Talk:Lindisfarne/Archive 1

Vikings

What about the vikings????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.134.32.208 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm - what about them????? What what about them????? (Hmmm, 5 ?s, sounds serious ...) It has, I think, said this for some time: ... when Viking raids in 793 sacked the monastery, decimated the community, and forced the monks to flee - is that not enough, or is there something wrong with it, or what? Do tell! All enlightenment gratefully received :) Nevilley 11:22 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Decimated

I wonder what is meant in the article where it says the Vikings decimated the community? It's such a sloppy and misused word that I can't help wondering if it would be better to replace it with something more meaningful. Even if the original author meant they killed 1 in 10, many people are unlikely to understand this and if, as I suspect, they meant that many more than this were killed, then some other word is correct. So either way I think, with the greatest respect to the origianl author, that it's a word that can't be meaningfully used here. What do we know of what the deaths actually were, I wonder? Nevilley 08:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very little, unfortunately. The major contemporary accounts are found in Alcuin's letters, which are not eyewitness accounts and make no mention of numbers of dead. I would also dispute the notion that the raid caused widespread consternation in Europe: there is little certain evidence that this was so, and indeed few contemporary references to the event. This seems to be a common opinion of modern historians, but is based on assumption as far as I have been able to discover. --Cursitor 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheds

The boats used to construct the sheds are not cobles. The sheds are constructed from larger fishing boats. The coble is a beach boat and would make a poor shed. You need a boat with a substantial draft so the interior of the sheds is reasonable large. Also cobles are of light weight clinker construction, not very good for building a strong shed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Yes, that's right. The boats aren't called cobles, I believe the correct term for them is keel boats. 86.145.146.155 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present day advert?

"The monks have long vanished, but their spirit lingers in this aphrodisiac whose exact recipe remains a secret of the family still producing it. Lindisfarne mead is produced at St Aidan's Winery, and sold throughout the UK and elsewhere."

This reads a little like an advert WP:ADVERT, or something culled from promotional material. As for aphrodisiac qualities, humm.. well drink enough of it and I suspect all inhibitions fall away. EasyTarget 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, or just very, very weird?

"One of the most celebrated gardeners of modern times, Gertrude Jekyll (1843-1932) visited in 1906, accompanied by a raven and a bag of bull’s eyes."

If this is true, I'm not sure "celebrated" is the best word to describe Ms. Jekyll. EmersonLowry (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear: is there a citation for that? And if so, Can we add some sort of context so Ms. Jekyll sounds less creepy and insane? EmersonLowry (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Following WP:BB principles, I've simply removed it. I've also added a citation for the remaining part that looks reasonable. The "raven and bull's eyes" editors are hence similarly invited to cite... Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, Gertrude Jekyll was a most inflential figure in gardening history. She was the friend of the great architect Sir Edwin Lutyens. I quote from a Telegraph article on Google:

' First stop was Lindisfarne Castle, with its tiny walled garden by Gertrude Jekyll, the author of a dozen of my most-thumbed books. The castle was domesticated for Edward Hudson, founder of Country Life magazine, by the architect Edwin Lutyens, and in 1908, Miss Jekyll arrived to assess the garden.

According to Sally Festing's excellent biography of Jekyll, she and Lutyens travelled together by train, Jekyll sucking peppermint bull's-eyes and Lutyens carrying an injured raven in a Gladstone bag.'

There are photographs of Jekyll's charming garden restored by the National Trust some years ago.

www.greenglassphotos.co.

and others

Bandalore (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the curius, Bullseyes are a type of sweet. Op47 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret of Anjou

Margaret of Anjou's Lancastrian army in the Wars of the Roses were buggered here am I right? Considering this island isn't much I think the ending of a battle here is significant enough for mention.

UFOash (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Minor edit:added margaret of anjou link[reply]

Lindisfarena?

According to sources in the late 8th century, Peterborough Chronicle & Parker Chronicle for AD793, "Lindisfarena" was the Old English name of Lindisfarne.Midgardr (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

Can anyone provide a good picture of the causeway? One which includes the rescue shelter would be even better. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Luis Borges

There should be a reference to argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges in the "In modern culture" section since his gravestone depicts the same scene of warriors as it appears in the Lindisfarne Stone. This site might be useful: http://shrineodreams.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-tombstone-of-jorge-luis-borges/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.153.27 (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above entry moved from the talk page top to its chronological positioin. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock flag

The {{Peacock|date=December 2010}} flags refers to a substantially different article. More inline references are needed, but I propose that peacock can be removed. Can any discussion be complete by next Sunday please, and if consensus supports it I will remove the tag. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kirbstone

I visited Lindisfarne about fifteen years ago, and when the weather turned foul, found some fascinating reading in a local museum. If my memory serves me correctly, the King of England at some point closed down the monastery following scandalous behavior by the monks. According to what I read, in the whole monastery, the Kings men could not find a bible. The other item I remember clearly, which was a picture from an illustrated London magazine of monks and leading citizens wading in the surf pillaging the wreckage of a ship lured onto the rocks by misplacing lights. The entry here seems a little devoid of human color. 15 March 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbstone (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viking raids date

The section from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle says "vi. Idus Ianuarii" (trans. "6th ides of January") which doesn't seem right since the text below addressing the date being wrong says id, not idus? The translation having idus as ides is more confusing since ides is the middle day and not the sixth, right? What's up with this? 138.192.88.172 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of points here. First consider the month. Swanton believes that "vi id Ianr, presumably [is] an error for vi id Iun" and points out the this would agree with both the Annals of Lindisfarne and with the better sailing weather. Anyone who has lived on the north east coast of England will tell you that the prospect of putting to sea in an open boat for a one or two day's sail in January is insane! Sea temperature is often below zero, and the risk of being frozen to any metal object is very real, ask a fisherman. Now to consider the day of the month. Have a look at Roman calendar and you will see that the custom is to record the number of days BEFORE the given date, not after. Just to confuse further, the day concerned is included in the count, so the day before the ides of June is ii id Iun. Therefore vi id Iun is 6 days (inclusive) before the Ides of June (13 June), which is the 8th June. Very confusing to modern readers I know, but actually quite logical in its own way. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tide table link location

@Jgrantduff: Is there a good reason to move the cited tide tables out of the bibliography and into "Lindisfarne in culture > In other uses" ? Perhaps the "work = Northumberland Life" line in the citation is confusing, however the site is not a "country life" type magazine but an information service provided by the council. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another - @Jgrantduff:, you seem to have moved the citation for Cold Feet, a TV show, into the film section, where it isn't relevant. I can't see why this would work. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No response. I've taken it back to the last uncontested version. I'm very sorry if this involves any baby/bathwater transactions but it's difficult to sort out the threads or what was good and what was less so. We could always have another try if problems like those mentioned above can be avoided? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture section:

Anything unsourced can be removed without question. It's the burden of people adding information to prove it's worthy of addition. The first hurdle is a reliable third party source. Are there third party sources for this information? If not, then this material should be removed.

Secondly, most of this information is pure WP:TRIVIA. It is trivial references to the island. Do readers really care if the Island was referenced in an obscure sci-fi series? This is information only notable to a very niche fanbase. Films shot on the island, actually involve the island in some way, not just a mere passing reference. That is notable enough to keep. Wikipedia is NOT about collecting random facts, but is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In its current form it is appalling. It should be cut back hard, or mostly exported to its own separate article for people who like this stuff, or both. It's mostly a cruft repository at the moment. DBaK (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9 and DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I have removed the entire section. By my count, only one entry was cited to a reliable secondary source ("The sack of Lindisfarne monastery by a fleet of opportunistic Vikings is a pivotal event in Charles Barnitz's historical fantasy/adventure The Deepest Sea (1995)."). I chose to remove that one as well as it doesn't sound like very significant. Yes, perhaps the mention is pivotal for the novel (although it's only mentioned once and in passing in the review), but certainly not pivotal to the island, which this article is about. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lindisfarne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]