Talk:Justus

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Justus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nice and short, just the way I like 'em. ;-)

• Can you clarify this for me: "He was regarded as a saint after his death ...". Seems a bit vague. Was he actually canonized, or was it just that some people thought of him as a saint?

• "In the 1090s, his remains were translated to a shrine ...". Could that be changed to something more obvious like "moved" without any loss of meaning?

• "When a pagan reaction against Christianity broke out after the death of Æthelberht ...". I'm not sure that "reactions" can break out. What form did this reaction take?

• I think I'd be happier if the lead began simply with "Justus" rather that "Saint Justus", as he wasn't a saint while he was Archbishop of Canterbury.

• "Justus became Archbishop of Canterbury in 624, receiving his pallium, the symbol of an archbishop's authority, from Pope Boniface V. He then consecrated Romanus as his successor at Rochester. Boniface also gave Justus a letter congratulating him on King "Aduluald"'s conversion (probably King Eadbald of Kent)."

• I find that section a little difficult to fully understand. The way it's written makes it seem like Justus consecrated Romanus in Rome, immediately after receiving his pallium from Boniface. Is that what happened? Just a comment as well; it seems strange that Boniface would give Justus a letter if the man was standing right in front of him waiting for his pallium. Why not just say "Well done on converting Aduluald mate, nice one"?

• "Justus consecrated Paulinus as the first bishop of York ...". Which is it? Bishop or Archbishop?

• The prose needs tightening in a few places. Do you know a good copyeditor who might be able to help?

That's it, nothing much to be concerned about there, so I'm putting this article on hold. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

city

"City" for Rochester in 604 is probably misleading. It's unlikely that the population reached 4 figures isn't it? Not that anyone knows. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting questions

• "If Justus arrived with the second group of missionaries, then he arrived with a gift of books and "all things which were needed for worship and the ministry of the Church."[11][12] A 15th-century Canterbury chronicler, Thomas of Elmham, claimed that there were a number of books brought to England by Mellitus still at Canterbury in his day ...". This doesn't really work, starting off with Justus and switching to Mellitus, for no obvious reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. The joys of copy-pasting content from other articles.. Fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can't make sense of this: "Boniface also gave Justus a letter congratulating him on the conversion of King "Aduluald" (probably King Eadbald of Kent), a letter which is included in Bede's Ecclesiastical History.[26] The historian D. P. Kirby argues that the reference to Eadbald makes it likely that it was Justus who converted the King, not Justus' predecessor at Canterbury, Laurence." It seems to be addressing a doubt that hasn't been expressed in this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Try the clarification I've just put in... see if that makes more sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be expanded a bit I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Will work on it soonish. (tonight probably not, likely tomorrow morning). Can you tell that to the guy on the Peer Review of Thomas of Bayeux please?? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review isn't something I get involved in. No disrespect intended, but I don't really see the point of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ref name duplicates

There were 2 named Mellitus so so one was flagged and bot renamed for now so the article writer can pick which of them to rename.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

The article provides a date of death between 627 and 631, while the pictured gravestone states 634. Is there a reason for this? Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who erected the gravestone nor when it was erected. For all I know, it was put up 100 years ago... (I did take the picture). For that matter, it's not certain it's even over his grave - more likely, it's over where the shrine once was in the abbey. It's certainly not a reliable source - so we stick with what reliable secondary sources state for the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bede says he died in 634 - or at least that is the date given in old editions by his editors [1], but I know nothing else about the matter. The plaque is certainly from the last 40 years at most, going by the typography and fresh condition. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) YOu're going to make me drag out the Wallace-Hadrill, aren't you? Does Bede say 634 or do the translators of Bede say 634, that's the question. Bede rarely gives solid dates - usually dating things by reference to other events. Anyway, we generally don't interpret primary sources here - we use secondary sources. Let me dig. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I only have the Shirley-Price translation of Bede (the Penguin edition) but he gives a date in brackets (meaning it's from the editor, not from Bede) of "A.D. 627-31", so a more recent editor of Bede agrees with the date given by the Handbook of British Chronology. Wallace-Hadrill's commentary on Bede's Ecclesiastical History states in relation to this passage "The day and month of Justus' death, but not the year, are recorded by Bede. As Wood remarks (EHR 98 (1983) 291-2) "this may be as early as 627 and cannot be later than 631, because Bishop Felix came to the East Angles then or earlier, and in Honorius' time as archbishop. Paulinus' presence in Lincoln thus falls well within Bede's dates for Edwin's reign" ". Seems pretty clear the marker is in error (probably comes from an old edition of Bede). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right - even the Catholic Enc. 1911 gives "627 (?)", but this old Jane edition gives 634. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need to go with established references, I was curious about the headstone and whether there was well-documented contention that the date of death might extend beyond the range stated in the article. The gravestone itself is, of course, not a reliable source! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619210528/http://saints.sqpn.com/saintjgo.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintjgo.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)