Talk:James Ussher

message: House of Usher. Get the joke or don´t get it.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD4:D7A9:0:A51C:29C7:277F:DAB0 (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the difference between sarcasm and sardonism? 

message: "The traditional portrait of Ussher is of a slightly unworldly scholar who was at best a mediocre politician and administrator. In fact he was a perfectly effective bishop and archbishop, and his learning earned him considerable respect in political circles." -- We have here a claim about the "traditional portrait of Ussher", followed by a claim that "in fact" this portrait is incorrect -- both without sources. If we're going to make claims like these, let's provide something to back them up. - 200.141.105.210 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: "His account of these later events for which he has multiple sources is usually in close agreement with modern accounts. For example, he places the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Both of these dates are the same as in the modern chronology." -- This seems completely non-noteworthy to me, as Ussher's chronology of these events and the modern ones are presumably based on the same sources. Is there any reason why this is interesting? Answer: Because he was a very good writer and a very impressive historian for his time and more impressively even for today!-- 200.141.105.210 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I added this note because I believe that all many people know of Ussher is the 4004 B.C. date, and thus conclude that he was a complete quack. These are just two specific examples I happened to know of where he agreed exactly with the modern chronology. They give evidence that thre rest of his chronology was quite good. --Dantheox 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical events: Ussher cf. modern chronologies

message: The Manual of Style states that an article is overlinked if more than 10% of its words are links or links exceed one per line, among other criteria. On the whole, the article now meets these criteria. — Joe Kress 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: This section seems stubby.  Are the sources weak on describing his primacy, or is it just something to be added? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I don't know the sources, but this is good to see. Cool MAG1. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Eek - I didn't make myself clear.  All I mean is that I haven't made an effort to read the sources myself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primate of All Ireland

message: JU has been categorised as a RC Archbishop - he'll be turning in his grave (if he hasn't already been raptured). I think the problem is that Archbishops of Armagh is a red link, so that page will have to be created.--Shtove 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic 

message: Who is the person who keeps adding the name McDowell to James Stanihurst's name, and, even more strangely to Ambrose Ussher's name?  Some mad McDowell genealogist, trying to foist his name on some one who never used it?   All contemporary references to James Stanihurst record him as plain James Stanihurst.  Could we please leave him like that, unless you can produce some contemporary evidence that he actually signed himself McDowell?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.85.36 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDowell 

message: I just created John Tannatt Ussher and I know there are other Usshers and Ushers out there (as in The Fall of the House of...); can't put a dab line here as my J. Ussher isn't a James......so what to do?  Can there be a two-item disambig page, or do we have to dig up another Ussher/Usher to make it happen?Skookum1 08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An Ussher (disambiguation) page may be order, linked via an  template at the top of this article, see WP:DAB. However, an Usher disambiguation page already exists, with The Fall of the House of Usher and other 'usher's. I'm not sure whether two disambiguation pages with slightly different spellings are warranted or not. Searching for Ussher yields Kitty Ussher, Ussher chronology, Ussher Gospels (redirect), Elizabeth Ussher (redirect), and now your John Tannatt Ussher.  However, Ussher should still redirect here because most readers searching for Ussher will want information on Archbishop James Ussher. — Joe Kress 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Joe Kress on this.  I have set up a disambiguation page for other Usshers.  MAG1 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ussher]] should not redirect here

message: The one before last external link ("Ussher and the Date of Creation (Answers Magazine)") points to a site that explicitly states their mission as "dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively". That site is full of patently erroneous claims, it should be removed: it does not enhance or contribute to clarify/expand the material covered in the Wikipedia article. It should be removed.
--NullaEst (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links and References 

message: When I was a student of Biology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem I visited a friend of mine at the Dept. of Botany. The department secretary had seen the date (and I think time) of creation in some newspaper and thought it was extremely funny. So much so, that she copied and enlarged it many times (with the biggest one taking a full meter span) and hung them on the walls, doors closets and bookshelves. The whole office with adjoining rooms were full of: 9pm 23 October 4004 BC! Instead of laughing, it got me interested in the whole thing, and taught me a lot.Pashute (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdote 

message: I have a facsimile of a late 19th century chart compiled from Ushers work which shows a timeline for China. Does anyone know if this was in Usshers original work and if not, when it was added? Fainites barleyscribs 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly publish it on Wikisource, if you've got time. — LlywelynII 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: So, the article currently has the statement
:Ussher is also popular amongst creationists, even though they reject his methodology of using the most up to date contemporary scientific, chronological, historical and biblical scholarship to date the age of the world.
which I would argue is not only unsourced and y but highly dubious. What is much closer to the truth is that Ussher is very popular with atheists, who use his over-precise figure as a Godwin-style cudgel against their enemies, ignoring that Ussher did use the most up-to-date scientific, historical, and literary scholarship available to him.
Is there anyone this side of open trolls who actually adheres to Ussher's calculations as a revelation? Is there any way to include atheists' misuse of his calculation (crediting it to mainstream Christianity or current believers) without just introducing countervaling snark? (Fwiw, I say this as an agnostic; I just admire the man's scholarship enough that I think we should present what's happened to his legacy more honestly.) — LlywelynII 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you've said. I removed that sentence from the article. Hypertall (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues

message: His uncle, the Archdeacon of Dublin encouraged him to read the Bible, the first book he read completely (Gorst, 2001). At age eight, he was sent to Latin School headed by two Scotsmen who were using it as a cover to spy for the English King (Gorst, 2001). Mrrogersingh (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education