Jump to content

Talk:Lindisfarne Gospels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hiberno-Saxon art

[edit]

Hiberno-Saxon art will sooner than later, i hope, have its own article-- currently it redirects to celtic art which has some information for the moment. Stbalbach 05:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the claim that the gloss between the lines was the first English translation of the Gospels strictly true, as the Venerable Bede was working on translating the Gospel of John at his death? Ascentury (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the C10 seems extremely late - unfortunately Anglo-Saxon literature is little help. I thought these were translated by Alfred's time at least. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the claim to "oldest extant gospels" -- that should clear up the trouble with Bede, whose version of John, if it existed, is lost.TomODonnell (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham

[edit]

Has anybody heard if the plans to have the original copy transfered to Durham Cathedral have come to anything? -- Secisek (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath! Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think not. I was just curious. -- Secisek (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

[edit]

These reverts were unproductive. "Controversy" sections are always indicative of poor layout, the commons template was put back in the wrong section and various other minor improvements were thoughtlessly undone as well. This should be reverted, minus the one substantial concern raised in the first summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than drive-by tagging, what would you suggest doing with the controversy section? Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the controversy relates entirely to the location, it could easily be reworked into a general discussion of the location: retitling and adding a couple of new sentence would probably do it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable 'links' tag

[edit]

Don't see any real reason for the 'links' tag and none is given? Delete? 75.201.182.149 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it but I can see that the second half of the article could do with some more links and the reference style doesn't match the rest of the article, so I've replaced the whole-article tag with a section one with reasons.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole later part of the article was added by a student a few months ago (maybe replacing other stuff) & needs every possible type of clean-up. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lindisfarne Gospels. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lindisfarne Gospels. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lindisfarne Gospels. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

"Through the work of the artist two new tools were made, the lightbox and the lead pencil."

No source given for that claim. Making a useful lightbox for drawing would be almost impossible in a day before electric lighting and plate glass. Besides, the artist wouldn't have needed a lightbox. There are other, older methods of tracing.2A02:AA1:1004:5772:6855:49A6:BFA1:6E61 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, removed. I don't know what Backhouse says, but I doubt it is exactly that. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Exhibition in 2022

[edit]

The Lindisfarne Gospels are currently on exhibition in Newcastle (until 2 Dec 2022). This should be added to the page, but as I'm not a registered editor nor have any editing experience other than fixing the occasional typo I do not feel competent to do it. Source: https://theconversation.com/the-lindisfarne-gospels-the-story-of-how-a-medieval-masterpiece-was-made-191712 and https://laingartgallery.org.uk/whats-on/lindisfarne-gospels ~~dww 87.115.72.55 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. The tense needs changing after 4 Dec. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindisfarne_Gospels&oldid=1210700864"