text:
Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved

[Untitled]
A present, this article is about a phrase, so the bolded entry should be italicized. It may be better to make the article about a person. In that case, an article can be inserted and the italics removed. -Acjelen 17:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John 20
I don't know what "although John 20 has these two figures together, even in early times" is suppose to mean. The sentence once was referring to an event in the Gospel of John (and a fairly important one) when Mary Magdalene tells Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple that Jesus' tomb is empty. The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news. They appear "together" in the scene with Simon Peter. An editor has added "even in early times" to the end of the sentence. I am not sure if this editor means that John 20:2 existed in the earliest versions of John's gospel or that early Christians knew Mary wasn't the Beloved Disciple because of oral traditions of Mary telling those two disciples, or something else. The same editor then goes on to discuss the gnostic Gospel of Mary. I would like this editor to explain what "even in early times" adds to the sentence in questions. -Acjelen 02:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Aclelen wrrites: "The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news." I believe, an assumption on your part--Tomtom9041 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How? -Acjelen 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It has been shown that there are inconsistencies in the text of these verses, both in the narrative flow and in the structure, that give fairly strong evidence that the text has been redacted. These have the rather odd tendency to appear whenever the Beloved Disciple and Mary are portrayed in the same setting. For instance, Mary is tracked up until the point where she runs from the tomb to tell Peter (and supposedly the Beloved Disciple), before she suddenly reappears at the tomb, etc.. Essentially, the gospel of John retains her in every place where tradition has already firmly placed her (where it would be conspicous to replace her outright; in these places, she appears together with the "Beloved Disciple"), whereas she is replaced in other locations. There's some fairly strong evidence elsewhere as well, plus the bits about her and Peter more or less competing; with Peter going on to pretty much found the church, it's no wonder an anonymous alternate author is considered more appealing than a woman. Although I guess you could say that it's simply more appealing than the idea that Peter would try to hide her role in this, since that would be a pretty grave sin (pride, envy, etc.) by e.g. Catholic standards... (Like the bit about "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.")
 * I'm not going to argue the point here, as there are already several works out there that deal with this that I'm not going to repeat, but if Mary had been male, I'm pretty sure the evidence that has been presented so far would have been sufficient to gain acceptance. Zuiram 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have reverted your addition to the article without reading the talk page. I'm sorry.  If you could summarize the issue of a redactor spliting Mary into Mary and the Beloved Disciple, that would be a good addition, but I think it deserves more treatment that a single clause.  Also if writer Brown has a book with these ideas, it should be listed in the references.  There have been a number of books about Mary lately.  I wonder if any of them mention (or don't mention) this redaction idea. -Acjelen 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see: (a) how ANY of the Beloved Disciple verses refer to Mary Magdalene, and (b) how her being female has any relevence to this. The verses in John that mention the Beloved Disciple are John 13:23-25; John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:2-7; John 21:20. In John 13:23-25, the Beloved Disciple is listed as a male, and the only people listed at the Last Supper are the Twelve Disciples. In John 19:26, he says the Beloved Disciple is to be the son to Mary, and Mary to be his mother.  In John 20:2, Mary Magdalene comes to the Beloved Disciple to report the news of the resurrection. In John 21:2-7, a group of men (listed in verse 2... John is one of the “sons of Zebedee”) are fishing, and the Beloved Disciple sees Jesus.  In John 21:20, Peter is wanting to find out what is to happen to the Beloved Disciple (John has historically been understood to be the youngest of the Twelve), and there is a reference to this being the same Beloved Disciple as from John 13:23-25.  Literally every verse supports the maleness of the Beloved Disciple.  I suppose you could claim that these verses were "redacted," but without these verses, you don't even have a Beloved Disciple (by this, I mean if you got rid of the male-specific verses, there are literally no other mentions).

 * As for the idea that "if Mary had been male, I'm pretty sure the evidence that has been presented so far would have been sufficient to gain acceptance," there's just no basis. The idea it was Mary is a recurring minority view that has never found broad acceptance, and there's just no textual support for the position.  Supporters of the view have to try and analogize between John and Gnostic texts (even though John almost certainly predates these competiting texts).  Add to that the fact that John is the most fiercely anti-Gnostic of the Gospels (Doubting Thomas, the divinity/humanity of Christ in John 1, etc.), and there's just no plausible theory for why an anti-Gnostic would write in a bunch of pro-Gnostic ideas, only to have them mysteriously redacted by unknown editors, and replaced with wholly different references.  Am I missing something?  Is there anything in John's Gospel itself to support these views?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.33 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Verses John 20:2-10, describing the visit of Peter and the Beloved Disciple to the grave after hearing the news from Mary Magdalene, seem to be added to the Gospel in a later phase. Verse 20:11 seems to continue right from where 20:1 ended. The reason may have been to make the male Beloved Disciple an eye-witness to the empty tomb and justify the final note "this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down" (John 21:24). Without verses 20:2-10, this note could immediately have been understood as a reference to Mary Magdalene, the testifier of resurrection in all the Gospels.

 * Note also how Luke 24:12 has only Peter running to the tomb. Interestingly, the words and actions in verses 20:2-10 are so similar to Luke's account, that who ever wrote them, seems to have had Luke's Gospel at hand, something the original author certainly did not have. Mark and Matthew have no male disciples visiting the grave at all.

 * If Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple, then for any other reference to the Beloved Disciple, the matter has only been changing the female pronouns to male ones. --219.2.82.66 (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which John is Which
One element of identifying the Beloved Disciple is the question of who wrote the Gospel of John and whether the John in the gospel's title refers to the apostle and son of Zebedee or to some other man named John.
 * This is addressed at Authorship of John

In any event, John the Evangelist is used to mean the John referred to the the gospel's title (in a somewhat circular way).
 * It is this by definition.

An editor of this article has recently added a comment from King James I of England. In the context of the Wikipedia article, the addition is used to strengthen the position that John the Evangelist is the Beloved Disciple.
 * No, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear. It is about the fact that the position existed, and was a traditional one, rather than an argument supporting the position itself. It is a meta statement on the position, if you like.

But James' quote only says "John" and does not distinguish which John he means to imply had a relationship with Jesus.
 * That's splitting hairs.

In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king
 * He was an English King too, and a very significant one, indeed, it is due to him that the King James Version exists. Highly appropriate that he should comment on it, don't you think?

would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.
 * As mentioned above, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear.

I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article. -Acjelen 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

To the person who contributes from the computer identified as 81.156.177.21: I do not understand what you write. You seem to argue against points I have not made and ignore ones I do. When James I compared his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham to Jesus' relationship with John, which John did he mean? Did he mean the theoretical John the Evangelist or John the Apostle or did James I think they were the same person? I ask you to answer one. Then I would like you to change this article to reflect that. If you want to use James I as evidence that the Beloved Disciple was John the Evangelist and not some other person named John (such as John the Apostle), then it would be better to state so more clearly. -Acjelen 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

And of course, what exactly James I meant by saying that Buckingham was "his John" is ambiguous. He may have been denying a homosexual relationship by comparing his with Buckingham to Jesus and John's. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting
81.156.177.21 User, you do not "own" this article anymore than I do. I found the information from the Secret Gospel of Mark to be fascinating. I even suppose that the references to young men in Secret Mark could be the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in the Gospel of John. I admit that some scholars see evidence of a mystery religion. While I think that Jesus was asexual, others insist that he had to have been married, or even more think he might have been what we now mean with the term gay. None of these issues are clearly stated in the canonical texts or the noncanonical texts, so I don't think we should validate one interpretation over the others by giving it preference in the Beloved Disciple article. Information on the Lazarus story from John and other accounts of raising from the dead indicating part of a initiation rite into a mystery religion should be discussed in either the Lazarus article or in a new article (which I would probably find very interesting). We might mention him as a candidate and briefly explain the reasons, but the majority of the discussion on the connection of Lazarus to initiation rites should be found in another article (with a link, of course).

Finally, I would respectfully ask that you improve upon others writing and not just revert back to your initial edit of the article. Thank you. -Acjelen 20:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Judas as beloved disciple
Read this in Gospel of Judas: "The portion of the manuscript that could be translated by later scholars tells of Judas being the favourite disciple of Jesus, possibly intended to be interpreted as the beloved disciple." Is it worth including? Cheesy 00:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Judas Iscariot has the same problem being the Beloved Disciple as does Mary Magdalene: each appears in a scene with the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John. -Acjelen 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, this is not necessarily a problem. The narrative flow and internal structure is inconsistent and incoherent in every section that deals with the Beloved Disciple. And with the Beloved Disciple dead at the time of the last redactions, there would be no reason to conceal his/her identity, except if it might lead to controversy. Judas and Mary both fit the bill, although the apocryphal texts (NHC etc.) seem to support Mary over Judas ("That is why he loved her more than us.", etc)...
 * Both theories are fairly common, and bear mentioning. It is, after all, the point of WP to document what is out there in an NPOV manner, not to make a decision where there is controversy. Zuiram 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Another reason Mary could be the Beloved Disciple despite the double mention is to obscure her identity. The very purpose of the roundabout phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved" is to obscure one's identity, so... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a problem as neither Judas nor Mary are ever described in any source as the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" and hence they have no place in this article as such, only through a short note that some (very few) modern authors have opined that they are. Terms like "favourite disciple" and "he loved her more than others" do not qualify them. That both Judas and Mary appear alongside the "beloved disciple" in the 4th Gospel is of course contradictory to those theories. But there is no contradiction between canonical and non-canonical writings on this. Str1977 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources of Quotes
Sorry if I've missed something, but there seems to have been a fair bit of discussing whether the quote from King James is relevent (in my opinion, yes) but has anyone stated where the quote actually comes from? What is its source? -- Saluton 01:11 15th April 2006 (UMT)

Mark 9:38_Luke 9:49
reference to the other disciple whom Jesus loved can be found in Mark 9:38_And John answered Him,saying Master,we saw one casting out devils in thy name,and he followeth not us;and we forbade him,because he followeth not us.(this same quote is found in Luke 9:49) In John 21:20_Then Peter,turning about,seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following;which also leaned on his breast at supper,and said,Lord,which is he that betrayeth thee? In John 21:23_Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,that that disciple would not die. This is how and why the Disciples of Simon Peter started the myth of The Wandering Jew,to explain away(in negative terms)someone they felt was a threat to their church.For this same reason they also turned Mary Magdalene into a prostitute even though the gospel contains no mention of this. After all,the various gnostic and apocraphyl gospels may be in dispute,but one thing remains certain:only one apostle denied Jesus three times and tried to proclaim himself greatest of the twelve,and that was Simon Peter:The Prince Of Apostles.

 * While this may have bearing on your relation with the church, etc., it does not have any direct bearing on the subject of this talk page: discussing how to improve the text of the article in keeping with the policies of WP. It is not a soapbox. Zuiram 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question and comment
Question: There are references in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail indicating that Lazarus might have been this disciple, which also makes reference to prior versions of the theory. That might be relevent for inclusion in this article. Comment:I question the use of the Image:Jesus johannes.jpg image in the article, as it seems to be a backhanded reference to the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John. I can see a direct reference to that article being included here, but the image without explanation seems to not make a great deal of sense. John Carter 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous versions of this article have included mention of Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple. It is probably worthwhile to add a summary of the treatment of the issue from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  As to the image, it seemed the best free use image I could fine.  It's hard to find iconography that might not also be John the Apostle.  The scene carved is a rather literal presentation of the positioning of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple at the Last Supper (though the probably weren't sitting), see John 13:23.  I might add that the image was on this article lone before Homosexual readings of Jesus and John.  There's nothing overtly homosexual about it.  No kissing, no felatio or sodomy, no indications of living together or being a couple.  In no way is it campy.  No hint of Wildean rent-boys or dark parlors.  Maybe Whitmanesque (and that probably influenced my choice), but that'd be hard to avoid considering the subject. -Acjelen 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * HBHG's hardly a reputable NPOV source, given that Baigent's editor of Freemasonry Today, and large chunks of the book have been found to be a most elaborate hoax, interspersed with provable facts.

Forgive me, but why do you think that for something to be gay it has to have 'kissing, felatio or sodomy'? For something to be heterosexual does it have to have kissing, cunnilingus and vaginal intercourse? No it doesn't. It is possible for gay people to be represented as loving each other as opposed to having sex, you know.
 * My definition was much broader than kissing, felatio, or sodomy. -Acjelen 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It included a "campy" visualization, rent-boys and dark parlors as well.  I understand that, from this context, you may not approve of homosexuality, but you're doing yourself a huge disfavor by limiting your understanding of homosexuality to gross misrepresentation.
 * Neither. Firstly, the end of a long day may well see friends crashed out in all directions without any imputation being possible either way, just look at TV for an evening - and you'd as easily be able to argue a circle of male dancers in a Jerwish wedding are all homosexual as this. You're therefore talking in a cultural vacuum: although Greek practices undoubtedly had an influence on the culture, you should develop the Jewish take on the Cana marriage feast - that Cana was the Magdalen's home town, that it was inconceivable for the heir to the Throne of David could not be unmarried, and that it is and always was the responsibility of the bridegroom to provide the wine, so Cana is almost certainly Jesus' own marriage, and in context it's almost certainly to the Magdalen. Secondly, Jesus' central ministry in his pacifist avatar was focused on love. You really should go read CS Lewis' exposition on the different forms of love before going any further in this direction. For completeness, I should also mention the other avatar, prefigurative of Christ Triumphant, insofar as he knowingly has followers of the Sicarius faction - Simon Peter, for instance, used a sicarius on Malchus in the Gethsemane garden, and is barely rebuked.

 * This is nothing new, and mankind has been doing this to their enemies for all times. The earliest Christians were said to sacrifice babies and have ongoing orgies.  The Church Fathers said conflicting reports on the Gnostics, which included sexual promiscuity.  To this day, many Anti-Semetic Muslim organizations explain that Jews use Muslim (and Christian) babies' blood in their passover meals.

 * Do as you may, but at the least respect yourself and understand exactly what it is you are talking about and not fall into the ignorant trappings of prejudice. You'll go a lot farther with that, and you'll be a better person as well.  74.77.122.119 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I would say to Warlord that the image isn't in any way a reference to any homosexual reading of the relationship between Christ and John the Beloved but is a pretty accurate representation of how the disciple is described leaning on Christ's breast in the Gospel. ThePeg 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * If the image was here first, and later borrowed for use elsewhere, then my comment above regarding the image is withdrawn. Thank you for the clarification. John Carter 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Purposeful anonymity?
In the Lenten devotional guide A Season for the Spirit, Martin L. Smith SSJE suggests that perhaps the disciple whom Jesus loved"'...is never named, never individualized, so that we can more easily accept that he bears witness to an intimacy that is meant for each one of us. The closeness that he enjoyed is a sign of the closeness that is mine and yours because we are in Christ and Christ is in us." Is this reading sufficiently widespread or notable to merit inclusion in the article? I can provide a full citation if it is. I've been reading Smith's book over the course of Lent this year, and found it very inspirational, but I don't know whether it would be considered encyclopedic or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The anonymity is purposeful. Any mainstream apologetic interpretation is encyclopedic, as long as it's a report of published remarks, which are cited in a note. This isn't a statement of fact from Wikipedia; it's a justification as offered by a specific Anglican. So, no problem!--Wetman 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Done — thanks! I just wanted to make sure that this sort of exegesis was appropriate for Wikipedia — I could see a potential problem arising if people started putting in every sermon interpreting a given text, but I suppose that that's taken care of by the requirement of reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Name
I have only ever heard of this phrase being reformed as 'John the Beloved' which has more poetry and beauty to it. Is it worth mentioning that he is also called by this name? Can I put it in at the top? ThePeg 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' Son by Mary Magdeline?
In the popular science show, The Tomb of Jesus, the hypothesis is advanced that the Beloved Diciple may be Jesus' own son, and the reason for the anonymity is that the author wanted the Roman authorities to remain ignourant of his source's very existence. What does everyone think? 71.233.230.223 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think non-Christian bible research considers the "Beloved Disciple" to be Mary Magdalene herself. --Drieakko 08:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The biggest argument yet found in this direction - and I've been driving it in depth for four years to double-check the Magdalene traditions of the French Midi as compared with the Ark traditions of Northern Europe, which have hard documented background, before certain Vatican claims - is the little detour Pierre Maury made just before Christmas 1303 to the hamlet of Pontihls, where the infamous Poussin tomb was located. Another factor for you to examine is the fact the recruiting base of the 10th Fretensis, who supplied the execution party, was Narbonne. Go research . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.170.247 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to that Mary Magdalene bit, I think that the support this article offers is really shady. For example, the cite to John 19:25 is actually to 19:25 and the first half of 26, but the quote stops at a really misleading point. If the rest of 26 is included, it's pretty clear that the Beloved Disciple isn't Mary Magdalene, but John, since MM isn't a "son" (obviously, John isn't literally Mary's son, but the point is that he's in charge of taking care of her, as her biological Son is dying). The entire section of trying to prove that MM might be the Beloved Disciple is really POV, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.33 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorship
authorship of johannie books shouldn't be discussed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Sure it should, as the beloved disciple is the author of one of those books. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leadwind, I disagree with your today edits. In litterature you can find every positions about John authorship. It is not enough to cite only one text, all POVs shall be listed. The point is that John authorship can be presumed only by internal analysis, i.e. by guess. To demonstrate the falsity of the statement "all scholar agree..." I cite a recent text by scholar M. Barker -isbn 0567087166 (2000)- where at page 78 the scholar says that John wrote also the fourth Gospel. I remember it because I've read it last month, but if I look I can find many other examples. The author of Moby dick is Melville -by external proofs- so Wiki can use explicit statement. For John authorship the issue is by far more complicate with many positions and no external evidences So I strongly suggest to respect all POVs -including the faith POV- and list all of them. Or to discuss authorship of johannie books in the proper article and leave here only the statement you deleted, i.e. "most scholars consider". A ntv (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best RSs out there are university-level textbook, and I'm just citing what mine says. If you can find a source of comparable quality that says something else, cite it. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's actually two university-level textbooks that say the beloved disciple wasn't John, not just Harris. If this is really an open question in contemporary academic circles, just find a good, academic source (preferably another textbook) that says so. My textbooks say that the case is closed, so that's what I write in the article. Citing RSs is how WP works. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just 2 minutes search on Google Books: From the above it is clear that the evidence in favor to Johannine authorship is by no mean negligable from pag 12 of Leon Morris The Gospel according to John (1995) (you shoud also read the whole first chapter where the author support his statement). Or John remains the most likely candidate pag 13 of Scott Hahn The Gospel of John (2003) . Ok I gave you 3 clear reference of scholars who do NOT agree with you thesis. Because Wiki shall list all POVs, it is more honest to say "Most scholars", not "All scholars", something that is not true. Leon Morris text is a 843 page commentary that is by far of a level above university-level textbook. A ntv (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These sources are religious. If you'd like to include a section on scholars who buck the academic trend and back a traditional Christian view, that would seem appropriate. As for Morris being "by far of a level above university-level textbook," are you stating a personal opinion, or are you paraphrasing WP policy? The verifiability policy (WP:v) says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." If there's a policy that puts Morris above Harris and Thiessen (two university-level textbooks), show us. Leadwind (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the point is if Morris is above Harris or viceversa? I agree with you: it is a POV. I dont say that Morris is right or not, but simply that he wrote a book published by respected publishing house. The same for the other references. We are in the field of the POVs. By the way, Stephen L. Harris was a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar, so we cannot consider him NPOV: he has a own POV. I don't want that wiki states "John wrote the Gospel", but we shall list the existence also the other modern scholar POVs. To state "Modern scholars hold that the Apostle John did not write the gospel attributed to him" is false! I gave you three scholars that think the contrary. So I suggest to state something like "Most modern scholars hold that...". The issue is already analyzed in the proper article. We cannot synthesize a so complex issue in a simple sentence. Let's try to be NPOV. A ntv (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)A, you've shown that Harris's statement requires qualification. It's not enough to say "Modern scholars think..." You suggest "Most modern scholars...," but I think that's a little bit of a dodge. The phrase "most" makes it seem like it's just an issue of numbers. This issue isn't a difference of numbers, it's a difference of orientation. Rather than saying "most," let's say "Generally..." That's more accurate. The general consensus is John didn't write these books. If someone has a particular outlook (e.g., thinking that scholarship is drifting away from Mother Church), one might reach a particular conclusion that's different from the general one, but the general conclusion is No, BD wasn't John. And you have shown that there's a clear trend in Christian scholarship toward giving John more respect as a potential evangelist. That's noteworthy. Leadwind (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for you edit that is very correct. You are a great Wikipedian. The very problem of this kind of statements is that they are based on very weak evidences and supported almost only by a consensus in some circles of scholars. The main 'evidence' of not-Johnannine authorship is that it is difficult to imagine John to boast about being the beloved disciple. A 'not-a-evidence' in a scientific way to proceed. A reader of Wiki should realize whether a statement is supported by some evident proof (as an ancient papyrus) or simply by a guess generally shared in by scholars A ntv (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. Glad we could work it out. Leadwind (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a citation needed to "a growing number". This is (perhaps) cited to a book from 2003, which can no longer be called current or reflect current trends. Normally when writers say "increasingly scholars say ..." or something similar they are expressing their own views, so comments like this should be viewed with suspicion. If this claim can be supported by clear evidence and trends then it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawikcorner44 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 * My textbooks say that the case is closed, so that's what I write in the article. Some things hardly change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

rename page to "beloved disciple"
This page is about the beloved disciple. It's not about the phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved." So the title of this page should be "beloved disciple." Leadwind (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. A ntv (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lazarus, The Disciple whom Jesus Loved
The "one whom Jesus loved" in John 11 was Lazarus. Ben Witherington has made a very good argument that this is the very same beloved disciple as well as the very one who authored The Book of John. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-lazarus-beloved-disciple.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintessential1 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Homoeroticism
I find the removal of this whole section pretty irritating. It is no less fringe than the rest of the claims made in the article and is properly source. You can't just go taking out something you don't like to hear. And at the same time why on earth do we have to have biblical refrences cited in-line throughout the article? It makes the whole thing impossible to read and feels like I'm sitting through a sunday school lesson. 09:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs)
 * I've removed the portions of this section which were not sourced, and merged the discussion of art into the section on that topic (adding an image to reinforce it). I've also removed the line on "enjoying the milk of the Lord" which did indeed occur in the cited reference, but nowhere else at all that I could find on Google -- so the reference seems somewhat unreliable.
 * And I'm not sure what your problem with biblical references is: they are quite essential here in referring to the primary text. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole section was from the same source - if you want me to add the reference to every single paragraph then I will; but I think it makes just as much sense putting it at the end. I think in-article biblical citations are clumsy and make for hard reading. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I've restored this and put the source at the end of each paragraph to avoid confusion. The art bit needs to go alongside this text in order for it to make sense. 'Milk of the Lord' sounds credible and I'll try and find an additional source. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, we've disposed of the first paragraph (partly merged and partly shown to be dubious). The comment "according to the playwright Christopher Marlowe as reported by the informer Richard Baines" can probably be backed up by a more reliable source, but it seems hearsay that tells us nothing about the subject of this article, and quite possibly not even about Marlowe (although I note it is mentioned in Sexuality of Jesus).   The third paragraph, about a gay religious organisation in New York, also seems irrelevant here, so I don't see that anything needs to be added back in. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well I guess that's your opinion - you can't just cut stuff out if you're personally uncomfortable with it. I don't see that we need to provide a reference to the depositions of Baines, but you're welcome to look if you think it's important. The first para makes sense in the context of the second 2 paras and the milk of the Lord is not dubious if understood in the context of medieval spirituality. Why do you assume it to be dubious in any case? The third para is how the issue links with the modern day. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I repeat that much of those three paragraphs is irrelevant to the subject of the article. I also note that you've added a reference to "The Miracles of the Gospels: The Lord's Milk: A Series of 20 Minute Bible Studies for the New Christian, J.O.Y. Publishing, 2004", but this doesn't seem to support the statement it's attached to, in breach of WP:CITE. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AND it seems to be a copyvio. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify that: all three paragraphs seem to be copied verbatim from the cited source, without quote marks. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved by removing text copied from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iQpHAAAAMAAJ per WP:CP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Gosh - you go to such lengths to keep stuff you don't like out of the article don't you! To help you I'm very happy to rewrite so there's no copy violation. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Now done - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 - I've tried to play fair and address concerns and approach this is a conciliatory way, but I'm beginning to think that you're showing bias. You don't seem to be looking to improve the article but rather don't want the issue of homoeroticism covered at all. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Please set your arguments out properly so they can be addressed. It is not helpful to continue deleting text in an edit-war. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have raised a number of issues which you are ignoring, even though you have addressed the copyvio issue:
 * 1) You are making a claim about medieval belief without reliable sources. You may think that the accusation of Marlowe means something about beliefs current at the time, but we can't insert that in Wikipedia without a reliable secondary or tertiary source (i.e. a history book) supporting that.
 * 2) Discussions of the "Beloved Disciple" in art should go in the section about that topic.
 * 3) Discussions about religious groups in New York in the 1970s are interesting (I suggest you write an article on that group), but they are not relevant to this article.
 * I also remind you of the three-revert rule. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid these arguments simply do not hold water. The claim on medieval belief uses the Dyne source. This is a valid secondary source. And if you don't think that's the case then you must explain why? The Marlowe accusation again is drawn from Dyne. And the modern example is relevant as it shows modern day attitudes to the beloved disciple. May I also say that you're showing a degree of inconsistency on arguments why the text should not be included; and have worked very hard to avoid any mention of homo-eroticism. I'm happy to make amendments to improve the article if concerns are really about robustness of sources; but I will not accept that the issue of homo-eroticism be excluded because it doesn't fit with the structure of the article as we currently have. There's no point hiding behind the 3-revert rule. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this Wikipedia editing business, as I have never been inclined to edit anything before today. The entire section on homo-eroticism in this article is dubious and slanderous, and by its own admission "has an absence of scriptural basis." The slanderous nature, by itself, is not (and should not) be grounds for removal. However, it does penetrate a deeper understanding of the motives behind a) its authorship, and b) its inclusion in this article. Wikipedia is not a blog, this is not a popular opinion page. News is encyclopedic-worthy, and stories (such as the one about Christopher Marlowe) deserve their own pages with (at most) a mention by this page. But an abundance of sources does not prove or even evidence an encyclopedic-worthy topic. The thesis sentence "Consideration must also be given..." is by nature and definition not encyclopedic, but rather an imperative command given by the author.

I could find several people who would profess a belief that the sky is red. I might even convince them to write a college paper or blog article on the subject. But none of this suggests that a section entitled "the sky is red theories" is worth posting on the Wikipedia article about the sky. Contaldo80 - I have reviewed the discussions on this and it is clearly you who are biased on this particular matter. Your own discussion page mentions "you have a vested interest in including LGBT information every/anywhere." Please consider the ridiculous nature of this section as grounds for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the signature? I am new to this, my apologies. 24.129.77.95 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Ryan

 * It's always good to see a new user and I welcome you to the debate. However, I fundamentally disagree with the points you set out above and feel you have misrepresented what I have said on my user page. I have nowhere said that "I have a vested interest in including LGBT information every/anywhere." An apology would be nice. And incidentally the sky is red from time to time. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No, that quote was not yours, but rather someone else posting on your own user page. Read section #10, entitled "LGBT." Yes, the example of the red sky may not have been the best. But you must acknowledge that there do exist certain sub-categories and sub-topics of other topics that, while on-topic, are not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. The definition of encyclopedia needs to be thoroughly examined, in which you will find that the intention is to inform the user of facts relevant and verifiable, with at least a small amount of evidence. Again, the evidence put forth in the article is not evidence at all, simply a very unsubstantiated theory with stories of people in history who have been affected by such theories. I can further prove that your article about homo-eroticism is meritless. Try including the article in the Wikipedia page about Jesus. I can assure you it won't last 5 minutes, and everyone will agree it is far too unsubstantiated to be included in an encyclopedia. And, yes it is entirely relevant to the subject of Jesus. If it's noteworthy on this page, it is noteworthy on the page about Jesus also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll try and put aside the misrepresentation of the comments on my user page, and the suggestion that I have been biased. To turn to the article itself, the arguments that you make could just as well be made against the section on Mary Magdalene except with greater force. The references here are much weaker. While I accept that encyclopaedia articles should not and can not include every minor issue, I would argue that the subject of homoeroticism is significant and of enough interest to warrant inclusion. The references I've cited are suitably reliable and mainstream. The question is whether the length of text is proportionate. I would argue that it is but happy to collect thoughts. I've tried to keep it deliberately tight and focused while needing to set enough of the context for it to make sense. I've included facts and they are reliable and verifiable. But if you don't think a particular fact is then please say so. Overall I don't think St John and Christ were lovers, and I've stated that the scriptural evidence is weak or non-existent to support such a reading with certainty. But that isn't the point of this text. I'm not aiming to establish that - the point is to flag that there are some people that have developed this interpretation and set out why. Nor am I saying Jesus was gay; - hence there isn't a need to include something on the main Jesus article. I'm specifically covering the interpretation of the "beloved disciple" relationship. If there was something convincing to say on the Jesus article then I hope I would be free to add something in the knowledge that other contributors had been able to put their personal religious beliefs to one side and avoid taking offence. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * PS: Can I suggest you and others spend some time look at the other parts of this article as well as the section on homoeroticism? I have used 8 reliable sources for my section of texts whereas others have little or none. The section on Judah has a reference to youtube! Otherwise this will suggest a degree of bias against the coverage of LGBT issues, which would be unfortunate. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Homoeroticism in the Bible is technically referred to as "Queer reading" which, much like "creation myth," appears to be a slanderous term but instead is a technical term. Any discussion of homoerotic exegesis here will require presenting a discussion of "Queer reading"─much of which is written by openly homosexual scholars. (Stone, Ken. Queer commentary and the Hebrew Bible. Pilgrim Press, 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0829814477) Next it may need to be explained that biblical interpretation is one of those areas of social life for which "queer politics might have implications." Author Stone opines: "The much-discussed interdisciplinary explosion of multiple approaches and methods within biblical scholarship, on the one hand, and the rapid growth in lesbian and gay studies and queer theology outside of biblical scholarship, on the other hand, combine to produce a situation in which the proliferation of queer readings of the Bible seems today like a real future possibility...." (p.11) And so it goes. 'Queer Theory' and 'queer' readings make a difference to biblical exegesis. We cannot just drop a bomb into a section entitled "Homoeroticism" in this article without a much fuller explanation of the whole issue of Lesbian and Gay Studies and Queer Theory in biblical interpretation. Unless and until such a decision is made, I have removed the section from this article. With respect, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I doubt really that we do have to include reams of information about a "queer theory of Biblical interpretation". But if you think it adds real value then please go ahead and do so. But I would suggest that you keep it to the point and direct readers to connected articles rather than repeat arguments at length in this article. But I really do think we're over-stating it by describing at as a "bombshell" when readers will already have considered the sexual implications under the Mary Magdalen section. Nevertheless I trust you to keep it proportionate and even-handed. I've already had one contributor sign into my user page and tell me that I was "being prayed for" and was wandering into the realm of Satan. My feeling is that the text be actually woven into the section under St John but won't do until we resolve other issues.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I've now shortened the text and woven it into the section around St John where this most logically fits. I should have done this ages ago but fear that we have become distracted here. We've turned it into a debate about perceived "gay activism" and distorting religious messages in the Bible etc. When really what we should have considered is does it makes sense, is it expressed in the right way, is it robust? We need to avoid bringing our personal views into this - me included.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * AFA Prof01 - I appreciate what you've try to do to set the context but I've changed a little as I'm really not sure it works. It isn't necessary I don't think to describe in detail the history of homosexuality; nor do we need to emphasise that these are allegations. They're not. What they are is an interpretation of the relationship between Christ and the Beloved Disciple. It is not intended to be factually true or to prove that there was a relationship but rather to demonstrate that it has been a strand in Western Christian thought (albeit in a heretical context). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * A discussion here, which so far hasn't gone anywhere, may be of interest. I was wondering how to repeat references when there is further explanation in the footnote. Should this be done the way I did it?

 * Personally, i find the whole idea blasphemous, but on Wikipedia we must respect all viewpoints when writing articles. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say as a queer person, the removal of the section talking about the fact that this might have been Jesus’s gay lover, incredibly disappointing. I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Jesus was gay and that the beloved disciple was his lover. I think a queer reading of the text is very important. I think it should be included Dabblequeen (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Five or Six?
These statements seem to contradict each other:

Is it five or six? Or is there something about the precise wording that allows both statements to be true? M-1 (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I see only five verses: John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, each with one "loved" (four ἠγάπᾱ and one ἐφίλει—the central one). Iavs leroy (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved


text:
Mark Metcalf

Mark Metcalf (born March 11, 1946) is an American television and film actor often playing the role of an antagonistic and aggrieved authority figure.

He is best known for his role as sadistic ROTC officer Douglas C. Neidermeyer in the 1978 American comedy film Animal House,   a character he later emulated in the 1984 music videos for the songs "We're Not Gonna Take It" and "I Wanna Rock" by the heavy metal band Twisted Sister.

He is also known for playing the role of The Maestro on two episodes of the sitcom Seinfeld as well as for his recurring role as The Master on the supernatural drama series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spin-off series Angel.

Early life
Metcalf was born in Findlay, Ohio. His father was a civil engineer. Metcalf was raised in Webster Groves, a suburb of St. Louis. In 1959, he moved with his family to New Jersey where he attended Westfield High School, graduating in 1964.

Metcalf enrolled in the engineering program at the University of Michigan. It was at university that he performed in his first stage play, which was a production of Shakespeare's Henry VI. His first professional acting job was with the Milwaukee Repertory Theater in 1971. In the early 1970s, he moved to New York City performing in both classical and modern theater, eventually moving westward to work in film.

Career
Metcalf's first major Hollywood film role was that of ROTC cadet officer Douglas Neidermeyer in the 1978 comedy Animal House. In 1984, Metcalf played characters similar to Neidermeyer in the Twisted Sister music videos for the songs "We're Not Gonna Take It", where he played an authoritarian father, and "I Wanna Rock", where he played an authoritarian high school teacher.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Metcalf landed guest roles on multiple television shows including Miami Vice, Walker, Texas Ranger and Party of Five. He also played recurring roles on shows such as Hill Street Blues, Teen Angel, Star Trek: Voyager, Ally McBeal and JAG. In 1993 he moved to Hollywood.

One of Metcalf's more memorable television characters was his role in an episode during the seventh season of Seinfeld titled "The Maestro". In the episode he played a self-absorbed conductor who was dating character Elaine Benes (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and who insisted on being referred to as "Maestro". Metcalf reprised the role in an episode later that same season titled "The Doll".

From 1997 to 2002, Metcalf played the vampire known as The Master on several episodes of the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spin-off series Angel.

In 2000, Metcalf left Los Angeles and moved to Bayside, Wisconsin with his then wife, Elizabeth "Libby" Wick and their son, Julius. Metcalf had moved to Wisconsin to start a restaurant with his wife and with no intent on continuing with acting, due to raising a child with special needs. However, Metcalf was approached by the director of First Stage Children's Theater in Milwaukee to act in one of their plays and Metcalf went on to act in several of their productions.

In conjunction with the Milwaukee Film Festival, Metcalf produced a short film each year based on a screenplay written by a high school student enrolled in the Student Screenwriting Competition, a program developed by Metcalf to teach the craft of screenwriting to young people. Metcalf also contributed articles about film as a correspondent for the online magazine OnMilwaukee.

In 2009, Metcalf played the role of Mayor Johnson on an episode of the third season of Mad Men titled "Souvenir".

After moving to Missoula, Montana in 2013, Metcalf once again became involved in local theatre, playing the role of Scrooge in a production of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol presented by the University of Montana School of Theatre and Dance.

In 2019, Metcalf played the role of Sheriff Roy in Tate Bunker's film The Field alongside Barry Bostwick and Veronica Cartwright. Metcalf was the subject of Vera Brunner-Sung's documentary short Character that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2020. Metcalf met Brunner-Sung through a mutual friend after moving to Columbus, Ohio.

Personal life
Metcalf has one son, Julius, with Elizabeth "Libby" Wick. The couple moved from Los Angeles, California to Bayside, Wisconsin in 2000. They owned and operated a restaurant in nearby Mequon, Wisconsin called Libby Montana. Metcalf filed for divorce in 2003 and since 2006 Wick has been the sole owner of the restaurant.

In 2013, Metcalf moved to Missoula, Montana, to be closer to Julius, who was a student at the University of Montana.

Metcalf is a longtime advocate for Alzheimer’s research and awareness raising.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mark Metcalf


text:
User talk:Thetulsan

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 17:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

title: User talk:Thetulsan


text:
Talk:Lars von Trier

Such a poor page for such a major filmmaker
How is this page missing so much information? How is the writing section empty? Gonna look into making this a pet project -- would love to have some help. The Way of the Fewture (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Poorly worded and biased statement
The article contains the statement (in badly-phrased English, to boot) "After von Trier's statement, Björk explained the details about this incident, while her manager, Derek Birkett, also accused von Trier's actions in the past." Having encountered this, looked at the sources, and altered this to "After von Trier's statement, Björk put forward her own account, while her manager, Derek Birkett, supported Björk's account of von Trier's actions", both written in proper, natural English and representative of the actual facts of the situation as reported by the cited sources and known to anyone aside from the parties involved, with the edit summary "balanced tone", the change was reverted, with the edit summary "not a balance, these are clear accusations". This misses the point of the previous edit entirely. The fact is that "accusations" are all that have been established; Von Trier might have acted in exactly the way Bjork described- or indeed worse- but equally he might not.

The known state of affairs is that Bjork made the initial accusation; von Trier responded, and was backed up by the film's producer, then Bjork gave a lengthier account and was backed up by her agent. Stating so unequivocally that it was Bjork's version of events that "explained the details about this incident" is biased, as the truth either way has not subsequently been established. The wording implies that her account is definitely true, when no-one has any way of knowing this. Given the general societal view of these kinds of matters it's impolitic to say so, but the generally-beneficial "believe survivors" mentality, poorly employed as in this case, has a way of reducing the encyclopaedic value of articles such as this by introducing bias not contained within cited sources. I have no interest in back-and-forth edit warring, but note ought to be made of disagreement with the presentation of this statement, potentially inaccurate as it is, and therefore unsuited to an article aspiring to encyclopaedic quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.191.147 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mentor"
I was curious about the mentor mentioned, Thomas Boguszewski, so I did some googling. No such person was ever a mentor to Lars von Trier, and the source used in the article does not contain the quotation about a mentor attributed to it. At this point I noticed the name is BOGUSzewski. Get it? I'm not editing the page because I don't know anything about wikipedia and your process, but somebody should do that. And also look at other edits made by that user, probably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:8081:6D90:C0D8:40DB:E300:7EB0 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Weak sources
I don't think that the book of a theologian is a good source for cinema, directors and their influences. The film Night Porter doesn't seem to be similar to the style of Lars Von Trier at all. 87.10.235.158 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lars von Trier


text: User:Jalexoid

title: User:Jalexoid


text:
Martin Nash

Martin Nash (born December 27, 1975) is a Canadian soccer coach and former player.

A five-time all-league selection in the USL-1 and its predecessor, the A-League, Nash has won four league championships, two with the Rochester Rhinos in 2000 and 2001 and two with the Vancouver Whitecaps in 2006 and 2008. He spent the majority of his playing career in North America, most notably in the Vancouver area, but also played in England for Stockport County, Chester City and Macclesfield Town.

Nash was also a regular member of the Canadian national soccer team, making 38 appearances and scoring 2 goals during his 13-year career.

He is the younger brother of retired basketball superstar Steve Nash.

Early career
Nash began his career with the Vancouver 86ers in 1995. He was named to the all-A-League team in his second season with the 86ers as a 20-year-old in 1996. He spent the next several years jumping backwards and forwards across the Atlantic: he also played 5 games for a Stockport County side in 1996–97 that won promotion to Football League First Division and appeared in 15 games as a substitute for the club's first-team the next season. He also played briefly for Third Division Chester City in 1999, on loan for Third Division Macclesfield Town in February 2003, and had a short stint with the Edmonton Drillers in 1998–1999.

Rochester Raging Rhinos
Nash played for the Rochester Raging Rhinos of the A-League from 2000 to 2003, winning back-to-back league titles in 2000 and 2001. He was given second-team all-league honours in 2000.

Montreal Impact
He spent the 2003 season with the Montreal Impact, before signing with the Vancouver Whitecaps for a third time in 2004. During this time, Nash also played pro indoor soccer in the Major Indoor Soccer League, playing the 2003–04 season with the Dallas Sidekicks.

Vancouver Whitecaps
In 2006, Nash helped Vancouver capture their first USL First Division Championship, beating Rochester Raging Rhinos by a score of 3–0. He established a new team record for longest ironman streak, playing 77 consecutive games over three seasons. The record had previously belonged to Domenic Mobilio with 68 games. After being named to two Second All-League teams in 1996 and 2000, Nash received First All-League honours in 2007 with the Whitecaps. The following season, on September 30, 2008, Nash was named to his second consecutive USL-1 First All-League Team, en route to another USL-1 Championship on October 12, 2008, beating the Puerto Rico Islanders 2–1 in Vancouver. The win marked Nash's fourth league title (including the USL's predecessor, the A-League).

With the departure of Jeff Clarke following the Whitecaps' championship, Nash succeeded Clarke as team captain on January 26, 2009. He missed the final five games of the regular season after pulling his hamstring in a game against the Rochester Rhinos on August 29. He returned in time for the playoff opener against the Carolina RailHawks. In the midst of Vancouver's playoff run, Nash was named to the Second All-League team. Despite finishing the 2009 regular season as the seventh and final seed in the playoffs, Nash and the Whitecaps advanced to the finals for the second consecutive year, eliminating the RailHawks and Timbers, the league's top two seeds. In the first leg of the final against the Montreal Impact, however, Nash was assessed a red card in the 52nd minute after delivering a tackle to Roberto Brown, suspending him for the remainder of the two-leg final. Brown was carried off the field on a stretcher but quickly returned to finish the game, which Montreal won 3–2.

Despite expectations that he would captain the Whitecaps as the team enters Major League Soccer in 2011, Nash announced his retirement from professional soccer on October 27, 2010, stating "Today is a day of mixed emotions for me, but we all decide to move on. I'm glad to end my career here, where it all started". Nash accepted a new role as a scout and youth playing coach with the club.

International career
Nash made his debut for Canada in an April 1997 FIFA World Cup qualification match against El Salvador. Along with Jason De Vos, Paul Stalteri and Jason Bent, he formed a new generation of Canadian internationals who would succeed the retiring veterans Frank Yallop, Colin Miller, Randy Samuel and Alex Bunbury. He earned a total of 38 caps, scoring 2 goals. He has represented Canada in 10 FIFA World Cup qualification matches. He was a member of the Canadian squad at the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup.

International goals

 * Scores and results list Canada's goal tally first.

Coaching career
Nash was named the assistant coach of the Ottawa Fury on October 18, 2013, for their inaugural year in the North American Soccer League. On October 31, 2016, Nash announced he was leaving the Fury to pursue other opportunities.

In January 2017, Nash served as an assistant coach for the Canada men's national team under interim head coach Michael Findlay.

On May 11, 2018, he was named as an assistant coach for Calgary Foothills FC After helping lead Calgary Foothills to the PDL Championship in 2018, he joined Tommy Wheeldon Jr. on the inaugural coaching staff of Canadian Premier League club Cavalry FC, being named assistant coach and technical director.

On December 21, 2021, he was announced as the head coach of York United FC of the Canadian Premier League. On May 21, 2024, he was relieved of his duties as the club's head coach.

Honours
Rochester Raging Rhinos
 * A-League: 2000, 2001

Vancouver Whitecaps
 * USL First Division: 2006, 2008

Canada
 * CONCACAF Gold Cup: 2000

Individual
 * USSF D-2 Pro League Best XI: 2010

title: Martin Nash


text:
Joseph John Gurney

Joseph John Gurney (2 August 1788 – 4 January 1847) was a banker in Norwich, England and a member of the Gurney family of that city. He became an evangelical minister of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), whose views and actions led, ultimately, to a schism among American Quakers.

Biography
Gurney was born at Earlham Hall near Norwich (now part of the University of East Anglia), the tenth child of John Gurney (1749–1809) of Gurney's Bank. He was always called Joseph John. He was the brother of Samuel Gurney, Elizabeth Fry (née Gurney), a prison and social reformer, and Louisa Hoare (née Gurney), a writer on education, and also the brother-in-law – through his sister the campaigner Hannah Buxton – of Thomas Fowell Buxton, who was also an anti-slavery campaigner.

In September 1837 Gurney met Eliza Paul Kirkbride while returning from England. The two worked together during his trips to the United States, and Kirkbride joined Gurney in preaching in favor of prison reform, pacifism, and the abolition of slavery. Gurney married Kirkbride in October 1841.

Gurney also advocated total abstinence from alcohol. He wrote a tract on the subject called Water Is Best.

As a boy George Borrow used to fish the River Yare near Earlham Hall and on one occasion was caught by Joseph John Gurney. Gurney later invited the boy into the hall to see his books. In his semi-autobiographical novel Lavengro, Borrow recalls the hall with great precision: "On the right side is a green level, a smiling meadow, grass of the richest decks the side of the slope; mighty trees also adorn it, giant elms, the nearest of which, when the sun is nigh its meridian, fling a broad shadow upon the face of the ancient brick of an old English Hall. It has a stately look, that old building, indistinctly seen, as it is, among the umbrageous trees."

Works

 * Notes on a visit made to some of the prisons in Scotland and the North of England in company with Elizabeth Fry; with some general observations on the subject of prison discipline (1819)
 * Observations on the peculiarities of the Religious Society of Friends (1824)
 * Essays on the Evidences, Doctrines and Practical Operations of Christianity (1825)
 * History, Authority and Use of the Sabbath, (1831)
 * The Moral Character of Jesus Christ (1832)
 * A Winter in the West Indies (1840)
 * Religion and the New Testament (1843)
 * in 2 volumes: vol. 1, vol. 2

title: Joseph John Gurney


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible successors to Pope John Paul II

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE, which has already been implemented by User:RedWolf. Postdlf 01:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Possible successors to Pope John Paul II
Delete, Now that the new pope is elected this Category should be deleted. Candidates who were considered are mentioned in the following article. Papal conclave, 2005 --DuKot 17:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; adding today. --cesarb 16:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. I agree. That article mentions all the former papabiles. D. G. 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Delete'. Now there is only one successor, and no "possbile successors".  2005 conclave article will remember who the other possibilites were judged to have been sufficiently.  Rlquall 01:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Invalid nomination. Categories should go to CFD, not VFD. Please withdraw your nomination here and nominate it for deletion there. --cesarb 16:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. We might need a Category:Possible successors to Pope Benedict XVI, though.   — J I P | Talk 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as invalid nomination → CFD  —msh210 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The speculation as to who would succeed Pope John Paul II is itself a notable historic fact. I don't see it on the referenced Papal conclave page. (see below) -- 8^D gab 18:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * Delete,I can't seem to edit the CFD entry on my browser.The Ben XVI Successors category is already up,I've migrated some JP II successors younger than a couple I already saw there to the new one.A rename would be inappropriate though,as anyone older than Benedict no longer is viable.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 01:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Save the data!
''Since I can't find any discussion on CFD, I'm writing this here; if I've overlooked a better spot, would somebody please copy? Thanks.''

Before this category is permanently consigned to the electro-magnetic dustbin of history, somebody should check to make sure that everybody listed in it is included in List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. Doops 19:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added the three names to the list that were in the Category but not on the list. Since the list of papabili now contains all of the same information, I am changing my vote to Delete. -- 8^D gab 20:35, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

 * Delete. But we should list it in CfD; It shouldn't be deleted without going through the proper process. Andrewa 01:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now listed at Categories_for_deletion. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As the criteria for deletion in CfD is weaker for empty categories whose information has laready been put elsewhere, if it passes deletion on VfD and is empty, it can be speedy deleted from Cfd. (I notice, however, it isn't empty, so either someone will have to empty it, or the bot on Cfd will eventually get around to it.) --ssd 04:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree. IMO emptying it before the vote closes on CfD does not violate Categories for deletion point #4, as there's a strong consensus to delete both there and here, and that makes it "uncontroversial" IMO. Just so long as we all now know the procedures, and the crowd who hang out on CfD (and know the pitfalls of category deletion best) have had a chance to look at what's happening, I'm happy. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Delete - the info should be elsewhere, either Papal conclave, 2005 or otherwise. We don't have categories for "Possible US presedential candidates 1788", or "Possible League Of Nations Secretaries]] or other historical elections.  Now that this Papal election is historical, the same argument applies.  --Bletch 16:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Sellmeier equation

The source of the sapphire and BK7 Sellmeier coefficients and coeffieicents for a bunch of other materials is: www.cvilaser.com/Common/PDFs/Dispersion_Equations.pdf

Sellmeier Coefficients
How are the Sellmeier coefficients determined?--TeakHoken193.187.211.118 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would help if these coefficients were explained more. Bernie Buddy (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They are fitted to experimental data. Usually standard non-linear least-square fitting methods are employed, with input being a value of index of refraction at about 50-100 different wavelengths, and using multiple samples, to perform simultaneous fitting. See Curve fitting for some (but not all) details. 81.6.34.246 (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fused Silica coefficients
I think it would be useful to add the coefficients for fused silica, however I'd first like someone to verify the numbers I have

With the source: http://www.rp-photonics.com/sellmeier_formula.html Matthew Rollings (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to be correct, I found the same values at https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=glass&book=fused_silica&page=Malitson and in the source https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.55.001205 (no need for full access, the abstract itself references the same values). 81.6.34.246 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

correction to Schott TIE-29 reference (North America site, dated 2016... I don't know how to fix this)
parent site index https://www.us.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/knowledge-center/technical-articles-and-tools/tie.html?highlighted_text=TIE-29 link to pdf https://www.us.schott.com/d/advanced_optics/38cfacda-3e20-49d5-a432-d9066f56c05b/1.2/tie_29_refractive_index_and_dispersion_us.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shokutaku (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Source of the Sellmeier equation
It is stated in the article that the relation is empirical. However, the original Sellmeier's article, as well as, "Fundamentals of Optics" by F.A. Jenkins and H. E. White lead to a conclusion that the result comes from theoretical exploration of light-matter interaction. Therefore, I propose to remove the mention of "empirical relationship".

title: Talk:Sellmeier equation


text:
Adrianus Johannes Simonis

Adrianus Johannes Simonis (26 November 1931 – 2 September 2020) was a Dutch cardinal of the Catholic Church. He served as Archbishop of Utrecht from 1983 to 2007, and was made a cardinal in 1985.

Biography
Simonis was born in Lisse, South Holland, the second eldest of eleven children. He studied at the Seminary of Hageveld from 1945 to 1951, and at the Major Seminary, Warmond, from 1951 to 1957. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Martien Jansen on 15 June 1957, and then did pastoral work in the Diocese of Rotterdam until 1959, serving as curate at the parish of Saint Victor in Waddinxveen and later at the parish Holy Martyrs Gorinchem in Rotterdam.

From 1959 to 1966, he furthered his studies in Rome at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, from where he obtained a doctorate cum laude in biblical exegesis with a thesis entitled: "Jesus as the Good Shepherd in the Gospel of Saint John". Following his return to the Netherlands, he served as pastor of the parish of Blessed Sacrament in The Hague (1966–1970) and chaplain in the Red Cross Hospital. He became a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rotterdam in March 1969.

He was associated with the conservative side of the Dutch church, which was very divided in the years following the Second Vatican Council. He later disputed the label, telling an interviewer: "They say 'conservative', but I say with Saint Paul: 'Test all things; hold fast what is good'. In that sense I am conservative." Pope Paul VI named him Bishop of Rotterdam on 29 December 1970, at the age of 39.

Pope John Paul II appointed Simonis Archbishop Coadjutor of Utrecht on 27 June 1983 and he succeeded as archbishop there upon the resignation of Cardinal Johannes Willebrands on 3 December 1983. On 6 December he was made a member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

A former president of the Dutch Bishops' Conference, Simonis was a major supporter of Pope John Paul's visit to the Netherlands in 1985.

He was elevated to the College of Cardinals during the consistory of 25 May 1985, as Cardinal-Priest of the Basilica of San Clemente, making him the seventh cardinal of the Dutch Church. He was a member of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and of the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He held these memberships until his 80th birthday on 26 November 2011.

Simonis was one of the cardinal electors who participated in the 2005 papal conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI.

Simonis sent his letter of resignation as Archbishop of Utrecht to Pope Benedict on 13 November 2006, and the Pope accepted it on 14 April 2007, two months before Simonis celebrated his golden jubilee as a priest on 15 June. Simonis continued to govern the archdiocese as Apostolic Administrator until his successor, Wim Eijk, who was appointed on 11 December of the same year, took possession of the see on 28 January 2008.

Simonis died on 2 September 2020 at a care centre in Voorhout.

Controversy
In 2011, Simonis testified on 25 January that he had no role in the appointment or dismissal of a Catholic priest accused of drugging and raping a young man. The brief appearance by Simonis at Middelburg District Court marked the first time such a senior cleric had appeared in a Dutch courtroom to answer questions about abuse in the church. The victim, Dave ten Hoor, says he was drugged and raped twice by the priest, identified only as Father Jan N., in 1989 and 1990 in the southern town of Terneuzen. "I do not know him at all," Simonis said of Father Jan, adding that he had nothing to do with his appointment as a priest in Terneuzen. Simonis was drawn into the case because before moving to Terneuzen, Father Jan also allegedly abused children at a youth centre run by the Salesian order in Rijswijk, a town just outside The Hague. At the time, Simonis was Bishop of Rotterdam and Rijswijk fell within his diocese. However Simonis said he had visited the centre just once for a party and did not recall meeting the priest, though he did not rule out that he may have been introduced to him.

According to Radio Netherlands World: "The cardinal was told by the then bishop of Rotterdam, Philippe Bär, that the priest had sexually abused underage boys in his parish in Zoetermeer. Bishop Bär wanted the priest out of his diocese. Archbishop Simonis then arranged for the man to be moved to a parish in Amersfoort.

The cardinal kept the Amersfoort parish in the dark about the priest's paedophile behaviour and convictions. The priest himself says the cardinal did nothing to monitor how the situation developed.

Parents who complained about the priest to Simonis were given no assistance. Hanneke Brunt, whose altar-boy son was abused: 'Simonis told me – 'This doesn’t go on in the Roman Catholic Church. We don’t do that. Abuse victim Erwin Meester says Simonis 'wilfully and knowingly gave a paedophile his protection, when he should have been protecting the faithful under his care'."

Simonis commented on the abuse in an interview on Pauw & Witteman. Speaking in German, he said: "Wir haben es nicht gewusst (We did not know)". He says he dealt with all the cases of abuse that were brought to his attention "extremely carefully".

title: Adrianus Johannes Simonis


text:
Talk:Districts of Hong Kong

Huaiwei's edits
Huaiwei added   and category:Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China to this article. The districts in Hong Kong are neither counties, nor part of the PRC's administrative divisions, as provided for in the Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution. — Instantnood 17:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * What country are the districts of Hong Kong an administrative division of, then? Obviously the authority to create administrative divisions extends beyond article 30 of the 1982 constitution. SchmuckyTheCat 18:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Districts of Hong Kong and counties in mainland China are all part of the PRC, but they're not part of the same administrative division structure. — Instantnood 17:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comme çi, comme ça cuz it's like that, and that's the way it is. SchmuckyTheCat 19:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name
I can't go along with the idea of fragmentising Hong Kong Special Administrative Region into Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Would it be nice to break PRC into People's Republic of China in other sense? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See also talk:District Council of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 14:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wars
Please no edit wars here once again. :) Let's don't revert each other's edits over trivial things what's wrong with breaking it up? I don't see anything wrong. --Terence Ong Talk 10:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

History
Can someone provide more history prior to 1982? John Walden, Director of Home Affairs from 1976 to 1980, noted in 1979 that there were 10 City Distric Offices, Headquarters in International Building, with "300 well-educated Chinese and dedicated young people" working for it. --Ghormax 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There were already District Offices, each with a District Officer, prior to the creation of District Councils. The limits the districts were slight changed after the councils were established, and some are divided into two. — Instantnood 23:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Districts of Hong Kong. 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/20140311235705/http://www.hongkongpost.hk/eng/locations/delivery/index.htm to http://www.hongkongpost.hk/eng/locations/delivery/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maps
I found detailed PDF maps of the Hong Kong districts here: https://www.eac.hk/en/distco/2015dc_elect_map.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Population section
There is two problems. It is no update since 2006. The area data is not found in the latest edition of the periodical cited. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp150.jsp?productCode=B1130301. The data for area size probably locate somewhere else. If the two data were digged out, then other wiki editors can reconstruct the table. Also, simple calculation is allowed per WP:CALC. But i think the population density data are pre-calculated by the Census and Statistics Department. Otherwise we need to discuss to use the land area as denominator or total area that also include sea area. However, very few people live on the sea/boat. Matthew hk (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Districts of Hong Kong


text: User talk:64.59.209.89

title: User talk:64.59.209.89


text: User talk:216.124.149.42

title: User talk:216.124.149.42


text:
Communio

Communio (lit. 'communion' or 'fellowship') is a federation of theological journals, founded in 1972 by Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Henri de Lubac. Communio, now published in thirteen editions (including German, English and Spanish). The journals are independently edited, but also publish translations of each other's articles.

It is often considered to be the sister publication and theological rival to the journal Concilium, which was founded in 1965 intending to keep the "spirit of Vatican II" in the Catholic Church after the sessions of the Second Vatican Council had ended.

title: Communio


text:
Here be dragons

"Here be dragons" (hic sunt dracones) means dangerous or unexplored territories, in imitation of a medieval practice of putting illustrations of dragons, sea monsters and other mythological creatures on uncharted areas of maps where potential dangers were thought to exist.

History
Although several early maps, such as the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, have illustrations of mythological creatures for decoration, the phrase itself is an anachronism. Until the Ostrich Egg Globe was offered for sale in 2012 at the London Map Fair held at the Royal Geographical Society, the only known historical use of this phrase in the Latin form "HC SVNT DRACONES" (i.e., hic sunt dracones, 'here are dragons') was the Hunt-Lenox Globe dating from 1508. Earlier maps contain a variety of references to mythical and real creatures, but the Ostrich Egg Globe and its twin the Lenox Globe are the only known surviving globes to bear this phrase. The term appears on both globes at the peripheral, extreme end of the Asian continent.

The classical phrase used by medieval cartographers was HIC SVNT LEONES (literally, "here are lions") when denoting unknown territories on maps.

Dragons on maps

Dragons appear on a few other historical maps:

 * The T-O Psalter world map (c. 1250 AD) has dragons, as symbols of sin, in a lower "frame" below the world, balancing Jesus and angels on the top, but the dragons do not appear on the map proper.
 * The Borgia map (c. 1430), in the Vatican Library, states, over a dragon-like figure in Asia (in the upper left quadrant of the map), "Hic etiam homines magna cornua habentes longitudine quatuor pedum, et sunt etiam serpentes tante magnitudinis, ut unum bovem comedant integrum". ("Here there are even men who have large four-foot horns, and there are even serpents so large that they could eat an ox whole.")
 * The Fra Mauro Map (c. 1450) shows the "Island of Dragons" (Isola de' dragoni), an imaginary island in the Atlantic Ocean. In an inscription near Herat in modern-day Afghanistan, Fra Mauro says that in the mountains nearby "there are a number of dragons, in whose forehead is a stone that cures many infirmities", and describes the locals' way of hunting those dragons to get the stones. This is thought to be based on Albertus Magnus's treatise De mineralibus. In an inscription elsewhere on the map, the cartographer expresses his scepticism regarding "serpents, dragons and basilisks" mentioned by "some historiographers".
 * A 19th-century Japanese map, the Jishin-no-ben, in the shape of ouroboros, depicts a dragon associated with causing earthquakes.

Other creatures on maps

 * Ptolemy's atlas in Geographia (originally 2nd century, taken up again in the 15th century) warns of elephants, hippos and cannibals.
 * The Tabula Peutingeriana (a medieval copy of Roman map) has "in his locis elephanti nascuntur", "in his locis scorpiones nascuntur" and "hic cenocephali nascuntur" ("in these places elephants are born, in these places scorpions are born, here Cynocephali are born").
 * Cotton MS. Tiberius B.V. fol. 56v (10th century), British Library Manuscript Collection, has "hic abundant leones" ("here lions abound"), along with a picture of a lion, near the east coast of Asia (at the top of the map towards the left); this map also has a text-only serpent reference in southernmost Africa (bottom left of the map): "Zugis regio ipsa est et Affrica. est enim fertilis. sed ulterior bestiis et serpentibus plena" ("This region of Zugis is in Africa; it is rather fertile, but on the other hand it is full of beasts and serpents.")
 * The Ebstorf map (13th century) has a dragon in the extreme south-eastern part of Africa, together with an asp and a basilisk.
 * Giovanni Leardo's map (1442) has, in southernmost Africa, "Dixerto dexabitado p. chaldo e p. serpent".
 * Martin Waldseemüller's Carta marina navigatoria (1516) has "an elephant-like creature in northernmost Norway, accompanied by a legend explaining that this 'morsus' with two long and quadrangular teeth congregated there", i.e. a walrus, which would have seemed monstrous at the time.
 * Waldseemüller's Carta marina navigatoria (1522), revised by Laurentius Fries, has the morsus moved to the Davis Strait.
 * Bishop Olaus Magnus's Carta Marina map of Scandinavia (1539) has many monsters in the northern sea, as well as a winged, bipedal, predatory land animal resembling a dragon in northern Lapland.
 * On European maps of Africa, up until the Berlin Conference and the subsequent Scramble for Africa produced accurate cartographic representations of Africa, elephants replaced dragons as placeholders for unknown regions. An excerpt from On Poetry: a Rhapsody by the Irish satirist Jonathan Swift states: "So geographers, in Afric maps, With savage pictures fill their gaps, And o'er uninhabitable downs, Place elephants for want of towns".

title: Here be dragons


text:
Emma of Lesum

Emma of Lesum or Emma of Stiepel (also known as Hemma and Imma) (c. 975-980 – 3 December 1038) was a countess popularly venerated as a saint for her good works; she is also the first female inhabitant of Bremen to be known by name.

title: Emma of Lesum