User talk:Silverwhistle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Montferrat 3 Hulloo! 4 Crusade factions 5 William Longsword 6 Baldwin IV 7 Sibylla and Agnes 8 Joscius 9 Henry (VII) 10 Tidying up 11 Re: Link to user page 12 How did you do that note? 13 de Amendolea 14 Welcome! 15 Thanks 16 Cut-and-paste moves 17 Fine, you win

[edit]

Welcome

∞Who?¿? 10:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montferrat

Hi Silverwhistle, you are probably more knowledgeable about this subject than I am, so hopefully you can help out: someone recently created Count of Montferrat, which is actually just the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, although we already have info about that at the Montferrat article, including the list of marquises. Should we just get rid of the new Count of Monferrat article and redirect it to Montferrat, or should we create a new Marquis of Montferrat article (since that was their title, not Count) and move all the medieval info and the list from the Montferrat article? Or some other suggestion? Adam Bishop 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! Adam Bishop 21:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hulloo!

Obnoxiously heritage-obsessed American wannabe historian reporting! --Benn M. 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've never used the Talk pages before! This looks fun!

Silverwhistle 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade factions

Hi Silverwhistle, yes, I've noticed that as well - I learned about court/noble factions and this is always repeated in the older scholarship, but newer research like Hamilton talks about it much differently. I just came back from a crusade conference and it really shattered everything I thought I knew, including these factions. I'm not sure what to do with all these Wikipedia articles now, except perhaps start over from scratch... Adam Bishop 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the court/noble division of the factions is still prominent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem article (since I, unfortunately, put it there). If you have time, could you fix it there too? I haven't had time to work on that lately, and you probably have a better understanding of the newer research than I do. Adam Bishop 07:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I could help out with these articles more, but I suppose I should finish classes first (and I can't connect to Wikipedia at home at the moment anyway). For images, click "upload file" in the toolbox on the left, and follow the steps from there. Adam Bishop 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, now that I have been thinking about how much I used to think I knew and how little I actually do know, I was reminded of something that always seemed incredible - Sibylla's re-marriage to Guy. Does anyone question the accuracy of that episode? Raymond et al. would have had to have been pretty stupid not to see that coming, or so it seems to me (but of course, in hindsight...) Adam Bishop 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I remembered something else I haven't had a chance to look into yet...maybe you will know. We currently have a stubby article at Battle of Jacob's Ford, but what is the proper name of this battle? Is it Jacob's Ford, or the Ford of Jacob's Daughters? Is it the same as the Battle of Marj Ayun? (I can't remember what "marj" means but I think Ayun is Jonah, obviously not Jacob...) Are they just different engagements in the same campaign? Where was Baldwin of Ibelin captured? Adam Bishop 05:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Longsword

Interesting. I merely figured that, as a figure predominant in what is today Italy, he was preponderantly the interest of Italian historians whose work would have been one of the sources for many English works on him and his family. So what's the Latin? Do you know? Srnec 18:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baldwin IV

Hi. I think you think it was me who amended the article to add the bit about him being noseless, but it wasn't. I just made a very tiny spelling amendment. Interesting point, though. Deb 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sibylla and Agnes

Hello! I wished to say I really do like the additonal information on these pages! And the image of the marriage of Sibylla is fantastic! I have a simular image i wish to add too, but have not yet added it.

In regards to the edits, Benard Hamilton, in his artical on the Queens of Jerusalem, states Baldwin of Ibelin was in Byzantium. But maybe he was referring to Eroll's account. I will review that portion of the book again. But the other editing, I removed the section that said that it was way to fantastic to beleive Eurol's account. But down the paragraph there is a sentance that says Raymond was indeed attepmpting to wed Sibylla to Baldwin. So there 'may be' a kernal of truth to the 'fantastic tale'. We don't honestly know how Sibylla may have felt towards Guy. She might just have easily been his prisioner in 1184 as his accomplice. Clearly I kept the spirit of your additions.Drachenfyre 09:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• by the by, hehe, why are the de Montferret's your 'favorite mideival family'Drachenfyre 09:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joscius

Hey Silverwhistle, I just wrote Joscius, Archbishop of Tyre...I don't know if you have easier access to the Third Crusade sources than I do, but I'm sure there is more information in them if you feel like expanding it (my sources are currently limited to what I can find strewn about the floor of my room!). Adam Bishop 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry (VII)

Hey, that business of the leprosy is pretty cool. It certainly adds a new element to his story, particularly a motivation for his suicide. Choess 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. The natural contumacity of the Hohenstaufen may have been enough. What blows my mind is that, AIUI, there had been no suspicion whatsoever of leprosy until they examined his remains — it must have been a secret in his own time. The polemical value of the son of that unfaithful servant of Christ's Vicar, Frederick II, falling prey to the curse of Gehazi would have been immense. His symptoms, if any, before his revolt and captivity, must have been readily concealed — of course, as leader of a revolt, it wasn't in his interests to let it be known, either. Choess 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying up

Hi! I saw you copyedited Henry Vi, Holy Roman Emperor... of course it was written by somebody who, like me, is not of English mothertongue. Can I ask to do the same with Malatesta Baglioni and Roger of Lauria? Let me know. Attilios 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Link to user page

Linking to a user page from an article is a self-reference, which is something that should be avoided. Linking to an article about yourself would be okay, but keep in mind that writing an article about yourself (since one doesn't appear to exist currently) is strongly discouraged. Ardric47 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did you do that note?

(copied from User talk:Andrew Dalby) --

...on the page for Conrad of Montferrat? I wanted to expand it, referring to Choniates (better source on this than Roger), but can't see how to when I went into 'Edit'. Silverwhistle 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the only way I know how to do them. The text of the note appears embedded in the relevant paragraph, surrounded by ref ... /ref. At the foot of the article you type the single full word, references / (each of these surrounded by angle brackets). Open an edit page for the whole article and you'll see. Does that answer the question?

True, Nicetas has good information including the description of Conrad already quoted in the text. He should be added to the note, I agree. But Roger seems well informed on the Montferrats and includes the detail that Christian was left in Boniface's care. He also lists the three places where Christian was successively held, but since I can't interpret these names I did not include them. Can you? 1. In castello quod vocatur Sanctus Flavianus; 2. in roca Venais; 3. apud Eghependant (spellings as in the very old edition I have). All the best Andrew Dalby 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de Amendolea

I don't object to the emendation — Amendolea seems to be the form preferred for the place at present — but William and his family seemed rather flexible about its spelling. Check the index of Röhricht: William and some of his relatives (one Perrotinus sticks in my head) appear under various appellations, and I think "Mandelee" or something like that is one of them. Choess 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the link at the foot of Philip of Cognac, which taught me that a lot of the Rolls Series is available at [1]. Andrew Dalby 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-and-paste moves

Hello! Please don't use cut-and-paste moves, like it looks like you did on Blondel, which I've attempted to sort out. When you change a page's name by cutting-and-pasting, it breaks the page's history, meaning other people who have contributed don't get proper attribution for their edits. In the future, please use the "Move" tab, or if there's a redirect in the way, ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves or just ask a nice administrator (like me). For more information see Help:Moving a page. I see you're interested in troubadours, so I thought I'd give a quick plug to check out Trobairitz, which I started. Cheers, Mak (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fine, you win

I'm sorry I acted so hostile toward you in the talk pages. I realised too late that you can delete edits faster than I can make them. But please look at my arguments once more. To me Richard's homosexuality isn't a liberal thing, or a 'new age' rendition of things - it's a probable fact.

Again, I apologise for the stuff I wrote. I'm just crazy like that. Augustulus 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)