Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christus nostra salus
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jesus Christus nostra salus
[edit]
- ... that when Luther "improved" the hymn for communion "Jesus Christus nostra salus" by the archbishop of Prague Jan of Jenštejn (pictured), he thought it was written by the martyr Jan Hus?
- Reviewed: Anne Rudloe
- Comment: best for Maundy Thursday, 2 April
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk), Francis Schonken (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
New enough, long enough. The hook is cited but could probably be made a little snappier. I am fine with accepting this article as it appears accurate and in good faith throughout, I don't see any worries re copyvio or close paraphrasing. I can't see some of the books cited as I'm not allowed to see the text or there isn't a direct link to the text in question, but I accept these in good faith. HOWEVER:
- I'm puzzled by first source as can't see date 1410 or the abbey's name on the linked cite. Please clarify.
- Whose modern research suggests the authorship of the hymn? Where is cite for 15thC Czech version? Uncited paragraph.
- Please can these be addressed? Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I hope. I doubled a few references, Hohenfurt[h] and 1410 are also in the pdf of the hymn by the Luther-Gesellschaft. (The knowledge about what kind of a monastery that was and how it is called today comes from Wikipedia. Those sources could be copied if needed.) Unfortunately, none of the sources we have so far say who found about the archbishop as the author, and why a 1995 source still say Hus. I don't know how to make snappier that the Protestant reformer thought he improved the work of an early reformer who died for that, but in fact it was the work of an archbishop. Go ahead if you do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Gerda Arendt! It sounds like the authorship question may be unclear - which may make the hook open to debate. Maybe cite some of the sources that say the archbishop was the author to indicate where this claim is made? I would suggest maybe this for a shorter hook? Not much shorter but maybe a little snappier:
- I hope. I doubled a few references, Hohenfurt[h] and 1410 are also in the pdf of the hymn by the Luther-Gesellschaft. (The knowledge about what kind of a monastery that was and how it is called today comes from Wikipedia. Those sources could be copied if needed.) Unfortunately, none of the sources we have so far say who found about the archbishop as the author, and why a 1995 source still say Hus. I don't know how to make snappier that the Protestant reformer thought he improved the work of an early reformer who died for that, but in fact it was the work of an archbishop. Go ahead if you do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that Luther thought the communion hymn "Jesus Christus nostra salus" by Jan of Jenštejn, archbishop of Prague (pictured) was actually by martyr Jan Hus?
- Do let me know. Mabalu (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you look at the page of the Luther Gesellschaft - the association of his works - there is no question mark or other sign of doubt. A hook only saying that Luther thought something seems rather meaningless if there is no hint that he "improved" (= changed everything but the first stanza") it to make it the most important hymn for Lutheran communion, mentioning Hus in every heading. Otherwise we could also say that some other person thought that which will be true in many cases but not the message. I also would not place "actually" with Hus when he actually wasn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- So drop the word "actually" and substitute "believed" for thought? If the reworking by Luther is so important then maybe this?
- If you look at the page of the Luther Gesellschaft - the association of his works - there is no question mark or other sign of doubt. A hook only saying that Luther thought something seems rather meaningless if there is no hint that he "improved" (= changed everything but the first stanza") it to make it the most important hymn for Lutheran communion, mentioning Hus in every heading. Otherwise we could also say that some other person thought that which will be true in many cases but not the message. I also would not place "actually" with Hus when he actually wasn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do let me know. Mabalu (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the communion hymn "Jesus Christus nostra salus" by Jan of Jenštejn, archbishop of Prague (pictured), was reworked by Luther?
- If the authorship is important, then:
- ALT3: ... that Jan of Jenštejn (pictured), archbishop of Prague's communion hymn "Jesus Christus nostra salus" was "improved" by Martin Luther who thought it was by martyr Jan Hus?
- Mabalu (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how the passive voice and a tricky construction with pictured in the middle would be snappier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The same tricky construction with pictured in the middle is also in your original hook. Anyway, back to the text. I'd like to see a couple of citations for collections of Johannes Hus's works which present this hymn as his work. I also really like the detail about the acrostic spelling out JOHANNES in the hymn, that seems a much more interesting and "hooky" detail for the casual reader.
- Mabalu (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- ALT4: * ... that there is an acrostic in the 13th-century communion hymn "Jesus Christus nostra salus" by Jan of Jenštejn, archbishop of Prague (pictured)?
(Forgot to sign) Mabalu (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The very acrostic pointed people to the other, JOHANNES, right for both, - also not really unusual, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OK - having had another read through, it looks good to go, I'm accepting the book cites that I can't see text for in good faith. I'll let the DYK people work out the hook if necessary. Mabalu (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)