, eg [8] and [9]. The stats show you account for just over 10% of the last 250 edits made to the page over the last 14 years. Opolito (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed very little since 2010 - I am the top editor by edits (more than the next 3 together), and am attributed with 23% of the text adds. This webpage by Tyers uses the full range of geographic terms. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To continue our discussion I think that the assertion of one's own orthodoxy are not necessarily sysnonymous with being Orthodox. All of the churches seemed to have claimed to be following orthodox theology. The "Insular Churches" sort of developed independently from the rest of Christendom, but to avoid charges of heresy, they did try and demonstrate that they were in sympathy with the teachings of Rome. Despite them being on the edge of Europe, the Insular Churches did not escape the main dogmatic disputes that were occurring elsewhere in Christendom. Some examples are:

1. Arianism in Britain;
2. Pelagianism in Britain and Ireland;
3. The Three-Chapter Controversy which involved the Irish on the continent in the early-seventh century;
4. The Monothelite heresy that spanned most of the seventh century and involved the See of Canterbury;
5. The Quattuordeciman charge brought against the British and Irish churches.

I don't think I need to develop these subjects other than quoting a letter from Columbanus, written in about 614, to Pope Boniface IV on the controversy of the Three Chapters it said:

For all we Irish, inhabitants of the worlds edge, are disciples of Saints Peter and Paul and of all the disciples who wrote the sacred canon by the Holy Ghost, and we accept nothing outside the evangelical and apostolic teaching; none has been a heretic, none a Judaiser, none a schismatic; but the Catholic Faith, as it was delivered by you first, who are the successor of the holy apostles, is maintained unbroken.

— https://4marksofthechurch.com/columbanus-of-ireland/

At some point early in the seventh century, Laurence of Canterbury wrote a letter to the bishops and abbots of Ireland; some of it is quoted by Bede:

The apostolic see, according to customs in all parts of the world, directed us to preach to the heathen in these western regions, and it was our lot to come to this island of Britain; before we knew them we held the holiness of both ofthe Britons and of the Irish in great esteem, thinking that they walked according to the customs of the universal church: but on becoming better acquainted with the Britons, we still thought that the Irish would be better, But now We have learned from Bishop Dagan when he came to this island and from Abbot Columban when he came to Gaul that the Irish did not differ from the Britons in their way of life. For when Bishop Dagan came to us he refused to take food, not only with us but even in the very house where we took our meals.

— Bede HE II.4

Bede goes on to explain that Laurence wrote the letter because the Insular Church did not celebrate Easter on the correct date. Some time later Abbot Aldhelm of Malmesbury Abbey wrote a letter at the behest of the Council of Hertford (672), to persuade the bishops of Devon and Cornwall in the matters of a common Easter and common tonsure. Christians in the Eastern church observed Passover on the 14th of the first month (Nisan), regardless of the day of the week on which it occurred, while the Latin church celebrated Easter on the Sunday after the first Full Moon following the vernal equinox. If the Insular Church followed the Eastern church then they would be practising Quartodecimanism, and heretics according to the Roman church. By the time of the Synod of Whitby Wilfrid was able to report, according to Bede, that the Insular Church celibrated Easter on a Sunday, so were not guilty of Quartodecimanism.(HE III.25)

Sussex was the last area of England to be evangilised according to Bede and Stephen of Ripon; however a group out of UCL have proposed an interesting hypothesis. They posit that the people of Sussex were Insular Christians rather than pagan when they were "converted". The story goes that Selsey was similar to Holy Island or Lindisfarne, so there was already a monastic community of Insular Christians when Wilfrid arrived. He used a "preexisting" monastery for his base. The Bede/Stephen foundation story of the South Saxon kingdom, that we are familiar with, was just an invention.(SAC 2023 pp.117-135)I

I've gone on a bit, but my conclusion is that the although the Insular church developed seperately to the rest of the church, it was very keen to keep up with some theological decisions made by the Roman church. Also it seems that some of the writers of the time were anti the Insular church so didn't do it any favours in their reporting. Wilfridselsey (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025! Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A whispered reminder that you were hoping to look in at Kenneth Clark's peer review. I hope you still can: I'd particularly value your input. Tim riley talk 14:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley Ok, haven't (entirely) forgotten. These days I like to wait & let the heavy vehicles churn up the mud first. I did look, & thought the lead slightly underweighted his books, which I think are still going strong, especially The Nude, even if as held up for target practice by contemporary academics. It might be interesting to check which are still in print. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find about books in print. Thank you. Tim riley talk 16:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Johnbod! Happy new year. Just to let you know there's another Brixton meetup at Brixton Library next Monday 27th Jan at 6pm if you're free. We're currently deciding on a 'theme' so if you have any ideas let us know! Colette Lambeth (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've rolled back English art to its version from 21 December, and reapplied a couple of your seealso removals; Gardenofedenn (talk · contribs · logs) was Lam312321321 evading their block again. I don't know how much this user is on your radar, but I've noticed you in the edit history a few times when reverting their edits. If a newish user starts moving images around on a big English history/culture overview article, or adding large amounts of text which are either (a) copied without proper attribution from other Wikipedia articles or (b) comparing England favourably to other countries, it may well be Lam312321321 evading a block, in which case the edits can simply be reverted rather than patiently checked and reworked by other editors. Feel free to ping me if you ever want me to take a look at anything. Belbury (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - I wasn't really aware of them. It's hard to compare the texts because it seems to be moved around in big blocks. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New kid on the block? Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, undoubtedly. I'll revert and open an SPI.

The "Visual" option button can sometimes help when viewing a diff, if the Wikitext version is hard to read at a glance. The image stuff seems the main giveaway, though. If you encounter someone changing and moving images on a major "of England" type article, and their edit history show few or no other edits, it may be this blocked user trying to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. Belbury (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]