Talk:Hermeneutic style

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hermeneutic style/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I peer reviewed this article, but have had no other input to it, and do not believe I am compromised as a GAN reviewer. Beginning first GAN read-through. More soonest. – Tim riley talk 20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Truth to tell I'm surprised to see this article at GAN. If I'd been the main author I'd have haled it off to FAC straight after the peer review. Still, as it's here, there is no difficulty in promoting it. It meets all the GA criteria, in my judgment, and it is a pleasure to make its acquaintance again. I shall, I hope, have to read it once again – when it gets to FAC, but that will be no hardship. – Tim riley talk 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Category?

As GA reviewer I have to add it to the list of GAs in the appropriate sub-category of the History section. I am in doubt about which bit it should go into. @Dudley Miles: advice on this point, please. Tim riley talk 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and kind words. How about European history? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That'll do nicely, thank you. Now added. On to FAC if you please. Tim riley talk 23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Samples

It should have samples in Latin with explanations. Check Hiberno-Latin for examples. --Error (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is really well written, but I too was bummed out to not find one or two snippets.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A good point. I assumed that English Wikipedia should only use English but I will check the MOS. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style in English?

Is there a Hermeneutic style in English? Norman21 (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not in Anglo-Saxon England. I do not know whether there was anything similar at other periods. I have borrowed the Oxford History of English but I have not had time to read it yet. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Lapidge's description of this style: "a style whose most striking feature is the ostentatious parade of unusual, often very arcane and apparently learned vocabulary", reminds me of the jargon of critical theory, with its coining of special insider neologisms, the use of everyday words with arcane new meanings, and so on, as if in an attempt to imitiate the surface appearance of the language of the physical sciences. Ironically, the density of its jargon offers a perfect defence against criticism, by allowing the assertion that outsiders' criticism of it derives from those outsiders' buffoonish ignorance, and inability to discern its true meaning. It's clearly working: critical theory has survived the Sokal Hoax, and if it can survive that, it can survive anything. -- The Anome (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In comparison, the Hermeneutic style seems quite unambitious! Its proponents were just trying to show off their learning, not claim access to a truer understanding of reality. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles:: Euphuism? --Error (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I know nothing about euphuism, but judging from the article, its proponents seem to have been indulging in an elaborate game, whereas practitioners of hermeneutic style were displaying their learning, as I said above. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it was @Norman21 who asked. Error (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

More examples please

I've come to this article due to the Featured Article section of the main page and I must say I expected some examples of this style of writing marking out the hermeneutic style specifically so I (and other readers) can grasp what it is better. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There are five examples 1. Passage from De Virginitate 2. Poem on noble stone 3. Charter of Æthelstan A 4. Poem by Dunstan 5. Quote from Byrhtferth. I think these give a flavour of the style. Dudley Miles (talk)

Thanks for the reply. I don't see the flavour of "characterised by the extensive use of unusual and arcane words", just long winded over-elaborate statements... or is that the flavour? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That is in the choice of Latin words, often very obscure or even invented. It cannot really be conveyed in translation. As other editors said above, I should probably have included some original Latin, but it would not help unless the reader is an expert. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that some examples in their original language might be better, though you could provide the Latin, with the Hermeneutic style words in bold or italics and then provide the English translation with the corresponding words in bold or italics, just to highlight them? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved on to a new project and taken most of the books for this article back to the library, but I will see whether I can find something suitable. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The name given by historians

Lead currently reads:

The hermeneutic style is the name given by historians to a style of Latin in the later Roman and early medieval periods...

Under WP style guides (e.g., WP:REFERS), the article should be about the topic, not the name of the topic. Many historical topics in WP are listed under names that were introduced long after the period of the topic, e.g., Byzantine Empire, Gothic architecture, The Renaissance. These articles typically have a section discussing the historiography and the history of the name, but they do not (and should not) start with "The Byzantine Empire is the modern name of the Roman Empire in the period..." or the like. The lead should be:

The hermeneutic style is a style of Latin in the later Roman and early medieval periods...

Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Dank can you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any sense in which "The hermeneutic style is a style of Latin" is false? If it's true in every likely interpretation, then it's a good choice. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. Changed. 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• The original seemed fine to me. It is often useful to emphasize at the start that a term is a modern invention. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That is my view, but Macrakis and Dank disagree, and as the issue is covered in the main text I do not think it is a problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, Wikipedia policy is quite clear that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history."

Of course, many terms are modern inventions. As I mentioned above, none of Byzantine Empire, Gothic architecture, The Renaissance were used in their own time.

If your concern is that the concept is modern, that's a more subtle issue.... Again, though, it is not uncommon for the phenomenon to come before its identification as a discrete topic. --Macrakis (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

To begin "The hermeneutic style is the name given by historians to a style of Latin in the later Roman and early medieval periods ..." does not turn an article about a topic into one about the name of a topic. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you take a look at WP:REFERS? Should Wikipedia also say "Oxygen is the name given by Lavoisier to the component of air that supports combustion."? After all, oxygen existed long before Lavoisier. Or "Capitalism is the name given by Karl Marx to an economic system in which ..."? --Macrakis (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. You are becoming tiresome, & I think we've discussed this long enough. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You said that "It is often useful to emphasize at the start that a term is a modern invention." I questioned that, with examples where it seems like a bad idea. And your best counterargument is "you are becoming tiresome"? --Macrakis (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)