Talk:Hadewijch

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Student project

@Lwhithaus: please make clear whether this article is assigned to you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Vulgate

Moving here for discussion:

---

Hadewijch wrote 31 letters, which were written in vulgate, a version of Latin intended for common consumption, probably because they were to be read aloud to an audience of younger beguines.

References

---

Hadewijch's letters were written in Middle Dutch, not in "vulgate", whatever that is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Beguine

For discussion:

---

The letters provide biographical information about Hadewijch’s life ‒ specifically she was the leader of her beguine community and was eventually evicted ‒ but they are primarily instructional. Addressing her students and followers like friends, Hadewijch teaches the younger beguines how best to follow her love mysticism.

References

---

These sentences are definitely missing one or more "probably"s. All knowledge about Hadewijch's life is indirect and/or circumstantial and/or open to interpretation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Syntax

---

Hadewijch strives to communicate to her beguines in the letters is that loving God involves suffering. Ghebreken, meaning failure, and ghebruken, meaning fruition, come up frequently when Hadwijch is reminding her beguines of the difficulties and joys of loving God.

References

---

Syntactically somewhat failing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

General vs. about the letters only

---

In portraying the unrequited longing for God in the language of courtly love, she uses the word minne to represent Christ, the Holy Ghost, love from God, or love for God. She also touches on these themes when describing her love mysticism in her other writings.

References

---

Not in its place in a section about the letters only. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadewijch. 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/20060212074421/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/Hadewijc.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/Hadewijc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Project ratings

Francis Schonken, regarding your revert to my talkpage assessment for this article ("nah, these appreciations are crap"), I think the quality assessment of class=C is justified. Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment criteria for class=C:

The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria. The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.

As the founder of WP:WPWW, I have a fair understanding of importance ratings for women writer articles, which is why I gave it the rating that I did. Regarding class rating: while I do view the ORES predicted quality score at the top of each article (I have a script installed), I make assessment decisions based on years of reviewing thousands of women's biographies. In the case of this article, the ORES prediction is: "C-Class article C (3.56)". I won't revert your revert -not my style- but I hope my comments here give you insight into my thinking when I made that edit. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What struck me as incorrect was:

• {{WikiProject Belgium}} → |importance=Low (Hadewijch was #74 in the "Greatest Belgian" election [1])
• for comparison: Hadewijch was #123 in a similar "Greatest Netherlander" election (see nl:De grootste Nederlander/genomineerden)

So I didn't trust too much of the other assessments either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, Francis Schonken. So update what you feel needs to be changed. Note, though, that the article does meet the criteria for class=C; and it is of High Importance for WP:WPWW. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the class for WPWW is correctly described as "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources." – which is "start" class; I see little "impact outside the subset of interested peoples" – which is "mid" importance; I think you'd need to do better to demonstrate "high" importance for that project. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede section states: "Most of her extant writings are in a Brabantian form of Middle Dutch." This rarity amongst all the other biographies within WP:WPWW was the reason for me rating it as: importance=High. I have no desire to further defend my thinking. WP:AGF. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the old manuscripts is in Limburgian Middle Dutch, which led at least one scholar to surmise that she may have been from that region, and that the fact that the other manuscripts were in Brabantian maybe only resulted from the interest Jan van Ruusbroec (and the circles around him) had in her writings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As for "importance", her qualities are, I think, in descending order somewhat like this:

1. Literary quality of her work: unparalleled in Middle Dutch, and for that reason radiating to modern Dutch (and to some extent the other Germanic languages), but little beyond that, while translation to other languages means too much dilution of that quality.
2. Religious quality (if she'd been "blessed" or "saint" that might have been rated higher, but as is, she has marvellous insights in some religion-related themes, and she was undeniably of influence to Jan van Ruusbroec – but hardly anything that could be used in, say, a liturgical context)
3. Female role model: the only direct Middle-Age reference to her is that she was called a "formidable woman" ("glorieus wijf" I think the expression was in Middle Dutch) in the circle around Jan van Ruusbroec (but too little is actually known about her to make that above "mid" importance)
4. Medieval history (e.g. beguine movement), again, too little is actually known to say her place in Medieval history is high.

A fifth, and least important aspect, could be described as "object of extraneous interpretations" – as is often the case, if little is known, imagination may run wild. This has, however, hardly anything to do with who she was. Don't know whether that works for you? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As for importance as a woman writer: a first consideration is that it is fair to say that from the Middle Ages until well into the 20th century that importance has been non-existent, aside from, maybe, a remark in passing in Jan van Ruusbroec's circles. Jan van Ruusbroec, of whom a large collection of writings are extant, never mentioned her, and certainly not in a capacity as "woman writer". After that, that aspect seems to be fairly limited to some specialist literature. But I challenge you to give examples of where she is highlighted as a woman writer in reliable sources, preferably demonstrating that that aspect gets high importance outside a specialist circle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Opened a conversation on the broader topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment#Importance scale.

And another somewhat related suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#Suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raquelamedeo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Raquelamedeo (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)