This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
Anglicanism and the
Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
(moved from
Usertalk:Neddyseagoon)
Can you please not remove text from the
Jarrow page? I've discussed this on 22nd August on its
talk page; as there's no consensus on removing text which pertains to Jarrow's history, I propose that the page should remain intact. Thanks,
Thanks for your latest edit to Jarrow, I think that the new subdivision of its history is an improvement. Your new
Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory page is looking good, too. Cheers,
Thanks for your additions to
Bede and your new
Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory page. I am concerned, however, that an article as long as Monkswearmouth-Jarrow cites no sources. It's good to put the citations in early, while you still have the sources at your fingertips; I usually put in <ref> sources </ref> as I write each paragraph. Recreating them can be such a pain.
BTW, I spent the year 2002-03 at Leicester in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History. --
SteveMcCluskey 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, it has been tricky as this page has mainly been a collection of repeats on the separate pages for
Bede's World,
Jarrow Priory,
Jarrow etc, plus some knowledge from a recent visit, plus the guidebook bought there. I'm just trying to chase down the precise Bede references, and any help would be much appreciated! :-)
[[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)reply
It's relevant for Utah to have such a precious copy, but it's not relevant for the current state of the Abbey that part of it is copied somewhere else. It would have been different if the copy was in Jarrow and the original moved to Utah, but AFAIK this isn't the case.
Cuoregr (
talk) 09:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems to me too worth mentioning. It might need sourcing, but certainly an interesting and noteworthy fact, especially to readers in the US.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It had links to other articles, but no references. It seems not to be mentioned in current sources, so could do with its own.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
??? Why are you suggesting that I have removed this again since this discussion began? Together with the "makes no sense" bit x2, you are being very disrespectful for no good reason. Please stop that. Also: I can see how you're very proud of the copy in Utah, but you don't have sources saying it's the only copy (as you concede yourself). Moreover, again: it has NO place in the section about the abbey's current state - at least that is how I understand the heading Today in the Abbey's article (feel free to convince me that it means something else?). If you really want to include the Utah window on this page (but without the "only copy" claim if you cannot prove it), I would suggest the 'See also' part?
Cuoregr (
talk) 12:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
'Ownership tendencies'? I have made 1 (ONE) change to this article, and I believe I have been clear as to why I made it. Again, your addition is absolutely welcome in the "See also"-section, like I said in my last reply. Some 'stubborn refusal' that is! Anyway, I'm happy that, despite the childish replies, you agreed on the proposed solution. Thank you for that, and let's continue together to make Wikipedia better.
Cuoregr (
talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Create redirects instead for now.
– robertsky (
talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Monkwearmouth has more hits on Google Scholar and Google Books, and it is used by The Blackwell-Wiley Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England and Higham and Ryan's The Anglo-Saxon World. Most other academic sources do seem to use Wearmouth, but I do not think there is enough of a consensus to change our usage. Redirects from the proposed names would be satisfactory.
Dudley Miles (
talk) 09:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems like neither is 'wrong' as such: Rosemary Cramp used both
Monkwearmouth and
Wearmouth. Historic England use
Monkwearmouth in the National Heritage List for England, while English Heritage use
Wearmouth (in the context of writing about
St Paul's Church, Jarrow). I don't think one is clearly preferred over the other so I'd probably err on the side of leaving the article where it is to minimise disruption. As I was writing this, I flip-flopped between opposing and supporting, not especially strongly in either direction. I appreciate this comment may not be the most helpful!
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
Anglicanism and the
Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
(moved from
Usertalk:Neddyseagoon)
Can you please not remove text from the
Jarrow page? I've discussed this on 22nd August on its
talk page; as there's no consensus on removing text which pertains to Jarrow's history, I propose that the page should remain intact. Thanks,
Thanks for your latest edit to Jarrow, I think that the new subdivision of its history is an improvement. Your new
Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory page is looking good, too. Cheers,
Thanks for your additions to
Bede and your new
Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory page. I am concerned, however, that an article as long as Monkswearmouth-Jarrow cites no sources. It's good to put the citations in early, while you still have the sources at your fingertips; I usually put in <ref> sources </ref> as I write each paragraph. Recreating them can be such a pain.
BTW, I spent the year 2002-03 at Leicester in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History. --
SteveMcCluskey 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, it has been tricky as this page has mainly been a collection of repeats on the separate pages for
Bede's World,
Jarrow Priory,
Jarrow etc, plus some knowledge from a recent visit, plus the guidebook bought there. I'm just trying to chase down the precise Bede references, and any help would be much appreciated! :-)
[[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)reply
It's relevant for Utah to have such a precious copy, but it's not relevant for the current state of the Abbey that part of it is copied somewhere else. It would have been different if the copy was in Jarrow and the original moved to Utah, but AFAIK this isn't the case.
Cuoregr (
talk) 09:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems to me too worth mentioning. It might need sourcing, but certainly an interesting and noteworthy fact, especially to readers in the US.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It had links to other articles, but no references. It seems not to be mentioned in current sources, so could do with its own.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
??? Why are you suggesting that I have removed this again since this discussion began? Together with the "makes no sense" bit x2, you are being very disrespectful for no good reason. Please stop that. Also: I can see how you're very proud of the copy in Utah, but you don't have sources saying it's the only copy (as you concede yourself). Moreover, again: it has NO place in the section about the abbey's current state - at least that is how I understand the heading Today in the Abbey's article (feel free to convince me that it means something else?). If you really want to include the Utah window on this page (but without the "only copy" claim if you cannot prove it), I would suggest the 'See also' part?
Cuoregr (
talk) 12:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
'Ownership tendencies'? I have made 1 (ONE) change to this article, and I believe I have been clear as to why I made it. Again, your addition is absolutely welcome in the "See also"-section, like I said in my last reply. Some 'stubborn refusal' that is! Anyway, I'm happy that, despite the childish replies, you agreed on the proposed solution. Thank you for that, and let's continue together to make Wikipedia better.
Cuoregr (
talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Create redirects instead for now.
– robertsky (
talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Monkwearmouth has more hits on Google Scholar and Google Books, and it is used by The Blackwell-Wiley Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England and Higham and Ryan's The Anglo-Saxon World. Most other academic sources do seem to use Wearmouth, but I do not think there is enough of a consensus to change our usage. Redirects from the proposed names would be satisfactory.
Dudley Miles (
talk) 09:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems like neither is 'wrong' as such: Rosemary Cramp used both
Monkwearmouth and
Wearmouth. Historic England use
Monkwearmouth in the National Heritage List for England, while English Heritage use
Wearmouth (in the context of writing about
St Paul's Church, Jarrow). I don't think one is clearly preferred over the other so I'd probably err on the side of leaving the article where it is to minimise disruption. As I was writing this, I flip-flopped between opposing and supporting, not especially strongly in either direction. I appreciate this comment may not be the most helpful!
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.