Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustine of Canterbury

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 15:47, 5 April 2008.

Augustine of Canterbury

edit

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Probably the closest FAs to this subject for comparision are Asser and Gregory of Nazianzus, who both are close in time frame and both are religious figures. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix 1a, please. I looked only at the lead, and found rather a lot to improve:
  • An idle "also".
  • "was converted"—remove "was"?
  • "and went on to convert numbers of the king's followers"—"numbers" is odd here. How many? Use a better word.
  • "and went to"—"and proceeded to"?
  • "and get them to"—persuade?
  • "native born priests"—something missing?
  • "after having arranged"—remove "after" (especially as there's another "after" to come).

Can you find someone else who's unfamiliar with the text to sift through the whole article? TONY (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, but had Mike Christie go through and copyedit it. I'll be glad to have anyone else do so also. I'll try to go through and cut more fluff out (I know its there, I write fluffily!) Thanks Tony. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had another go at tweaking the prose, mainly cutting (although I did find a citation for the missing fact so that's out of there now) To be fair, Mike didn't do much with the lead, but I welcome other comments and concerns. I took care of most of the above (Except the proceeded to which had already left the article, at least I couldn't find an occurance of the word there.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camments:
Firstly, needs a paragraph or section on sources. Mike Christie will be aware of the full details of why I think this is needed on these articles, but for instance, in this article, there are two clear and distinct sources of info. Gregory's letters and Bede's history (which partially uses these letters). Bede is for instance a virulent Britonophobe and monastic supremicist, two things which have significant impacts on the parts of his narrative this article is most reliant upon. It's obviously too late for this now, and hasn't been established as an FA criterion, de iure or de facto.
I'll try to work a short section in. I have Goffart, and will mine him for some stuff. Also picked up Clancy's From Memory to Written Word, which I havent' had time to really read yet. It may have something. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better you don't spend too much time doing that at this stage ... might take a while to get right, and so safer to leave it perhaps. Don't worry about it for this, I'm just gonna add such a comment on all FAC's of this type I comment for the time being. Maybe in the future I'll use it as a reason to oppose, but like I said hasn't been established as an FA criterion, de iure or de facto. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, there is inconsistant application of UK v US spelling systems, e.g. behaviour and baptised, but organize, recognize, etc
Working on this, which is complicated by the fact that I'm a Yank. (This is going to make all those English bishops I'm working on SOOO much fun!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Brits are flexible enough to allow -ize or -ise, but I suppose the use should be consistent. Yomanganitalk 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Augustine was prior of Gregory's monastery in Rome when in ...
Perhaps there should be more specificness about which monastery this is here.
I've tried to keep the lead down to a managable size, do you think it's really necessary detail to include the name of the monastery in the lead? I think I already caught the important part, that it was Gregory's own monastery. The name is given in the body of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the monastery should be named. I understand though you have a variety of concerns to juggle, many of which contradict each other. Such is the FA process! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Celtic Christianity was based around monasteries instead of bishoprics.
Celtic Christianity is quite a controversial term. Most Celticists wouldn't use it. If the church of the Celtic world had any unifying features, it was probably the role of Britannia as the source of Christianity. Monastic v bishop wise, that is also a little controversial. There has been some revisionism regarding the monasticization of Irish Christianity in recent works .... arguing this was a recent development around the time of Augustine rather than an ancient one. Ireland, Scotland and the more highland parts of England and Wales were not part of the Roman Empire and hence had no ancient bishoprics ... but it is clear that bishops were very important in the British/Brythonic territories, perhaps just as important as elsewhere in the old Roman Empire. Now references to this whole discussion aren't necessary here, just maybe ease up in the use of such terms. :) As far as I can tell, the Irish church has nothing to do with Augustine or any of these events, so why not just use the uncontroversial "British Church" whenever you feel you're about to say "Celtic Church"?
Will change it over. It's a sound criticism, but wasn't sure what the current fad of the moment was on the naming of the "native church". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is mentioned in the sources on why Pope Gregory chose a monk to head the mission. Pope Gregory once wrote to Æthelberht complimenting Augustine's knowledge of Scripture, so Augustine was evidently well educated. Other qualifications included administrative ability, for Gregory was the abbot of St Anthony as well as being pope, which left the day to day running of the abbey to Augustine, the prior.
Just F(Y)I, Gregory was a monk and probably had contempt for the spirituality of less fundamentalist Christian service people, such as priests. This was a real age of monasticism. Bede, you can tell from many of his side comments, shares Gregory's probable prejudices.
I can try to fit that in, if you'd like and you have a source for it. Nothing I have (besides Bede which I'm trying to avoid using too much because he's primary) says that much about Gregory, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie. This would come in source analysis, but as above that probably should be left. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by 601, Gregory was writing to both Æthelberht and Bertha, calling the king his son and referring to the grace the king had received. The grace the pope was referring to would have been the grace of baptism.
You probably don't need "also" here. Perhaps it is sufficient to say Gregory referred to his baptism, rather than "waste a sentence" discussing "grace", which is a technical term most people won't understand the meaning of or would find confusing. "His son" maybe should be in quote-marks, and I would suggest if possible document quotation might be appropriate here.
Good suggestion, we've struggled with this concept. My main concern is that Gregory doesn't outright say he was baptized, or at least according to the source I'm using here. The exact quote that Brooks (the source) uses from the letter is "to preserve the grace he had recieved." Maybe I should just quote that, something like "By 601, Gregory was writing to AEthelberht, calling the king his son and telling him to "preserve the grace he had received".(ref goes here) While Gregory doesn't explicitly mention baptism, grace in this context is a theological term that usually means the grace of baptism."? That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would use "referring to his baptism" and put the quote in the footnote, with the explanation (which should not be controversial). Be clear when possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took a swing at this. Let me know if this was what you had in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of paragraph 4 in the Arrival and first efforts needs reworked a little for length. In para 5, there are two "however"s, which I'm sure some reviewers would disapprove of.
Reworded both. Let me know if the new wording works for you?
In 604, Augustine founded two more episcopates in England.
Prolly change episcopate to bishopric; I at least tend to encounter this term meaning "episcopal reign" rather than "episcopal see". I have done this.
I tend to overuse the word bishopric because of my subject matter. Episcopates was probably an attempt to vary wording a bit. Fine with the change though. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Additional work" section the word "recovered" is used. This is an English translation, so you should probably name the Latin word in question.
Would if I had it. Unfortunately, I don't own the Latin original of Bede (I really didn't ever intend to study this early of a period. Bede's useless for Anglo-Norman studies, it's pure chance I kept my Penguin edition of Bede all these years). Be happy to have you supply it! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Latin version is online here. The ref used is not specific enough to help me find it. I assume this word occurs in i.25 or i. 26, but this is not enough to be sure what word another person is thinking of even if I had a clue. (This is more reason btw for the Latin word to be there, and/or a ref. :) ). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at my translation of Bede, it is in chapter 33, the first sentence. The Latin (in all it's Bedeish glory) is "AT Augustinus, ubi in regia ciuitate sedem episcopalem, ut praediximus, accepit, recuperauit in ea, regio fultus adminiculo, ecclesiam, quam inibi antiquo Romanorum fidelium opere factam fuisse didicerat, et eam in nomine sancti Saluatoris Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi sacrauit, atque ibidem sibi habitationem statuit et cunctis successoribus suis." which, I believe means the word we're looking for is recuperauit, if my very rusty Latin is correct. The translation Sherley-Price gives is "Having been granted his episcopal see in the royal capital, as already recorded, Augustine proceeded with the king's help to repair a church which he was informed had been built long ago by Roman Christians." This site from Notre Dame gives possible meanings of recover. I'll work this into a footnote somehow. Thanks for the Latin! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made an attempt at this, look it over and tell me if this is acceptable? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph has some rather awkward wordings that caused me some trouble following the meaning. E.g. summoned the British bishops to meet with Augustine in 603, and Augustine met with them twice. The first time the bishops asked to confer with their people before returning. During the first meeting, yeah? Both meetings in 603? Bede says this disrespect caused the bishops refusal to recognize Augustine as archbishop. Presumably refusal is refused. I've attempted a reworking of this. Revert me if you disapprove.
Looks good to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Augustine is claimed as the founder of The King's School, Canterbury, which would make it the world's oldest school; but the first documentary records of the school date from the 16th century Made me smile. :)
Yeah, that one came in from someone else, and I managed to source it to the school's website, but (as you can tell) I take it with a rather large grain of salt. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exact contents of these books is unknown
Verb and noun number are not in line.
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the death and legacy section, is Augustine really that important? I guess you can easily find sources saying he is, but in fairness he may just be seen as the pawn of the Pope, the Franks and the King of Kent. No biggie though.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think of Augustine as a symbol as much as anything. He certainly occupies enough space in Bede. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Deacon's comments on sources have come up before, as he says; I think he's advocating something stronger than I feel is necessary, but I'll support his suggestion that a little more clarification on what the primary sources are would be helpful. On spelling, I'd suggest standardizing to British spelling, because of the subject; I have spent too much time on both sides of the Atlantic to be a reliable help here. I like Deacon's suggestion to use "British Church". However, none of these prevent me from supporting; I did a review on the talk page and Ealdgyth has fixed everything I found there. I think this is FA-quality as it stands. Mike Christie (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should say I Support this nomination, though don't want that to inhibit my right to Comment. Wonder btw if Wood's article has been consulted (not in the refs). I can make a copy available if the person desiring it wants to email me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access (yet) to the article. My local college library limits their JSTOR access to EHR and the like. Speculum isn't among the ones they subscribe to. The University of Illinois library probably has the full access, and they are an hour away, but I've been swamped this winter with RL work, as well as the weather is crappy for the drive, so I haven't made it there yet. I have this HUGE stack of articles to get while I'm there, and I'm sure the Wood article is in it, but I'd greatly appreciate a copy. My email is set up. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the article. I've incorporated bits and pieces into the article. It mainly reinforced data already there, but did add a bit more on why the Frankish kingdoms would have helped the mission, and a bit more about the date of AEthelberht's conversion. Now hopefully i haven't broken anything serious in it...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. I have no specialist knowledge of the subject matter, so my comments are mainly quibbles about style, etc.

  • Lead
    • Para. 1 Although is misspelt.
Fixed
    • Para. 2 “Gregory sent more missionaries in 601, along with letters encouraging the missionaries and gifts…” Repetition of “missionaries” is awkward, and punctuation suspect.
Reworded, hopefully this is better
Yes, better
  • Background to the mission
    • Sentence beginning “Other distinguishing characteristics…” doesn’t feel quite right. Could do with an “Its” at the beginning? And were they the only ones who calculated an Easter date, or did they just do it differently?
Reworded, let me know if this is clearer? (They just calculated it differently. They were a lot like Wikipedia, the various churches got all worked up over how you calculated Easter, it was a big deal. And the haircut.)
Yes, clearer
    • Last sentence of first para seems independent of time. I assume you’re talking about the period between the Anglo-Saxon invasion and Augustine’s arrival, but it needs to be clearer.
Reworded, let me know if this works better. It let me work in the bit about place names though, so I'm happy!
Yes, better
    • We say River Humber. I’ve no problems with American spelling or turns of phrase in articles written by Americans, but place names should have their normal British form. If I were writing an article about New York I’d say Hudson River, not River Hudson.
Fixed. It was to a disamb page anyway, so two fixes in one!
    • Does Scripture need a capital S in last para? (If so you could link it to a [fairly worthless] article)
Was a chicken and changed it to Bible, which I'm pretty sure should be capitalized.
And should be linked (unless someone finds a lost Jane Austen novel called "Bible")
Linked it, but if Tony yelps about overlinking, I'm siccing him on you. (grins)
  • Arrival
    • Last sentence of 1st para: “..there is no reason to doubt this date but there is no other evidence for it” Isn’t the lack of any evidence a reason for doubt?
This gets to the problem of survival of sources. The chronicler who recorded it might have been working from a earlier manuscript that hasn't survived to this day. Or from a letter/etc that didn't survive. Because somewhere someone has probably uncritically taken the date given by Thomas of Elmham as truth, it needs to be stated that some medieval chronicler gave a date but point out that there is no other earlier evidence to support or oppose it. Did that make sense? (Must be nice to work in modern history, where everything is so well documented!)
Just change but to "although", and it's fixed.
    • Last sentence of 3rd paragraph seems negative, not related to the narrative, and interrupts the flow. You haven’t previously referred to assertions that there might have been attempts at conversion of the pagans.
This stupid sentence has given me more trouble... anyway, moved it up to the background section, where it (now) seems to fit better.
Yes, OK now
  • Additional work
    • “…had come to Britain in with the 601 mission..” Isn’t the “in” superfluous?
Fixed
    • 2nd para: I think a comma needs deleting, after the words “second meeting” just before note 38
Fixed
    • Next sentence, perhaps commas either side of however?
Fixed
  • Further success
    • “turned out to be” sounds a bit unscholarly
Changed to "revealed to be"
    • “world’s oldest existing school”, perhaps?
Took your suggestion
    • “Establishing a school would have been a high priority for Augustine..” I don’t like the subjunctive, especially when unsupported (who says it would have been a high priority?). The second part of the sentence jumps to 27 years after Augustine’s death.
Reworded a bit. Is that better?
Yes, better
  • Death

The second sentence seems isolated from the content at present. Seems to need an “Although” in front, and union with the following sentence: “…beyond Kent, his mission had…”

Took your suggestion (although I left out the "had") Let me know if that works?
Yes, works well

I found the article extremely informative and after attention to the above will have no problem in supporting it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added just after: Can you clarify something for me? The infobox is headed Saint Augustine of Canterbury, but "Saint" is missing from the article title. The infobox refers to "veneration" but not "canonisation". Did he not make it to the Premier League? There's almost nothing in the article about whatever state of sainthood he achieved, or when he achieved it. Surely there should be? And shouldn't the infobox conform with the article heading? Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Augustine's sainthood predates the formal process of canonization. Before it was set up, becoming a saint basically meant you had a bunch of folks loudly saying "So-and-so is a saint" and if enough people believed them, so-and-so was a saint and got a shrine, etc. He's in almost every saint book I have. (I say almost because I'm too lazy to get up and check every one to make sure it is every one). As to why he isn't under Saint Augustine of Canterbury, you'll have to ask someone more versed in the naming guidelines. I routinely mess that up, so I just go with the flow on the issue. If you want, I can switch out the Saint Archbishop infobox for the plain archbishop of Canterbury (or ABC) box. The veneration in the saint box is exactly right for his status, since he was never formally canonized, we don't fill in the fields that would give the dates for beatification and canonization, leaving just where he is venerated. (Saint's aren't worshiped, they are venerated). Did that help? Or are my early morning un-caffeinated ramblings not making sense? (I'll get to the concerns above in a little bit after the caffeine) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in simple terms, the wiki standard is not to use honorifics/titles at the start of article titles (and for some types of style, they are not used in leading article text either). So saints shouldn't in general be at a title beginning Saint (or St or St.), monarchs don't include King or Queen in the article title (e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs)
I can add in a bit about his sainthood being pre-formal canonization process if you'd like. I must say though, that his sainthood is rather.. bland, I guess. He's just a bland kinda guy, never really one to get much excited about. He's mainly important as a symbol, it seems. Never really does anything exciting (He's no Wilfrid, that's for sure) rarely puts his foot wrong (except with the native bishops), everything seems to just work out for him. Vanilla.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do any further writing. Just make the infobox match the article title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
I believe the current compromise is to use styles in infoboxes, not in article text, so it is correct to use Saint in the infobox, but not in the article title per my previous comment. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then I'm happy. I'm supporting, it's a fascinating article and I enjoyed reviewing it. Now back to the ice. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David for the clarification. I'm so hopeless on this sort of thing... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support thanks for all the hard work chaps. David Underdown (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it just my eyes or is the main image a little blurred? Assuming it's not just me, is it possible to find a sharper one? SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's blurry. I didn't put it in, I'm not sure who did, honestly. I'd love a shot of a statue or something, but there really isn't much. Consensus isn't exactly high on keeping it, it can go easily enough. It'd just be odd to have no image, which is probably why it's still there. Feel free to remove it, or if others want it gone I'll take it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put up two suggestions [1] [2] (and reverted myself). I prefer the former, but it looks a little garish with the purple around it. The problem with the current image, if you look at the original, is that it's been blown up, hence the blurring. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly prefer the former too, even with the garishness issues, because it looks more medieval. But I think the second one looks better on the page and will have less concerns about copyright. (I can't read the page the first one is stated to have come from, so not sure if it's safe for use or not). Anyone else have an opinion? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first SlimVirgin version is much superior to the others. What exactly is the copyright issue related to this, and not the others? They are all given identical PD descriptions on Commons. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell how old the image is, i.e. when the image was painted. Orthodox icons (which this looks to be) are pretty much painted in the same style and have been for thousands of years. The second image looks like a 16th or 17th century engraving, and thus is almost assuredly out of copyright. The first one, while it is a very slight chance, just might be a modern icon. It's hard to tell when I can't read the website the image came from. Like I said, it's a slight concern and not very likely, but (being a photographer) I like to be very sure of my images, I don't like abusing copyright. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were right to be cautious, Ealdgyth. This page suggests the first image is under copyright — if you scroll down you'll see it on the right-hand side. Aidan Hart seems to be saying he is the artist, so we should probably remove it from the Commons. SlimVirgin talk|edits 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the English writing on the icon that subconciously said something to me. I think I've seen a few others of those pictures used around. Fun. I'll drop a note to User:Durova, she's good at this sort of thing. As is User:Elcobbola. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aidan Hart has informed me by email that you can use any of his icon images provided you credit his name and website somewhere. the website address is http://www.aidanharticons.com Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I have no clue how to feed that through the system... Eclobbola? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a FA issue, surely, so I wouldn't bother now. But could be worth pursuing at some future date. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed; just upload to the Commons and forward the email to the OTRS folks (attribution requirement is fine assuming Hart is allowing derivative works, commercial use, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comment. I'm almost ready to support; this is good. I did a copy edit, so I hope my changes helped remove redundant language and tighten stuff up here and there. One thing I noticed was that "Saint", "St." and "St" were used interchangeably; I've tried to standardize to "St", although perhaps one of the other two forms should be preferred. My remaining concerns are:
  • "Augustine is claimed as the founder of the King's School, Canterbury . . . ." Can we remove the passive and say who claims him as the founder of that school? Is the place itself?
  • The first paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section repeats the word mission and missionary over and over. Can we try to use some synonyms or pronouns to break up the repetitiveness?
If these two issues are addressed, I'll happily support. — Dulcem (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit, I greatly appreciate it! After I get some caffeine I'll be happy to fix those issue, they are good points. (I just need to wake up before serious editing or who knows what I'll break). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, both concerns addressed. And in the second, I managed to get rid of another passive! Yay! Thanks again for the copyedit, it helped a bunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! I've switched to support. Thanks for writing a great article. :) — Dulcem (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Augustine_of_Canterbury&oldid=1138455159"