User talk:AirshipJungleman29

education in Saudi Arabia

Hi, just saw your message on how my edit to the page didnt oblige with the NPOV. For my information the only source i have used yet is the OECD which would be a neutral source. As far as i know i have been neutral with my information, but i am new to wikipedia so if you could tell me what exactly was not neutral/encyclopedic about my work i would really appreciate it.

Hello Hamza.bbs (please remember to sign your messages using four tildes). Using neutral sources is only one aspect (WP:BESTSOURCES) of remaining neutral. Other aspects include: maintaining an impartial tone and avoiding certain expressions, correctly weighting sections according to their prominence in RS, and structuring articles to avoid undue focus on particular aspects. You will want to keep these links in mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello AirshipJungleman29 thanks a lot for the help and explanations. Preciate the effort! Hamza.bbs (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest is halfway through!

Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.