User talk:Adam Bishop/archive2

Peers[edit]

Yeah, people like Bertrand Russell are a bit tough. I think the points in favor of the policy Lord Emsworth and Adam Carr have been tirelessly pushing for are that a) it provides a uniform policy, so that we always know where articles on peers are to go; and b) except in a very small number of cases, it doesn't result in the person going to an article where they're unrecognizable. For instance, I think it'd be fairly clear to anyone that Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell is the same as the philosopher, especially when Bertrand Russell redirects there. As Lord Emsworth has pointed out, the problem with the commonly used, unambiguous name rule is that the most commonly used name for peers frequently isn't unambiguous (Lord Nelson, Lord Kitchener, all those Canadian Governors-General you were talking about), while the simplest unambiguous name (their proper name) frequently isn't commonly used. And then there's the issue of people who were "commonly" called different things over the course of a career. Given all the intricacy of it, I think setting a simple policy of using the highest peerage title would eliminate all the judgment calls that lead to complete inconsistency in these articles and make for a more professional set-up. john 21:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam,

I thank you very much for keeping an open mind about the topic of peers.

In general, one may assume that there are three ways of entitling a biographical article on a peer. I am going to use the example of "Lord Nelson" for the purpose of discussion. Now, we could use the following titles: Lord Nelson, Horatio Nelson, or Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. The first form is entirely ambiguous. The question arises whether one is speaking about Horatio Nelson, or about his brother, William, the first Earl Nelson of Trafalgar. The second format could be used, but the problem is that few would recognize the title. The third is definitely the most useful format. Firstly, it includes the individual's birth name: Horatio Nelson. Secondly, it points out that he was a peer, and gives a clue to his identity as Lord Nelson. Finally, it is complete and accurate.

I am sure that people will argue that, for instance, such "antiquated appendages" are not necessary in cases such as that of Bertrand Russell. But the problem is that for a great portion of his lifetime, Russell was the Earl Russell of Kingston Russell, whether he used such a title or not. I think that the point is that we should think about what is more technically appropriate, not what is merely more common.

It is arguable that the addition of "3rd Earl Russell" will not cause further confusion to Bertrand Russell's article's title. It will, rather, only be more informative. There is, however, such a thing as being too informative. In such cases, the article's title becomes wholly clumsy and messy. See, for example, the present Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. We don't have: [[Angus Alan Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 15th Duke of Hamilton, 12th Duke of Brandon, 15th Marquess of Douglas, 15th Marquess of Clydesdale, 15th Earl of Angus, 15th Lord Abernathy and Jedburgh Forest, 15th Lord Polmont, 15th Lord Machansyre, 15th Lord Aven and Innerdale, 12th Baron Dutton]], which would be rather exhausting and crude. Simply, rather, we would have Angus Alan Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 15th Duke of Hamilton, or, better yet, just Angus Douglas-Hamilton, 15th Duke of Hamilton, applying the simple rule that the highest title be used. Thus, you can be rest assured that the matter will not be carried so far as to render article titles extremely awkward. -- Lord Emsworth

Quick Question/Thank You[edit]

Adam, thanks for fixing the link to Summa Theologica in 1273...are you sure about that date? I couldn't find anything in Thomas Aquinas or the Summa's article to indicate 1273 for the date (the listing was there before I modified). I almost made the change you did, but then I wondered if this was some other work of Thomas's I didn't know. I'm assuming you're right, in which case thank you, but I'm wondering where you found the info? I appreciate it, Jwrosenzweig 00:05, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I got so wikipedicentric, I didn't even check google...once I didn't see anything on WP, for some reason I just stopped. I bow to your superior wikiskills. :) Jwrosenzweig 00:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

PW[edit]

Pauly-Wissowa. Presumably the numbers disambiguate multiple people of the same name, but not having seen a PW in real life, it's not clear to me how the numbering part is supposed to work. Stan 03:19, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Popes[edit]

Hey, thanks alot for the advice. I have had a couple minor slip ups over the naming conventions of saints and popes and whatnot in the last couple days, and it makes me worry a bit just how many duplicate articles w subtley different names there are.... Is there any way I could look for them, and help merge em, or whatnot? Jack 04:35, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hi Adam, nice serie of battles on P. war battles! TeunSpaans 06:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All the ancient battles is quit a job to do. Ambitious, to say the least. Perhaps the 1911EB has some info that can be used for a start? TeunSpaans

Brianism[edit]

Discussion on my talk. - UtherSRG 21:11, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, Are you sure that Stanislaus Leszczynski can be numbered as Stanislaus I?? Since he was more pretender, then real king, I am not sure if he was counted by official history. Could you please souble check. Cautious 01:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adam, Muriel tells me you a Latin scholar, so here is a question: If "Archidioecesis Melburnensis" is Latin for Archdiocese of Melbourne, what would the nominative form be - Melburnium? Melburnia? Should this be described as Modern Latin, pseudo-Latin or what? Would you have any idea why the "o" has been omitted in creating the Latin form? Adam 22:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who is a Greek?[edit]

For list of ancient Greeks I was figuring on including both ethnic Greeks and Greek speakers/writers. I don't think there's much harm in being too inclusive rather than less so, among other things the list is an aid to finding missing and duplicate people (list of ancient Romans turned up a bunch of forgotten articles). Stan 06:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work you are doing. Keep up the good work :) 207.44.154.35 06:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have ended the redirect of Western culture to Western world and have been giving substance to Western culture. I was thinking of melding the section "Western thought" from Western World into Western culture. Please notify me. Thanks.WHEELER 00:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for backing me up on Pelasgians. You'd think "Dr" Gamaskhurdia was a dear old professor somewhere eh. What's Step 2 in that reasoning process: that non-Pelasgian "others" have "less" right to participate in modern Georgia? Would that be, um, like Jews and Muslims I wonder? Wetman 08:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

list of Greeks[edit]

A great list! I started comparing against OCD, added more people up to the end of "An". Interesting how many of the articles exist already, also interesting that OCD is missing many rulers. It occurs to me that a separate list for names from mythology, eponyms, etc, would be handy. Also, there are a handful of Greek speakers/writers of late antiquity that would be homeless otherwise, what think you of stretching scope to 500-600 AD? Stan 05:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One more thing I forgot to mention; lately I've been leaning towards de-linking terms in the text annotating an article's entry, on the theory that the article will connect to everything, and it keeps the list from pointlessly appearing in the "links here" of every general article. Not critical either way, but something to consider. Stan 05:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And something else - how did you make the dashes? I just did hyphens, at some point it should get a mass query-replace to consistentify. Stan 05:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the interest of forestalling messy edit conflicts, do you want to coordinate on list addition somehow? Alternate days, inuse notes, ?? Stan 17:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes[edit]

Adam - Could you kill Lemuridae and MediaWiki:Greeting please? - UtherSRG 06:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: Nicolaus Copernicus: Congratulations. I thought I was going to be first to revert, but you're too quick on the draw. Dandrake 23:53, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

His nationality is as bad an issue as what to call the Oder, etc. Since Copernicus is actually pretty important, I've appointed myself guardian of real information about him. Always happy to be beaten to the punch, though, having promised all comers that they'd be reverted ASAP if they muck about. Dandrake 00:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

invitation[edit]

Please see Talk:American twenty dollar bill. You get this invitation because your name appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Feel free to ignore if you are disinterested. - Optim 05:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

John Mclane[edit]

Looks like my addition of the VfD header to the John McLane article occurred just as you deleted it, and re-created it. RickK 05:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bee[edit]

You might also want to look at this: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ag151/bee_tidbits.html - It has a list of references from Ancient Greece, too. Adam Bishop 22:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! :) O p t i m^·.· 22:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chariton[edit]

"(doesn't anyone ever check for a pulse?)", ah nostalgia - one of my first WP edits, seemed more clever at the time... Stan 03:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

White Flight[edit]

On the talk page for white flight, an anon asked if white flight occurred in Canadian cities, as well as US, saying he wanted to broaden the article to be less America-centric. I thought you might be able to help. Yours, Meelar 01:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Necrogeologist[edit]

You asked the point of 'unpopulated professions', then signed your comment Hypnoarchaeastrographologer. Looks like you made my point for me. It's called 'having fun', a concept that seems to be increasingly divorced from being a Wikipedian the longer I spend with Wiki. That's very unfortunate; since we do this only for the personal satisfaction it brings, we should not lose the ability to laugh in the process. I knew this article would end up on VfD, and would get there in roughly the time it did. I was hoping it would provoke a chuckle or two before the delete vote was cast. It seems, however, that those who deem things 'patent nonsense' do so with pursed lips and furrowed brow. I have no wish to perpetrate hoaxes; if an article is there only to amuse, then it should clearly be identifiable as such. However, it should not be the trigger for invective either. Should I be allowed to post such material? I think so. I've contributed thousands upon thousands of words of text on a broad variety of topics since I first discovered Wiki, I've edited a large number of existing articles, and I hope to keep doing so (though I'm feeling a little discouraged today). Denni 20:55, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

More is coming...[edit]

I knew you would like it and i was just about to come here and announce it. I will do the others in the next few days. I am currently bored to death. By the way, what the hell is a necrogeologist?? As a living geologist i would like to know... Cheers, Muriel 00:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Woah - that was fast on the draw! Thanks! Mark Richards 23:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Timeline of Ontario history[edit]

Hi, Adam. In case you're interested, I have started a Timeline of Ontario history. I thought from Talk:Timeline of Quebec history that you might be. Trontonian 14:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. As a non-historian, though, I expect the quality to slip at some point. Of course, the quality of my articles about topics I knwo nothing about has been demonstrably higher than the quality of my articles about topics I think I know about. Trontonian 23:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eric Bruno Borgman[edit]

Hi. I undeleted Eric Bruno Borgman. It might be vanity, but he DOES have a rather extensive list at imdb. RickK | Talk 03:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk[edit]

Are you going to unblock Gdansk? There was clearly no vandalism that would have justified you blocking him in the first place, but you didn't even unblock him after 24 hours. --Wik 03:22, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I hardly think "being annoying" is sufficient justification for a user to be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. Also, I wish you had mentioned the block on the mailing list; I don't have Wikipedia:block log on my watchlist, and neither do lots of others. --Uncle Ed 13:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you block my account (without discussing it or giving any reason)? Why did you revert my edits (withot discussion) concerning the alternative languages names of the various cities? In my opinion we should accept German names for Polish cities AND Polish names for Polish cities. Preference of one language violates Neutral Point of View Policy Mestwin of Gdansk 23:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that I have just made a formal complaint about your action at this page Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Admin_powers_abuse_by_Adam_Bishop , so perhaps you are willing to make a comment there. Mestwin of Gdansk 00:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyway your opinions and controbutions are welcome here, (please feel invited):

Mestwin of Gdansk 00:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just received apologies[edit]

Hey Gdansk, I shouldn't have blocked you, so I apologize, but you were trolling and vandalizing and it was very frustrating. Polish cities should have Polish names, but Kiel, Munich, and others aren't Polish. You even said to me that you were changing those articles out of some kind of revenge. Adam Bishop 00:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apologies half accepted, as I do not feel guilty, and you continue to claim that I was. That fulfills 0.5 out of my 3 demands above. -- Mestwin of Gdansk 00:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Classics[edit]

Adam, have a look at the mess that has developed at Greek Art. This is too important a topic to be left like this. Perhaps we should form a Wikipedia Classicists Group to write a decent article. See my recent contribution Kouros. Adam 03:29, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Offensive user name[edit]

Your user name is offensive: It has the word Bishop in it. Please change it or leave Wikipedia, otherwise I will have to EXCOMMUNICATE you. muahahaha!!! Troll3 02:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, welcome to the offensive usernames havers club! It's gonna be the funnest club ever! I started it and Hephaestos gonna's be in and we're gonna have a clubhouse with a big sign out front: NO TROLZ ALLOWED!!1! jengod 02:12, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Huzzah! Adam Bishop 02:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Adam, for organism redirects, please make the article have all caps (such as Great White Shark), with redirects to that article, instead of the otherway around (such as your redirect of Boll Weevil to Boll weevil). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive4#Common name about this. Thanks! - UtherSRG 20:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther, I'm just making redirects from the Encyclopedia topics page, to pages that already exist...the article is at Boll weevil, so I made a redirect there. Adam Bishop 20:29, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I understand. *grins* In that case, the list page should be editted to reflect the current usage. - UtherSRG 20:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greeks[edit]

History of Byzantine Greece: I quite agree. See my comment at the Talk page. I await your comment on Greek art. Adam 02:44, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're too kind. Actually it needs more work and good photos in the pottery section (my photographic skills aren't up to pots in glass cases, as you can see). It also needs sections on metalwork and gem design, neither of which I know much about. All the Greek history articles need more work, by the way. Also, do you agree with me that Hellenic Greece is a bad and redundant article and ought to be abolished? Adam 03:00, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re History of Byzantine Greece. Good stuff. History of Greece is coming along nicely now. Adam 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I hate to say this but...[edit]

Why do you hate hatred? ;-) --Uncle Ed 22:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My deletion of the Lightning page was accidental, public apology made on its discussion page. No idea how it happend. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --/Mat 19:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why are you so against the Gay Nigger Association of America? Please revert it to my old edit. Goat-see 20:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Roman empire[edit]

Nice job on Res Gestae Divi Augusti. I just finished reading First Man in Rome and I am moving on to the Commentaries by Julius Caesar. - Tεx τ urε 17:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, Someone else has managed a null entry on Lightning (like I apparently did). Also: my null entry has been removed from the Lightning history, and your query to me on my talk page has also been removed (including from the history of the page). Any idea what is going on? Thanks --/Mat 15:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, First of all that was a QUICK responce. Second of all what do we do in such a situation like this? Aalahazrat p.s - I still know it is a stupid issue :)

Adam, I think the History of Greece series is now in reasonable shape, don't you? There is, however, as I think you suggested earlier, a 400-year gap between the Roman annexation and the division of the Empire. I don't know much about what, if anything, happened in Greece in this period. I doubt it is worth a separate article, but perhaps you could add some material to either the Hellenistic or the Byzantine article?

Also, do you agree with me that Roman Colosseum should be moved to Colosseum? If so, is this within your powers? If it is not, could you suggest it to someone who has such powers? Adam 11:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello 2u2. I dont know anything about the Sympatico forums, sorry. :) -Meerkat 17:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Governors-General[edit]

Oh, I figured it was something like that. But we should work to improve them by increasing the coverage of the other stuff...perhaps I'll do some research at some point, but i don't really have time right now. john 18:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great job![edit]

Nice new article! --mav

Edict on Maximum Prices[edit]

Good article. I'm glad someone else has written an article concerning Roman coins besides myself. I have a couple of questions about some of the details. "...replacing the gold aureus with the solidus", this coin is different from the coin introduced by Constantine (I've added some clarification to the article). "...a copper denarius worth two silver denarii, and a bronze nummus worth five denarii", how could a copper coin be worth two silver coins? I'm not sure of the specific coins which are being referred to, maybe the large silvered follis and its fractions? I don't have many good sources at hand (or time) at the moment. Maybe you could check your sources when you get a chance. Cheers, Maximus Rex 22:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is all really confusing. Take the argenteus for example. In numismatics it refers to a specific denomination, however in ancient literature it is simply short for "argenteus nummus" (silver coin), which could refer to any silver coin. In the ever helpful Historia Augusta it is even used to refer to several different fictious coins. I may look into the specifics of the edict, eventually, if no one else does. Maximus Rex 23:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad[edit]

Can I ask why you reverted the anon on Muhammad? I thought his edits were very good (a number of typos in en & ar). If it was, as I suspect, just the Makkah/Mecca issue, then I think you're doing his other changes a disserve. If "Makkah" was the problem, let me know and as a compromise I'll revert to his version and change them all to "Mecca". –Hajor 19:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I thought the article was in UK spelling but, on closer inspection, it's actually a Right Mess. I'll ignore the organizing/organising stuff, but I do plan to go back and recoup some of his other typo fixes (not least M's name ending -ad). Not sure about the Arabic transliterations. Cheers, –Hajor

Wow! Just taken a glimpse at Osama bin Laden. I now wish I'd looked more closely at all his edits instead of just Muhammad. –Hajor 19:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moving[edit]

Just to save time and confusion in the future, I've been trying to move television station articles for independent stations from their brand name to their callsign. Unbeknownst to me until just now, I've been doing it the wrong way, and as I'm not an admin, I can't move them properly myself. If it's not too much trouble, could I submit a list of brand name pages along with their callsign where they should be that you could move? There are about 7 others. - Rdash (t) 22:04, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

NTV (Newfoundland) needs to be moved to CJON. I'll take care of the others. Thanks! - Rdash (t) 22:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Byzantine Art[edit]

Adam, I have done a general overview, and was intending to do more later, but if you want to do the more detailed sections on painting, sculpture, mosaics, etc, feel free. It can be a "two Adams" (diadamic?) article. I saw the Byzantine architecture article but I didn't think much of it. I thought I would transfer the useful bits and then redirect it, as I did with the Ancient Greek articles. Khaire, Adam 05:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Guest[edit]

Its fine to move the page to Christopher Guest or Christopher Haden-Guest, whichever is appropriate. -- Emsworth 11:46, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Phantom Power[edit]

I've turned Phantom Power (album) into a disambiguation page, because there are two albums of that name. The Tragically Hip album is now at Phantom Power (The Tragically Hip Album). I'm wanted to let you know, because I'm updating all the old links but I don't want to touch your articles page without your permission. --Caliper 19:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page[edit]

Hi, read your comments re. CNR, no prob - just have lots of books/sources on the topic, among others in transportation and geography in general. Hope others can fill in the blanks and/or edit what I've contributed to ensure it's all correct... I was wondering if you can give me a hand and move the Louisburg, Nova Scotia page to its proper spelling Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. The latter had a redirect to Fortress Louisbourg which I removed, but I was unable to move the former since the proposed name was already linked. Confused now? ha... Anyway, Louisburg is a historical name for the community and no longer in use[1][2]. Louisbourg takes its name from the Fortress and harbour of the same name.[3] Cheers. Plasma east 12:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine family tree[edit]

Hello Adam! Hope everything is fine with you. I am reading Baudolino and found myself in the mood for making the Byzantine Emperors family tree. Since i know you are a fan of the subject, i dont want to jump in front of you and spoil your fun. Do you have plans to do it yourself, or can i have a go? Cheers, MvHG 08:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a message so you can see where the "you have new messages" message appears. :) Angela . 20:03, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Fictional music groups"[edit]

Adam, I wanted to let you know that I moved Fictional music groups to List of fictional music groups, per its discussion page (although it took me two months instead of a week!). I didn't update your User:Adam Bishop/articles link because I don't like changing anything on a User page (except to post to their Talk pages). -- Jeff Q 17:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Military Terms[edit]

List of Roman Military Terms seems to come from [4] which says "Copyright JimmyWeb 1999". I've only attempted to list something on Wikipedia:Copyright problems once before (which didn't go to well) so I thought I would bring it to your attention first to see what you think. Geoff/Gsl 02:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that. I feel sorry for Krik, having gone to all that trouble to wikify the list. Geoff/Gsl

Byzantine family tree, part 2[edit]

Dear Adam: you are right, they are mind breaking. Maybe i'll do them some other time... Cheers, Muriel G 14:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Byzantine emperor organization[edit]

Hi Adam, in the List of Byzantine Emperors talk page, you say this:

"I didn't really think of the consequences of this at the time, but when I divided the list into dynasties, I just made up "proto-Comnenid." They don't really belong to any dynasty, but there were Comnenids in it and they sort of ruled in a similar way to the actual Comnenids. But now that has been copied into other languages, and it is used on other websites that use Wikipedia information...so should we just leave it, or change it because it is unlikely to appear that way in a true scholarly publication."

I replied there but I'm reposting here becuase you wrote that a while ago and I'm not sure if you're still watching. What do you think of taking emperors who fall under the dynastic headings but who don't have even a tenuous relationship to them (many emperors were in-laws of their predecessors rather than blood relations) and making them indented, italicized, or otherwise marked out? Or, stretching the idea somewhat, since Byzantine emperors tended to succeed and overthow each other in dramatic and enertaining ways, what about adding a one-sentence explanation after each emperor explaining how he was (or was not) related to the previous emperor (i.e., "Son of Constantine IV", "Deposed Justinian II")? It's a project I'd be willing to undertake but since you have contributed a lot to this page I wondered if you thought it would make things too cluttered. --Jfruh, 03:45 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

Dear Adam, i have been discussing the conventions concerning French titles (Duc d'Orléans vs Duke of Orléans) with John Kenney in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) (French Peers). We more or less agreed in a mixed rule. Can we have your opinion? Cheers, Muriel G 17:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

help move Apostle Peter back to Saint Peter?[edit]

Hello! In Christianity it is common to refer to some people as "Saint...". It is not just Catholic, and it is found even in the New Testament (e.g. Philippians 4:21). Someone has moved Saint Peter to Apostle Peter, and I would like to see the original more standard name restored. Both names have the potential to be POV; some people would see Peter not even as an apostle but as a public nuisance or a propagandist. Alas, someone had to fix the redirect, so now "Saint Peter" has a history of its own. Can you intervene? Thanks for your help. I guess I should acknowledge that the user User:Rantaro (who may be User:K.M.) and I are at odds in the entry for Christian cross, but I think I can safely say that in this matter I am acting out of a concern for what is actually true. Even Protestants often call him Saint Peter.... Trc | [msg] 06:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm partially here - he picked on me as I reverted him and left him a message on his talk page. Secretlondon 03:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Crusader Castles[edit]

Glad you found Hugh Kennedy useful. I tried to help by going through your list and noting those castles which weren't crusader....although this is from memory only. As to having a single article...good idea, as some are little more than single towers. Some, however, merit their own article. There are a lot of obscure castles in the Nusariyah Mountains in Syria and Ross Burns: Monuments of Syria is a good place to start on these. John Ball

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your comments, and your indulgence.

I do understand the standpoint of yourself and RickK, this being the English Wikipedia.

The precedent exists throughout the Wikipedia when dealing with foreign articles that the local names, translations etc are used, so it is not something I am imposing as my will.

The crusader states are an interesting case in this respect because though based in the greco-turkish area, they were latin states with western European rulers (in the case of Achaea, French)

There is inconsistency in the way English-speakers by nature use foreign names, and the case in the list of Achaea is a case in point, where William is used in preference to 'Guillaume', but 'Jacques' is used in preference to 'James'.

I know it looks like duplication, but I would hope that the additions can be seen to go beyond mere repetition in at least part of the list, if only slightly.

Whether this stands up to scrutiny however is for the reader and those who wish to amend the text to decide.

Thanks again --JohnArmagh 04:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)