Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive2

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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2015 [1].

Stephen I of Hungary edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first king of Hungary who is also venerated as a holy king by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. This is the second FAC of the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments edit

This looks very interesting – the sort of history we never learn about in English schools. For the moment I have a few minor issues arising in the lead, but I hope I can find time for a fuller reading later:

Comma needed after "Holy Roman Emperor" near end of second paragraph
Third para: I'm not sure about "ensured" – even draconian measures can be resisited and thwarted. I'd prefer a more neutral word such as "sought" or "encouraged"
Final para: De-link Hungary – we don't normally wikilink countries. Also, it's not clear why Bishop Gerard is included in the report of Stephen's canonization.
Beyond the lead, there are a couple of uncited statements in the article: see third paragraph of "Early years" section, and first paragraph of "Artistic representation".

I'll return later; meanwhile I hope others will engage with this article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you for your review and comments. I started to modify the article taking into account your comments. Please let me know if any further action is needed. I am not an expert in the field of arts and I sought assistance from WikiProject Hungary. If no reference were added within a couple of days, I will delete the non-referenced texts. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Freedom of panorama in Hungary only extends to works displayed outdoors, so File:Szentjobb1.jpg will need to indicate the copyright status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your message. Fakirbakir, would you help me again? I am still too simple to understand the above remark. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nikkimaria and Karanacs, I deleted the picture, because I cannot fix the problem. Please let me know if there is a better solution. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~comments by Karanacs. I am very close to support.~~

First, I just want to say thank you for focusing on this period of time and region. It's wonderful to see the history being filled in here on WP :) Second, I'm normally uncomfortable with the use of primary sources in articles, but I think you did a very careful job of placement.

~~There are citation needed tags in the artistic representation section.~~
~~citations should be in order at the end of a sentence; for example in the 2nd sentence in the Active foreign policy section, ref 106 comes before 59~~
~~I think there are too many images in the article. Starting with the active foreign policy section, it's just a continuous stream of pretty down the right side, and it is a little much.~~

Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, thank you for your comments and support. I put the citations in order and deleted some images. I wait some more days before deleting the unreferenced sentences from the last section. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton and Karanacs, I'd like to inform you, that I added references and there are no unreferenced sentences in the article any more. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better. I'm waiting for nikkimaria's image question to be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton returns:

First, I must apologise for my long absence from this review, but until recently have not found much time to engage with the article. I have started a closer reading, now, and have noted a number of points which I think require attention or at least considerstion. None of them are major issues.

- Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to establish that the various years introced at the start of the lead are CE
- I added AD to the first date. Actually, I am not sure that either AD or CE are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is necessary to mention AD or CE in the first date, as not all readers will be aware of the period, at least initially. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hungarian chronicles unanimously report..." → "Hungarian chronicles agree..." – less of a mouthful?
- Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tendency towards multiple references for quite simple statements where one good ref would do, e.g. "However, Saint Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention this event".[16][17][18] - why is that worth three citations? Or "Koppány, who held the title Duke of Somogy, had for many years administered the regions of Transdanubia south of Lake Balaton."[26][29][33] There are plenty more of these.
"...opponents of Christianity represented by Stephen and his predominantly German retinue." It needs to be "of the Christianity
- Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"even writes of" is too emphatic, non-neutral. You should delete "even"
- Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword" – the quote needs ascription. It's not clear where it's from.
- Sorry, I do not understand the above remark. There is a reference to the Illuminated Chronicle in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The full sentence read: "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army." The punctuation was off and the construction awkward. I have revised it to: "Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38] placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army."
"He also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithes to this monastery..." What monastery?
- Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If the latter report is valid, the dioceses of Veszprém and Győr are the most probable candidates". Conjectural statements such as this must be specifically ascribed.
- Scholar added. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"When ordering the display of one part of Koppány's quartered corpse..." → "By ordering the display..." etc
- Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you mean by "the German monarch". If it's Otto, best to say so.
- Modified. (I opted for an other solution.) Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to the end of the "Consolidation" section, so I've a way to go yet, but perhaps you would look at these meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of my review follows: Active foreign policy (c. 1009–1031)

I had forgotten that Boleslav was king of Poland. A reminder in the text would be useful. And, unless there are other Boleslavs in the story, I don't think you have to add "the Brave" each time he is mentioned.
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a town identified with Ohrid by Györffy" only makes sense after several readings and use of the link. Better phrasing might be: "...Cesaries", which Györffy identifies as the present-day town of Ohrid".
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen's legends also wrote of 60 wealthy Pechenegs..." Legends don't write. They may be written. Perhaps "refer to " or "include stories of", or similar.
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section is headed "Active foreign policy", but includes topics unrelated to foreign policy, e.g. minting of coins, settling of pilgrims etc. You should either relocate these bits, or find a more inclusive section title.
- Thank you. I would prefer the present title without changing the text. I think that the main feature of that period is the active foreign policy. For instance, if somebody works for the XZW Group between 1990 and 2015, we can say that those are his "Working for the XZW Group" even if he had an appendicitis, fathered three sons and four daughters and travelled to Antarctica, if we think that his working for that company was the most featuring detail of his life during those days. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...is also dated by many historians to the very end of the 1020s..." I'd say the words "also" and "very" are reundant here.
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"had taken his power from the Greeks" – attribute.
- Thank you. Included. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" who adopted an active foreign policy". This doesn't convey much. Do you mean an "aggressive" foreign policy?
- Thank you. Modified ("offensive foreign policy"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"informed on" → "informed of"
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "in the autumn of 1027" would fit better at theb start of the sentence.
- Thank you. Phrase moved. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last years (1031–1038)

"Stephen's legends writes..." Mangled prose, and as I said earlier, legends do not "write"
- Thank you. Modified ("refers to"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family

The statement introducing the chart reads: "The following family tree presents Stephen's ancestors and his relatives who are mentioned in the article". This is not quite the case. For example, Vazul, described as Stephen's cousin, is nowhere to be seen in the tree.
- Thank you. Vazul added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Andrew I, who died before December 1060 according to the link, refers to "King St. Stephen", yet Stephen was not canonized until 1083 – which is a little odd.
- Thank you. Reference to the source (a 14th-century chronicle) added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held his dethroned cousin Solomon in captivity at Visegrád." This introduces new material which will baffle readers unless you add a word or two of explanation.
- Thank you. Info of the imprisonment of Solomon added in a previous sentence. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"confessor king": would a pipe-link to, say, Confessor of the Faith help readers to understand what you mean by "confessor king"?
- Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"An annual procession has celebrated the relic since 1938, except between 1950 and 1987, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government". This doesn't quite read right, since the excluded years represent half of the total period. Suggest rewrite: "An annual procession celebrating the relic was instituted in 1938, and continued until 1950, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government. It was resumed in 1988".
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am distressed to see Zoltán Kodály curtly introduced as "another Hungarian composer". Surely he is a little more distinguished than that?
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal issue: I found the frequent insertions of chunks of quoted material rather distracting. I wasn't sure whether these formed a necessary part of the narrative, or if they were there to illustrate or emphasise points already made. Either way, there were rather a lot of them – are you sure they are all necessary?

- Thank you. Two quotes deleted. I think we should insert some quote to illustrate points already made. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have found this review helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, first of all, I must apologize for failing to answer for days, but I did not notice that you had meanwhile completed your review. I highly appreciate your comprehensive and bold review. Please let me know if further actions are needed to improve the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Active foreign policy" heading, I don't think your argument for keeping it, unamended, holds good. For a start, you don't need "active". With or without that, it's a very specific title to use for the period it covers, and the non-foreign aspects within the section are quite substantial – the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. My preferred option would be to incorporate the three paragaphs into a separate subsection, but at the very least you should amend the title to, perhaps, "Foreign and domestic policies". Ping me when you've resolved this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you for your comments. I inserted two new subtitles. Let me know if further changes are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That arrangement looks good to me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Borsoka has dealt effectively with the issues I have raised in the course of this review. I believe the article now meets the featured article criteria, and hope to see it promoted soon (the nominator's first, I believe). A request for further reviewers would not be amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, do you think you could manage a source review here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I am tied up with TFA scheduling issues, a review backlog, and trying to progress my own work, so I can't do this immediately. I'll check back in a few days to see if it still needs doing, but hopefully someone will pick it up before then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose and Brianboulton, do you think I could contribute anyhow to the source review mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it needs to be conducted by a reviewer, and you should then respond to queries/concerns as with any other review. I'll post a request for this at WT:FAC as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"relled": relied?
"The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, which are attributed by historian Kristó to mass psychosis and deception.": Unless the implication is "misattributed", the sentence contradicts itself. "by reports of healing miracles" would fix the self-contradiction, but I don't have a position on how to fix the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, thank you for your comments and edits. I tried to fix the issues you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is an interesting article and a lot of work has gone into it, but it relies extensively on original research. For example there are quotations and citations from Hartvic's hagiographical life and Thietmar's nearly contemporary chronicle. There is an extensive list of primary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, thank you for your remark. However, I think you misunderstand the concept of OR. Sentences based on academic works cannot be qualified as OR. If an academic work refers to a primary source we can (should) use the standard English translation of that source. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, that was my first reaction too. After spending more time on the article, I came to Borsoka's point of view. All of the analysis is from third-party sources; only quotations of the original sources are cited to the primary sources, and I believe that falls within policy. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in many respects a first rate article on an important and neglected subject, but I am still concerned about its use of primary evidence. I am not sure that including quotations cited to original sources falls within Wiki policy. This applies in an article about a work of literature in describing the contents of the work, but extensive quotations from medieval sources which may not be reliable are a different matter. My main concern is that it is not always clear whether the claims of medieval writers are endorsed by modern historians. Three examples of problematical passages are:

"Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood,[18] implying that he studied Latin.[2]" Hartvik (or Hartvic, the spelling is inconsistent) wrote a hagiography of Stephen. It is described as a hagiography in the title of the translation and the quotes from it make clear that it was not an impartial account. To describe it as a biography which "narrates" facts is misleading. The first citation is to Hartvik, the second to a historian. If what is being said is that Hartvik claimed that Stephen was instructed in the grammatical arts and x said this implies that he studied Latin, then put in that form it would be valid, but not as stated.

Dudley Miles, thank you for your remarks. Please let me copy here the whole context of the above sentence: "Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood, implying that he studied Latin. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". Kristó says that the latter remark only refers to Stephen's physical training, including his participation in hunts and military actions." Gyula Kristó (a Hungarian historian, specialist of the the history of the Hungarian people and Hungary till the 14th century) writes: "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language. However, we better take this kind of information with caution. The medieval sovereigns, apart from some really conspicuous exceptions (like for example the Hungarian Kingd Coloman), never attained knowledge of writing and that is something that we have to keep in mind in case of Stephen as well. His other legend does not even mentione his grammatical studies and touches on his youth only lightly by saying that "he was brought up by receiveing an education approproate for a littele prince". This education meant much more a physical training (hunting, participation in military actions) than an intellectual refinement." (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). I think that the article properly summarizes the scholarly POV and the direct quote from Stephen's hagiography is based on the cited scholarly work. Consequently, no OR can be detected. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the point of my comment, which is that describing Hartvik's hagiography as an "official biography" which "narrates" is misleading. Your reply also gives a different slant to what you say in the article. You say there that according to Kristo an appropriate education for a prince is physical training, but also that one of his tutors later founded a monastery, which could suggest that he probably received an academic education. You do not mention in the article the further comments of Kristo which you quote above, implying that it is unlikely that he learnt to read. Also you are still inconsistent on the spelling Hartvik or Hartvic. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, thank you for your comments. (1) Hartvik was changed. (2) Actually, it was not me who wrote of an "official biography". "My" version was the following: "Stephen's Legend written by Hartvik narrates that ...", but it was changed either by a copyeditor or during the GA review [2]. The article (under the subtitle "Holy King") substantiates the use of the expression "official biography/official legend" - I could accept any of the two versions. (3) I assume you refer to Count Deodatus (a nobleman of Italian origin) who founded the Tata Abbey. Why do you think that the reference to him and his monastery "could suggest that he (Stephen/Count Deodatus ??) probably received an academic education"? (4) The article does not state that Stephen could read or write. Why should we state that he could not read and write? Should this negative information be mentioned in connection with all medieval monarchs? (5) Based on a historian's work, the article says that one of his medieval biographies says that Stephen learnt Latin, but two other biographies does not mention this, which (according to Kristó) implies, that he only received a physical training. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38]" This is cited to the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle but is it endorsed by historians? This is not clear.

Pál Engel (a Hungarian historian, specialiast of the history of Hungary between 896 and 1526) writes in his cited work: "Among the foreign knights one should mentione the brothers Hont and Pázmány, who were later remembered as having girded Stephen with his sword before the campaing against Koppány..." (Engel 2001, p. 39.). Gyula Kristó, whose work is also referred to, writes: "When Koppány, after having passed around Lake Balaton set out to measure himslef against the prince, Stephen was ceremoniously girded with the sword in Esztergom ..." (Kristó 2002, p. 19.). I do not have the English (cited) version of the third Hungarian historian, György Györffy. In the Hungarian version of his work (Györffy, György (2000). István király és műve. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN 9789635068968.), also mentions that Stephen was girded with a sword and refers to the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) as the source of this piece of information. Consequently, the statement is based on the works of three historians and the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) were their primary sources. I think that the direct quote from the Illuminated Chronicle cannot be described as OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, but as I said it is not clear in the article. If you said "According to the Illuminated Chronicle, Stephen "was for the first time girded with his sword", and this is endorsed by the historians x and y.", that would be OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, thank you for your comment, even if I do not understand it. There are three historians' works cited at the end of the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"[H]aving completed the office of Vespers the third day, everyone expected the favors of divine mercy through the merit of the blessed man; suddenly with Christ visiting his masses, the signs of miracles poured forth from heaven throughout the whole of the holy house." This is a quote from Hartvik. Is it "colour" or a claim that Stephen was responsible for miracles? It is not clear, but as Borsoka insisted in the previous FAC that the 'Holy Dexter" had been miraculously found, I think he is probably saying that Stephen had miraculous powers, and that is POV.

Dudley Miles, as I mentioned during our previous discussion, sainthood itself is a POV. Of course, we can say that saints and their miracles are fairy tales and should be ignored, but in this case we would ignore WP:NPOV. The whole context of the above quote is the following: "Stephen's cult emerged after the long period of anarchy characterizing the rule of his immediate successors. However, there is no evidence that Stephen became an object of veneration before his canonization. For instance, the first member of his family to be named after him, Stephen II, was born in the early 12th century. Stephen's canonization was initiated by Vazul's grandson, King Ladislaus I of Hungary, who had consolidated his authority by capturing and imprisoning his cousin, Solomon. According to Bishop Hartvik, the canonization was "decreed by apostolic letter, by order of the Roman see", suggesting that the ceremony was permitted by Pope Gregory VII. The ceremony started at Stephen's tomb, where on 15 August 1083 masses of believers began three days of fasting and praying. Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held Solomon in captivity at Visegrád. The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, according to Stephen's legends. Historian Kristó attributes the healings either to mass psychosis or deception.". The context makes it clear that Stephen was not venerated during the four or five decades after his death, and the miracles described in his legends can be the consequences of "mass psychosis or deception". Again, I think that the quote is based on scholarly work (Kristó's cited book). Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a fair point here. I did not look closely enough at what you said in the preceding paragraph. However, there are other quotes from primary sources where it is much less clear whether they are endorsed by historians - e.g. the one starting "[Duke Boleslav the Brave's] territory", and "At this same time, dissensions arose between the Pannonian nation and the Bavarians". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, do you suggest that a reference to a scholarly work should be added? Actually, I do not understand your concern: 95% of the article is based on exclusively scholarly works (including the primary sources their writers cited). Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I think it would be FA quality if the extensive citation of original sources were cut out, but not as it stands. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, as I have mentioned, I think that the "extensive" citations are always based on scholarly works. Consequently, they are in line with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- @Dudley Miles and Borsoka: Looks like it's been a couple of weeks since the last comment here, are we any closer to resolving things? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, I can only repeat my previous comments. I am sure that no OR can be detected in the article, because all quotes from primary sources are based on scholarly work. I think that neutrality requires that some miracles, attributed to the holy king in his legends, be mentioned in the article, based on reliable sources, but sceptic scholarly views are also mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~FWIW, I asked about this on Dudley's talk page. No reply yet. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)~~ Thx Dudley (above). - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

First, as to the question of original research, I agree with Karanacs. There are a lot of quotations to primary sources, but all of the analysis seems to come from appropriate secondary sources. So I see no problem there.
"CEU Press" should be spelled out, as the other publishers are.
The "Crying Voice.com" link is dead.
The link with a picture of the 10,000 forint note no longer shows the picture.
The only source I have questions about is the one by Csorba. The ISBN doesn't seem to show up in WorldCat, Amazon, or Google. The link is also of no help, as it times out when I try to open it. What kind of source is it. A book? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus, thank you for your review. I spelled out "CEU Press", deleted the "Crying Voice.com" link and changed the link to the picture of the 10,000 forint banknote. I found a reference to Csorba's book in the catalogue of the National Széchényi Library here [3]. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a book. OK. But is it from an academic press? A popular press? I see that you most used it to reference the section about the Holy Dexter, so my concern is over whether this is a historical work or a religious devotional guide. That is: is it an objective discussion of the hand, or a text in praise of a relic's holiness and significance? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was published by the Directorate of the Museums of Hajdú-Bihar County and it was written by a historian (no devotional guide is cited in the article). Csorba's work is mostly cited in connection with the places where the Holy Dexter was kept (Ragusa and Székesfehérvár) after it had been taken from the Szentjobb/Holy Dexter Abbey. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just wanted to make certain. In that case, returning looks fine to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. I think the article is featured quality. I can see why Dudley Miles is concerned about primary sources, but I think the article stays on the right side of the line. In a couple of cases I asked for minor changes to be made to address the issue and those changes were made. I have no reservations about the article's use of sources now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this and will leave comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a couple of days. Ian Rose, Dudley asked me to comment on the OR issue above on which he is opposing; I'll try to include a comment on that in my review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting your review. I also start to modify the article and I will also make some comments on the below points.

I gather from a couple of readings of the first paragraph that the Lesser Legend and Greater Legend are two hagiographies of Stephen; this isn't very clear to the reader, since the link to "hagiography" is given as "legends", which is something rather different in English. If that's right, then perhaps a footnote, giving the dates, authorship if known, and some comments about reliability based on modern sources, would help.

I changed the expressions "legends" into "hagiographies" and added the period when they were written. More information on the three hagiographies can be read under the subtitle "Holy King". Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across one of the sentences that Dudley commented on: the one about Stephen being "fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art". Dudley points out that this is a hagiography; certainly in English mediaeval history hagiographies are so unreliable as to be almost useless by themselves, though they can also contain useful biographical information. Wouldn't it be helpful to the reader to let them know Hartvic's work is hagiographical? To anyone's who's read a little mediaeval history that's a valuable red flag. However, I don't think the subsequent phrase, "implying that he studied Latin", is really supported by the quote you give from Kristo, above. Just based on that, I'd write this as something like: "The official hagiography of Stephen, written by Bishop Hartvic and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood. This implies that he studied Latin, though some scepticism is warranted as few kings of this era were able to write. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". If it's clear we're dealing with a hagiography, and if Kristó's doubts are made clear, I think this "narrates" is then OK.

Changed. Sincerely, I do not understand your concerns, because Kristó explicitly writes that "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language" (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). For me, this is not an important issue, so I accepted your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done works for me, but let me add a comment for clarification. By "that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language" I think you mean "this can't refer to anything but learning Latin" -- in other words, Kristó is saying it's unambiguous. He doesn't say it's definitely true, though; in fact he follows up by saying that we must be cautious. The key change to me is making it clear in the article that the sources are not regarded as reliable on this point by a modern historian; the article previously did not make that clear. I think that addresses what Dudley was commenting on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Györffy also writes, without referring to his source, that": I think this would be natural as "Györffy also writes, without identifying his source, that". However, I'm not clear why the reader needs to know that Györffy doesn't specify a source here. If we think Györffy is reliable then the reader can go to the source if they want to follow up; and since other historians are cited as agreeing with Györffy I think the remark can be cut.

Thank you; changed. The existence of "ducates" in Hungary in the 10th century is Györffy's conception, who based his theory on toponyms and similar indirect evidence. Györffy's POV was not universally accepted (for instance, Kristó debates it), but there are other historians who accept it. Györffy was a historian, his work was published by an academic institution; therefore, he is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Nyitra ducate" given in quotes?

"Ducate" is a term that Györffy applied when he wrote of the (assumed) ducates/duchies in 10th-century Hungary, and he wrote of the "Nitra ducate" in connection with Stephen. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a footnote would be helpful to clarify this and the previous point; this is slightly off the main topic of the article, so it doesn't need to go in the main text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Upon his father's initiative": suggest "At his father's suggestion" or "instigation", or perhaps "Geza arranged Stephen's marriage, to Gisela ...".~~