Talk:Middle Ages

Use of "sfn" citation template

Our relevant policy emphasizes that editors "should not attempt to change an article's established citation style ... without first seeking consensus for the change." The article now uses short citations, including only the author's name, the cited work's full or shortened title, and the relevant page or pages in the footnotes. It contains nearly 400 footnotes and editors who want to check whether a cited source indeed verifies a statement in the article are forced to search the cited source in section "References" that lists nearly 90 cited works. I think the introduction of a citation template, preferably the {{sfn}} template would significantly improve the situation, allowing editors to review the article more easily. As unverified claims in one of the most-viewed articles could taint wikipedia's reputation, I think we should enable potential reviewers to use handy citation templates. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose a change; I for one don't understand "sfn". The current system is perfectly "handy". Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the present system has been ideal for editors who verified their own thoughts in the article by pseudo-references to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work, and how would sfn make it harder. I don't understand at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., Nestor Makhno, and Len Deighton are among the newest featured articles using the {{sfn}} template. In their "References" sections, click on the author's name in each individual citation, and it will navigate you to the details of the cited work. You do not need to search the cited works manually. I think the suggested change in the article's citation style would significantly improve the article that contains nearly 400 references and nearly 90 cited works. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know how they are supposed to work. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that editors are now able to check whether the nearly 400 citations in the main text are indeed linked to a work listed in the "References" section, and also ensure that the nearly 90 works listed in the "References" section are indeed cited in the main text? The use of the {{sfn}} template could solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd definitely support this change. The sfn template makes it much easier to directly access a source, as you note, and is particularly helpful in long articles such as this. It can be tedious to switch between reference styles, and it needs to be done carefully so as not to accidentally introduce errors, but once the process is complete the article will be improved. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

(Responding to request at Wikipedia:Third opinion:) sfn works perfectly fine for me. Footnote, source, alway s the same, instead of things name=":0" - what source would that be? When using sfn, it's always clear. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree "things name=":0"" cites are awful, but that's not the system here. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: are you still opposing the change? Borsoka (talk)

Of course. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you be ready to compare each of the nearly 400 citations with the cited works, and each of the nearly 90 cited works with the references in the main text in order to secure that each citation is linked to a cited work, and each work is cited in the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ey, please remember to remove the request after you respond to it :)
I also agree that using sfn to first everything would be nice. It’s not even changing the style by much, just adding links for the reader Aaron Liu (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that John has stopped replying I think we can implement it. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't "stopped replying" at all; there's just been nothing to reply to. It is changing the style considerably, but that won't trouble you, you have never contributed to the article at all that I can see, but are just a drive-by third opinion. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You have indeed stopped replying. Weeks ago, I asked you whether you were ready to compare each of the nearly 400 citations with the cited works, and each of the nearly 90 cited works with the references in the main text [1]. You have not answered yet. Why do you think only editors who have contributed to this article could express their opinion on this specific issue (or any other issue)? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, no of course I am not. What a completely bizarre request, clearly designed to be pointless work, and nothing to do with the referencing style. Anyone can express an opinion, but drive-bys summonsed by an appeal don't carry much weight. I see you have gone ahead anyway (of course). Why have you changed Bartlett's ISBN? And why does a new ref not use sfn when you are busy converting existing ones. If you come up with any ref mismatches, do say! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

1. No, it is not a bizarre question. Each work listed in the References section should be cited, and each citation in the main text should be linked to a work in the Reference section. 2. According to my experiences, no editor's opinion carry much weight in your eyes. 3. Of course, I have gone away. I am not surprised that you do not want to facilitate the review of your edits but three independent editors' support is quite convincing. 4. I did not change the ISBN but I converted it because I want to use ISBN 13 consequently. 5. I will be converting all references but I want to be systematic, so I began at the beginning of the Reference sectiokn. 6. I am sure I will come up with new ref mismatches because I have not finished the review of the article yet. Unfortunatelly, your text is only by chance verified by the sources you allegedly cite.

Borsoka (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Laziness

@Johnbod: are you sure that you can accuse other editors of laziness ([2])? You are one of the editors responsible for this huge collection of original research and unverified claims (examples are listed here and here). As an act of penance, you could help other editors to improve the article instead of reverting edits and making ad personam remarks ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and the article belongs to you now, as you have, as usual, driven other editors out. There's no helping you, as we know from other articles. I very much doubt there is any "original research" (Wikipedian for "Wow, I didn't know that") in the article. Refs are needed, so go find them. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As usual you are unable to verify your own text, and as usual, you try to hide this fact by accusing me of misconduct. You obviously have not realised that other editors are not here to work for you. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I realized that a long time ago. I'm not sure this is my text, though it may be. Anyone with the intention of improving WP can "verify" it very easily. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If it can be verified easily, please do it. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You've reverted everything I've done here for years - you do it. Just follow the BIG FAT LINK & find a source. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I have not reverted everything. I put the tags requesting verification and indicating unverified claims. Again, it was not me who misled our community by placing pseudo-references after sentences containing my own thoughts and interpretations. (Just a side remark, the linked article (Codex Aureus of St. Emeran) and its cited source (Lasko) do not verify the sentence either.) Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Intrapersonal relations in power structures

@Ehrenkater: thank you for your edits but I do not understand your tags. The cited author (John H. Arnold) says, "In almost all places, the basis of the economy was agricultural, resting on exploting labour surplus from a large mass of more or less subservient peasants. Communication across regions was relatively slow, and could not be relied upon to be uniform in content or reception; power structures tended to rely heavily upon intrapersonal relations, and where bureaucracies developed they were fragile in comparison to later times." Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka I, for one, have no idea what is meant by "intrapersonal relations", so for starters it would need to be clarified.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that this should be interpersonal relationships, connections between two or more persons. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Would work if I linked the term? Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Except, of course, the two words mean very different things. One is connections between one of more individuals, whereas the other means the understanding of oneself. Arnold may have used an incorrect term, but as written changing this to interpersonal changes the meaning of what was written and what is in the article. It would be better to get another source if this was considered an important point, delete if not or rephrase. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Most likely Arnold intended Intrapersonal communication Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Arnold refers to interpersonal relationship because at least two people are needed for a relationship, especially in power structures. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well seeing as that is not what he wrote it is WP:OR, is it not? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not OR. It is a correction of an obvious typo. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

To be more helpful it would appear that Arnold was using an academic psychological term. If he intended to use interpersonal he would, but he didn't, and we must accept that was intentional. The clue is in the subject of the sentence, which is communication and the use of the related terms content and reception. I am not expert on Interpersonal communication but both terms are used in models developed for this. The point being made would appear to be that power structures were subjective, dependent on the perception of the the rulers and the ruled rather than codified and objective. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think @Ehrenkater, you are not alone in having no idea what Intrapersonal relations means and if it prompts so much debate it certainly needs clarification. Norfolkbigfish (talk ) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read the sentence again. I think you misinterpreted the context: it is not "content and reception" (both linked to communication across regions). A reference to interpersonal relationships in power structures is quite natural: the power structures were determined by personal connections between peoples instead of institutions.

It is a single sentence, discussing communication, power structures and bureaucracy at the time. In it the writer uses a precise scientific term used in social psychology. There is no evidential reason to suppose the writer used an incorrect term, meant to use a different term or it is a typo. Content and reception are both used in models of intrapersonal communication, so there is every indication that the writer intended to use the word as written. Indeed it makes perfect sense, unlike using interpersonal which would appear to be totally superfluous and redundant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that you perfectly understand the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand it enough to recognise that just swapping interpersonal for intrapersonal creates an oxymoron that the author would not have intended. As such the use of interpersonal is not supported by the source or indeed explained clearly. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

When mentioning power in the Middle Ages, Arnold writes of "patterns of ritual behaviour, lines of social power, and methods by which individuals negotiated their position in society" (p. 47). In his analysis of medieval power structures, he emphasises the role of violence, saying that "that the possibility of violence ... played a role in the creation and maintenance of political systems at all level". In the same analysis, he adds that "Another set of tools ... was the bestowal of patronage and the cultivation of personal charisma. ... The process of patronage - bestowing office, lands or favours in return for political support - is familiar across medieval politics... Studies of civic oligarchical elites indicate similar systems of patronage and kinship networks at a more local level... " (pp. 132-134) All these statements indicate that he is referring to the importance of relationship between individuals (that is to interpersonal relations) when writing of power structures. Could you quote text from Arnold's book verifying any of your above guesses about the meaning of the term "intrapersonal relations" (an obvious oxymoron)? Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to delete, rewrite or resource the sentence as written. It is not really about terminology, so is probably in the wrong place anyway. None of this changes the fact that swapping interpersonal for intrapersonal in this sentence and as cited changes the meaning and intention of the author of this paricular point. By using the semi-colon Arnold is linking communication to intrapersonal relations deliberately, for a reason. So rewrite it as you like to include the wider citations but do not think it is valid just to swap one word and meaning for a different word and meaning, and cite it to a passage that does not support the change. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Arnold presents this information in section "Framing the Middle Ages", so WP can also present it when the term is explained. In Arnold's text, "intrapersonal relations" (an obvious oxymoron and typo) is mentioned in the context of power structures. Why do you think Arnold exclusively mention examples of interpersonal relations (such as negotiations, violence, patronage...) in the section of his book about power structures in the Middle Ages?

@Norfolkbigfish: above you stated ([4]), that Arnold "uses a precise scientific term used in social psychology" when mentioning "intrapersonal relations". Could you list some academic sources in the field of social psychology that also use this "precise scientific term"? Those sources could help us to understand this term. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

From Oxford Reference: intrapersonal relationship Interactions between members within a group and the resultant influence on individual members. See also interpersonal relationship. Artem.G (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I understand the article presents Arnold's view properly. Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

Internatinal = International 2603:8000:D300:3650:4A3:D9B0:F39D:C04 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done There was a typo in the final footnote, now fixed. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)