Talk:Prester John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Prester John has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Prester John is part of WikiProject King Arthur, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Prester John is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Clean up

In cleaning up and adding to this entry I have removed Toghrul Khan: The legend of Prester John was fully established long before Toghrul Khan, a Nestorian Khan defeated by Genghis.--Wetman 22:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

I suggest adding The Prester Quest by Nicholas Jubber to the list of further reading, as it was a very helpful book on the topic.

Aye aye. Done. --Wetman 00:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New material

I've added a large amount of new material to this entry. Please review.--Cuchullain 04:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pix

I think this article could use some pictures. I found some, but I can't figure out how to get them up yet.--Cuchullain 05:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added to 'Unusual Articles'

Added Johnny boy here to the brilliant Wikipedia:Unusual_articles under religion. This is a fascinating read.

[edit] Ethiopian opinion of "Prester John"

The article currently reads:

Surprised Europeans sometimes recorded that the Ethiopians reacted with a mixture of confusion, irritation, and amusement when Europeans insisted on calling their monarch by that name, but there was no dissuading them. They had spent so long searching for Prester John that they weren't about to give him up once they had found him.

What's the basis for this statement? I've read several first-hand accounts of Europeans visiting Ethiopia up to the mid 18th century, & none mention this. Alvarez uses "Prester John" as the name for Lebna Dengel throughout his account, & I think Castenhoso, who fought with Christopher da Gama in Ethiopia a few years later, also calls the Emperor "the Prester" (I'm away from my copy of Castanhoso's book at the moment). Based on the comment quoted from Pankhurst (who is an expert on Ethiopian history & literature), I can't help but conclude that no Ethiopian knew of this title until Prutky told them in 1752. However, if Hiob Ludolf is the source (I admit I haven't read his authoritative work -- I haven't been able to obtain or borrow a copy yet) then that would prove me wrong. -- llywrch 18:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, I just like the line. It refers specifically to a visit by Ethiopian diplomats from King Zara Yaqub to the Council of Florence in 1441; they were asked about Prester John, and of course had no idea who that was. I don't know the source of that, except that it is mentioned in Robert Silverberg's book The Realm of Prester John. The real issue is not that no Ethiopians ever heard their king called that, but that it had literally no effect on any that did, and that despite this Europeans continued to call the negus Prester John. I think Pankhurst is quite right in saying that the monarchs were ignorant of the title until Prutky, just as I'd imagine that few non-historians in Ethiopia would know of it today. Like I said, I just like the line, you can remove it if you wish, or alter it or whatever.--Cuchullain 20:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha, you're acting on the temptation to include a quotable quote in a Wikipedia article. It's something that I've acted on myself: for example, my quotation from Prutky. My suggestion is to repeat Silverberg's own words -- but add suppliment his words with the information that specialists in Ethiopian history can't document any actual Ethiopian reaction to this identification. Although it's a POV, as long as it's properly attributed to a credible writer (AFAIK, Silverberg is credible, although Pankhurst is more of an authority on Ethiopia) then it can be added as one POV -- as long as we acknowledge other credible POVs. Does this make sense? -- llywrch 23:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It does. I changed it, but remove it if you're still skeptical, at least until I can find a source for that.--Cuchullain 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The furry novel reference is legitimate

I don't know where you get off removing a legitimate literary reference that uses the idea of Prester John and how the interpretation of that legend is used, but you have not given a legitimate reason for removing. Ergo, the reference stays until there is a logical and real reason presented for removing it. Until then, it is vandalism and dealt with accordingly --kchishol1970 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. Removing the gratuitous addition of a non-notable work of fiction, mischaracterised as a literary reference, is no more vandalism than is adding it in the first place, and clearly improves the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Tom. Adam Bishop 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think fan fiction should qualify as a "literary reference".--Cúchullain t/c 18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I deleted a brief paragraph about a Christian Toghrul (I may have been in part responsible) that followed the paragraph on Toghrul Wang Khan. --Wetman 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I added refs to the article, but I think it's too heavy on Robert Silverberg's book The Realm of Prester John (it was the book I had with me when I started). I'm sure a lot of this can be found elsewhere; especially the primary sources (though some may be out of print). It'd be good if someone could check this stuff in other works.--Cúchullain t/c 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

This is a nice, well-cited work that passes GA criteria. I would not worry too much about the sources as long as what you have is reliable. --RelHistBuff 13:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prester John as Mahabali

I've removed the reference to Mahabali as it seems to be a rather dubious assertion based on original research by M M Ninan. Such an association of Prester John with Mahabali is virtually unknown in India. The data on Prester John added to the Mahabali page was removed as lacking references too. If somebody can provide credible references, the info can go back in.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prester John in Literature

The nation of Prester John is also used by Christopher Stasheff in two of his books, "The Crusading Wizard" and "The Feline Wizard". I am not certain as to the accuracy of his usage to the legend; however, that which I have been able to find has matched fairly well. If an editor or scholar with better grounding in the subject would verify the material, perhaps it is appropriate for inclusion in this article. 70.92.4.160 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Indian christianity

The Template:Indian christianity does not belong on this article. The Prester John myth is of interest to a range of European and Asian peoples. In addition, discussions about this article should be conducted here, not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity. Aramgar (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is not about the article, but the series. If the article remains in the series, you will not have much of a case for removing the Nav Box from this article. As of now, the article is featured in the Nav Box and the subject is seen as important to the series. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I will wait to see if there is consesus to keep the article in the Nav Box at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity. If there is, we will come back and then achieve a consensus here to leave the box in the article.
I also noticed that almost every edit to the article since 25 January has been hastily reverted. Some editors here may need to re-read WP:OWN. -- SECisek (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Prester John is just one of several articles that have been targeted lately for POV-pushing. See also Talk:Sorghaghtani Beki, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. But most of that is related to the Mongols. As regards Prester John and Indian Christianity, I would say that though Prester John is associated with the topic, it's definitely not a primary relationship. Prester John is one of those subjects which is claimed by multiple areas of study, and if we were to include templates from all of them, this page would become very cluttered, very quickly. Thus, I recommend not including the template, though if other editors want to include a link to Prester John in their template (such as for Indian Christianity), I don't see a problem with that. --Elonka 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The project already suggested dropping him from the series and the suggestion was agreed on by more then one editor. It was just that easy. Remember in the future, a little patience buys much good will here at Wikipedia.

The article is a great one, BTW. -- SECisek (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly resent your allusions to OWNership here, Secisek. Sometimes the best way to make sure an article is of top quality is to revert inadequate changes. As for the infobox, I don't have much of an opinion about what's in it, but I do care very much about this article, and the box doesn't belong here. Sort out what's to be included in it over there, but we sort out what's to be included at this article here. And it looks like consensus is against including it. As for patience, it's easier if you open up discussion before reinserting a challenged edit.--Cúchullain t/c 05:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I made no suggestion of which editor or editors personaly OWN the article, but your reaction to my comments seem to make it quite clear that you "do care very much about this article" - perhaps too much. That comment and this one: "Sometimes the best way to make sure an article is of top quality is to revert inadequate changes" are examples of the very language to avoid from the policy.

There was no consensus to leave this article in the series, but your swift and fierce reaction to what was a minor formating change, not a content issue, should give you pause in the future. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot here. I think you took our reverts of your changes a bit too personally, something WP:REVERT says to avoid. I then responded by taking your comments too personally. This very minor dispute should have been handled better and I apologize for my part in it. Cheers, --Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Cuchullain, well said.  :) --Elonka 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The dispute no longer exists, in fact - it may never have existed. Best wishes to all. Again, great article. -- SECisek (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interfictions reference

Whether you are skeptical about the whole interstitial art concept or not, the anthology is noteworthy, and I feel the reference is worthwhile and relevant to this article. I will restore it, but only after posting this explanation of my reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinions about interstitial art whatsoever, but even if that anthology is noteworthy, it does not mean that one story is important enough to include in an article on this subject. I think the same applies to the Charles Williams book. We don't need a list of every minor work that involves Prester John in some way.--Cúchullain t/c 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
RIght. This has almost zero relevance to the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the inclusion of this reference enhances the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll remove it for the time being.--Cúchullain t/c 05:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality check:

I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality. The reason was given in the summary, but the tag was soon removed again, cont rary to policy, by another editor, on the pretext that I needed to give a reason on the talk page. So here is the same explanation again, from my edit summary:

This article clearly has a point-of-view, but it's not a very neutral one, it represents only one opinion and scorns others

According to my understanding, it is not considered helpful to remove neutrality concern tags, when an editor raises neutrality concerns. If an editor raises neutrality concerns, it means there is a neutrality concern that needs to be worked out. If another editor then summarily removes the tag, it looks like that editor is assuming he is above all others, "owns" the article, and alone knows what is best. That is exactly why the policy says not to remove those tags UNTIL the neutrality issue is addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I removed the tag because your edit summary was extremely vague as to the reasons why you added it, and you did not explain yourself on the talk page. Placing NPOV tags without appropriate explanation is not helpful to improving an article, and I know of no policy (or guideline) indicating that inappropriately placed tags must be left in place. What point of view does this article have? What is the "one opinion" represented here? What others does it "scorn"? Virtually every statement here is cited to reliable sources, and most of it is just an account of the various incarnations of the legend through the years. You'll have to elaborate.--Cúchullain t/c 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I admit that I was also puzzled by the tag. Would you please explain as specifically as possible your concerns about the neutrality of the article. Aramgar (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still newish here, but as near as I can tell, there's no way to do a POV check without Til Eulenspiegel describing the POV problem? Cretog8 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no way to address his concerns if he doesn't tell us what they are. Placing a template like that is useless without discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)