User talk:AirshipJungleman29

History of Christianity

I'm not here to nag, but before acting on advice given from my former GA reviewer Generalissima, I wanted to let you know she thinks it's time to submit to FAC. Substantive changes have been made to the article, but I want to know if you agree with her. Can you let me know today? If you both think it's time, I will submit it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777; On a quick look, I don't think the article will pass at FAC. It remains too disorganised, in both general and specific terms, with the detailing of both the broad and narrow themes and concepts varying widely and confusingly. I do not think I would be able to support the article's promotion at this time. I am sorry that this is probably not what you wanted to hear, and also very sorry that I have not been as responsive to you as I said I would. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, no, it's perfectly okay, really, I wanted your candid opinion. I am surprised to hear you think it's disorganized however, and would deeply appreciate some input on how to improve that. It's true that themes vary widely, but that reflects reality. How can I fix that? I accept your apology of course - you don't really owe me one - but you can make it up to me by helping me figure this out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so. I think perhaps more section titles might make things less confusing. I'm giving it a try. Please look it over. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Normally I think I'm good at organizing lots of little things into broad overarching categories. I have now given it a shot. I will not move to FAC without your support, so please respond with whatever you think. Please. I need to get this off my plate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I can only speak with real authority on the medieval bits, so let's look at the basic structure of the beginning of the "Early Middle Ages (600–1000)" section.

• We start with a single sentence, thirteen-word paragraph on urban bishoprics remaining "nerve centers". As far as I can see, not only has this not been discussed previously (the closest I think we get is "Christianity had no central government, and differences developed in many locations.") but the word "bishopric" itself has not been defined, and it is not linked either.

• Already removed - before I even saw this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Then, we have a paragraph on Christianity in the 600s (cited to Brown), but "religion in the Middle Ages was not unified and piously Christian. Instead, it existed alongside many of the old beliefs" seems to me an adaptation of what Van Engen actually said (and just on p. 526; I don't know why there are three other page numbers). Our article says that religion was not unified, where as V.E says "medieval Christendom [was not] singularly unified"—not quite the same thing. The vaguely-alluded to "old beliefs" also compounded with the earlier mis-adaptation to produce the impression that V.E. (and Powicke, who he quotes) are saying that the Middle Ages were religiously divided, when in reality the point is that paganism and Christianity co-evolved: "The history of the Church is the record of the gradual and mutual adaptation of Christianity and paganism to each other." (Powicke, 1935) As that sentence discussed both Christianity in the 600s and Christianity in the Middle Ages, the reader is not sure what period the "church of this period" refers to, and this particular reader is unsure why "simple folk" and "implicit faith" cannot be paraphrased. The final sentence is fine, except for Matter 2008 having an incorrect DOI and the last two page numbers being unnecessary, seeing as the sentence just cites the first sentence of the chapter.

• Let me start at the bottom. Christianity in the 600s and Christianity in the Middle Ages, The title of the section refers to both the Middle Ages and the period from 600 on. How is that confusing? They are the same things. "simple folk" and "implicit faith" are summaries of much longer descriptions - not paraphrased. Two extra page numbers are gone. One thing  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Correct me if I am wrong, but the 600s are not the same thing as 600–1000 or 600–wherever one thinks the Middle Ages end. If "simple folk" and "implicit faith" are summaries of much longer descriptions, they are ipso facto paraphrased and should not be in quotes (MOS:PMC).

• The first sentence on Christendom has two references, both Brown and Van Engen. Brown is there for the first half of the sentence, It is easy to forget how long-established Christianity felt itself to be in the 600s" is from Brown page 6. Van Engen is there for the rest. On page 519, Van Engen discusses older scholarship: ...each of those outlooks still shared the common presupposition that medieval culture was essentially "Christian" or "Catholic," and on 521 scholars and ordinary folks alike looked on medieval civilization as predominantly "Christian" or "Catholic" in character. Then he spends a few pages discussing scholarship of the last ten years till he gets to Gabriel Le Bras' masterful account of medieval ecclesiastical institutions revealed a Latin Christendom comprised of several overlapping and competing interest groups... Such close examination permanently shattered any hazy Romantic notions of medieval Christendom as singularly unified or pious... So that sentence has both "singularly" and "unified", the first ref has "essentially", and the third example uses "predominantly". I summarized what I understood to be the point: that religion in the Middle Ages was not unified and piously Christian. I will happily rephrase using singularly instead of unified for you.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Um...okay... but piddling about with a single word and making the phrase less clear has nought to do with what I said. I repeat: in your attempt to paraphrase "any notions of medieval Christendom as singularly unified or pious [were shattered]", you have produced something like "the beliefs of the medieval period were not only Christian" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's the notions of previous scholarship claiming uniformity that were shattered. What exactly are we disagreeing about? Do you not think that's what Van Engen says? I have redone that paragraph. I'm unsure that it's any better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Your next point: The vaguely-alluded to "old beliefs" also compounded with the earlier mis-adaptation to produce the impression that V.E. (and Powicke, who he quotes) are saying that the Middle Ages were religiously divided, when in reality the point is that paganism and Christianity co-evolved: No they didn't. This is a misunderstanding of what V.E. says. First, page 526 is summarizing old scholarship, and not yet reaching conclusions. Second, V.E. quotes Powicke as saying Paganism abounded, but it was the literal paganism of the natural man There was no mythical millennium of Indo-European folk religion (page 537), there was no organized paganism capable of "co-evolving" with Christianity. Medieval religion was divided. V.E.'s conclusions begin on page 537: medieval religious life included a constant struggle to establish or renew Christian religious culture in the face of various other religious practices, some derived from what Powicke described as the "paganism of the natural man," some of more ancient heritage. They co-existed. They did not co-evolve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, I can see how that might work, but the point that the previous references to a "not singularly piously Christian" religion creates the impression that there was an "organized paganism capable of "co-evolving" with Christianity" still stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay that's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Then, we have a section on the "Church and society", with a subsection titled "Christendom". Normally, we expect the bigger picture to be tackled first, so I am unsure why the—according to the article, "pervasive and unifying"—concept of "Christendom" is left until after a section on monasteries. It is not great that although this monasteries section has eight individual citations, only two are written by authors who could really call themselves subject-matter experts, and one of them died 90 years ago.

• Why do you consider the bigger picture to be the idea of Christendom? I can certainly flip the order if you prefer.  Done I don't understand this however: this monasteries section has eight individual citations, only two are written by authors who could really call themselves subject-matter experts, and one of them died 90 years ago. The subject matter being the Middle Ages or monastics or medicine or what? James Westfall Thompson was an expert in the history of medieval and early modern Europe. He did die in 1941, but his book has been reprinted several times, and the version I used is dated 2016. Blainey was an expert historian, and if you recall I was previously chided for not using more general histories such as his "Short History of Christianity", so that's why he's there. Koenig is an expert on the history of medicine. Butler was an expert on Benedict. Dunn is expert in history of religion. All works referenced are dated in the 2000's except one. What reference would you prefer? I don't mind adding or removing any - according to what they actually say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Geoffrey Blainey's specialisation is "Australian economic and social history". Matthews & Platt are art and intellectual historians. Tom Woods, when not being a political commentator, focused on early-modern to present Catholicism, and his co-author is a cardinal specialising in catechesis. Dennis Dunn is a historian primarily of diplomacy in the modern era, who has a side project on the history of political thought. Koenig, King & Carson are all medical practitioners; Koenig's article says he received a B.S. in history, but that is unverified by the source. Finally, Haight is a professor in modern theology. I am unsure why you have brought up Thompson, who is not cited in the monasteries section, or falsely attributed expertise in relevant topics to Koenig and Dunn.

• Harold G. Koenig has a wikipedia page. He is an MD with an interest in religion and its impact on mental health. Roy T Matthews degrees are in history which he taught. Platt also has degrees in history with a focus on the history of religion. In universities, religion is in the humanities department. Their book is award winning and they are award winning educators. Religion is part of culture, right? I find their book excellent for tying cultural, social and religious threads together. But I won't argue further, I will just do my best to redo this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Then, looking at the "Christendom" subsection, that whole block of text which purports to be cited from V.E. p. 540 ... mostly isn't. Don't have time to analyse more than that.

• I am missing page numbers. That's bad, I don't know what happened, but the content is there. On page 539 it has "Christendom" ... was a term medieval writers applied to themselves and their civilization... as a universal society of believers subject to the vicar of Christ in Rome Page 540 has Christendom was a common religious observance (cultus) overseen and enforced by the king together with his lords and bishops. Observance began with baptism, and on page 541 "Christendom" was the term medieval folk at every level used to identify their religious culture. Page 543 has private confession, which originated in the monastery, only gradually became a ...routine ... required annually of every Christian after 1215. In the High Middle Ages it became the chief means of personal religious formation, chiefly by examining each individual against a standardized list of vices and virtues. The rest is on page 546: Certain religious observances were therefore expected of, and certain elements of religious culture were common to, all: baptism at birth and last rites at death to secure eternal salvation, rudimentary knowledge of the Apostles' Creed and Lord's Prayer, rest on Sunday and feast days (holy days) with attendance at mass, fasting at specified times, confession once a year after 1215 (usually Shrove Tuesday), communion at Easter, the payment of various fees and tithes at specified times, and alms for the needy (partly as a penitential exercise). Whatever their level of indifference, superstition, or immorality, every European grounded his or her religious life in this basic cultural structure. Boy I'm glad you found that! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have to say, I don't understand how any of this contributes to a "general disorganised air". Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• The above dialogue is 1,700 words (so far) of dialogue on five paragraphs of under 400 words. We are all volunteers on this project, and the most valuable resource is time. Going to FAC, where you can expect similar levels of scrutiny on every single paragraph and citation, and not having stuff like page numbers, WP:UPFRONT, or MOS:QUOTE well in hand, is not saying to reviewers "your time will not be used up sorting out basic issues, you can focus on just making sure this is some of WP's best work". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the above criticisms are not criticising what's not in the text (so no word count issues), it's what is already there that contributes to the general disorganised air. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it seems I've annoyed you, and I am unsure why. I thought I had to respond to all disagreements with quotes from the sources. I thought I was doing the right thing. I guess you are saying there should be no errors like missing page numbers before going to FAC. I will try to ensure that. But how does that impact organization? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No Jenhawk777, I am not annoyed, but perhaps channeling the strictness of the FA criteria. I do not know how to explain otherwise—but perhaps experience is better than words? It might just be best to nominate at FAC like Generalissima advised, to get an idea of what others expect from the article. I may be entirely wrong with my assessments (rare, but it has been known to happen)! Just be prepared, in case criticism and opposition does come up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If I am not annoying you with "basic issues" then it's all good. I would like to get as much of this out of the way as possible before nominating. Familiarity causes me to overlook things that jump out at you. I find you an invaluable aid. Please don't abandon me! I am pedaling as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reworked Christendom and resourced Monasteries. Go ahead and be strict. I apparently need it Tell me if this passes muster. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's okay if you don't feel like going over the same section again. You gave me your advice and I did my best to follow it. Maybe we could just move on to the next section? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much time at the moment Jenhawk777, and in any case I can't help with most of the article, so I think you should be WP:BOLD and go ahead and FA nom. At worst, you'll get pointers on what to work on in the future for the whole article. At best, the article will improve and be promoted! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Will you downvote it if I do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I can !vote, because I think I'm too involved with the article, so I'll probably leave the comments to others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So you won't uphold it either. Well, thank you for all you have done. Do you know of other Middle Ages experts I could ping and ask? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, you've met Borsoka ;) I know of many Middle Ages editors, but most don't especially focus on theological-adjacent avenues, and they're much more likely to just turn up to poke at the stuff they find interesting in an FA nomination. What I think could be more helpful, before said FAC, is asking people who have previously improved broad-concept articles to a high-level what they advise on weighting and length. Buidhe could be helpful, but maybe also Chiswick Chap or Phlsph7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about reliability of Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World

Hi AirshipJungleman29. I saw your revert of my edit adding Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World as a source on Töregene Khatun. I'm not an expert on this subject matter, so I want to get some more insight if you would not mind. The book is used as a source for a lot of pages so I assumed it would be okay to add here. Can you point me to where I can learn more on why the book is considered unreliable? Arcturus95 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Good question Arcturus95. The reason that it is widely used as a source is that it was probably the most circulated source on Mongol history for around a decade after its publication. However, today, twenty years after it was published, there are loads of high-quality sources on Mongol history, so it is not worth citing a source that has errors in it. Kaplonski noted that "there are some parts of the book that are simply wrong", and recommended it only to total novices to Mongol history, while Timothy May has written that "it is very clear Weatherford is not a historian", "the general narrative is correct, but the finer points are simply wrong", and that "the book is rife with unsubstantiated historical speculation". May concludes that he would not recommend it as a text suitable for scholarly analysis, and suggests that it is suitable for those who aren't interested in histoey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Arcturus95 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A soprano with leading roles at the opera house of the years 2022 and 2023 (after several others) is notable. Kindly remove that tag. I can add a few sources. I hoped to get a Bach cantata ready for its 300th birthday on Sunday, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Typically, the sources which demonstrate notability should be cited in the article, Gerda Arendt, rather than vaguely floating around the internet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

... "should be" - yes. I try again: it's not sources what make her notable, but what she does on stage, facts that is. Sorry, I had a busy week, concert, plenty of guests, and on Wikipedia, too many RD articles over several weeks + a weekly Bach cantata that turns 300.

• several reviews at different houses
• similar
• She'll give a lieder recital with a tenor and the music director of Oper Frankfurt Opera end of the month.

I'll travel all weekend, - there's life. Today, I gave priority to the memory of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any significant coverage in there Gerda Arendt, unless I'm missing something. 4meter4, as another opera specialist, what do you think of Magdalena Hinterdobler's notability? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I should go to bed because travel will begin extremely early tomorrow, but will add recordings because I feel under pressure. If Leipzig Opera, a public municipal organo zation, says which roles she performed there, they report facts. She sang in a world premiere there. Can we agree so far? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Did they provide significant coverage, Gerda Arendt? I wish you the best with your journey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I will be distracted. I'd travel better if you'd take that tag away at least for the few remaining hours on the Main age. It discredits our content. - First recording added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Second recording added. There are more. Nite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29 It is borderline. She is the main subject of the first cited source which is a print magazine as well as an online one: [1] This is really the only source with significant coverage. I was unable to locate anything else, which is a mark against notability. One thing is for sure, the article uses way too many non-independent sources, which I have pointed out to Gerda at several DYK noms, most recently Template:Did you know nominations/Daniela Kerck. I suggest whenever you see Gerda Arendt using opera company, theatre, or orchestra websites which use PR created non-independent bios (often self written or written by the subject's paid management) that you tag the article as I have done. Using these is unacceptable and a clear violation of WP:BLPSOURCES policy.

That said Hinterdobler is performing lead roles at significant houses. Her performances are getting reviewed routinely, as are her recordings; but I can't say they put much focus on her... She is getting a significant volume of media coverage, but it isn't particularly in-depth. For example The Guardian review of Die Loreley doesn't even mention her other than in the title's list of lead performers even though she is one of the leads... Gramophone mentions her in passing. The Leipzig Ring review lists her in the cast but doesn't have a thing to say about her performances. This review praises her briefly which is sort of typical of what's out there. Here is another example. One could literally dig up dozens of reviews of this type in opera magazines and reviews in local papers where she gets mentioned in passing; usually with a positive mention of her singing or acting. She doesn't get more than a sentence or two though. I think it could go either way at an AFD. I suggest taking it to AFD and seeing what others have to say. My guess is that there is a slightly better chance that it would pass an AFD, as opposed to failing it, given the large number of reviews. I would support deleting the article unless another source is found with in-depth coverage because I think she fails WP:SIGCOV based on the current evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated it 4meter4; we'll see how it goes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We'll see. I entered the train after 2 1/2 hours of sleep, and it had no WLAN connection. Very briefly: I am not afraid. I created the article to have Der Traumgörge on the Main page, because some people including 4meter4 prevented that for Liviu Holender, - mission accomplished (and there even was interest). What these two singers perform is note-worthy, whether there are "deep" reports about it or not. (Opera is teamwork. A fair critic can't devote deep coverage to all performers when there are many important roles, as in Meistersinger and Traumgörge.) If a consensus will think differently, I won't care. Holender had his recital, and Hinterdobler will get hers soon (28 May), with a tenor and the music director at the piano. I'm sure she'll receive the coverage you seem to need (and I don't understand why). Now I'll turn to preparing a meal in company, and enjoy the weekend, and better not even think of it. I will not create a new story for today but will leave hers "on". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Like on so many things, it seems that we disagree on how WP should function here as well. Still, you may be right. Enjoy your journey! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

I just wanted to say a big thank you to you for removing the GAR on this article, which many others including myself have contributed to over the past couple of years. Prspiring (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome Prspiring, but as it was merely a {{GAR request}} tag, there is no guarantee that it will not be nominated for GAR. For myself, I don't really see the need. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. Prspiring (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)