Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cologne War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cologne War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...this was an important war in the long conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism in the old German territories, it had long term repercussions not only on religious practice, but on the constitution of authority and the early modern state. It was the first test of ecclesiastical reservation in the Holy Roman Empire, and it represented the first significant incursion of outsiders in HRE affairs. The article has been through a variety of reviews, maps have been made (and are continuing to be made). Battle stubs are being filled in, although there were few real "battles" in the modern parlance, thee were more like sieges and plundering raids... I think it meets the A class requirements. I appreciate your critique of the article. THANKS! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Comments:
  • This article needs some serious referencing improvements before promotion to A-Class. First of all, there are numerous paragraphs and sections with insufficient citations:
    • The introduction in the Background section is completely unreferenced.
Yes, it is. The background section is very long, and this paragraph serves as a lead to the background. I could add a citation of every source I used at the end of that paragraph, if you prefer?
    • The first paragraph in the Religious divisions in the Empire currently contains only one citation at the end. Sentences such as The idea of religious pluralism, in which individuals could adhere to a faith dictated by conscience, is a modern invention. Prior to the 16th century, there was one faith in a European Christian land, and that was the Catholic, or universal, faith. should be cited even though you duplicate the ref existent at the end of the para. Same for the last para of the section.
why should the cite be duplicated throughout a single paragraph? Holborn is a standard, although elderly, text, and widely available.
    • The issue raised above is present in most of the article, so I'll add cite tags in every place where citation is needed.
You and I have distinctly different ideas about salting an article with citations. Over use of the notes section requires that the reader jump around, moving from cite to cite at the end of every sentence. I prefer to put them at the end of the paragraph, where possible, and as suggested
    • Please consider separating citation and notes and remove details unneeded in citations (ex:current ref #14 - N.M. Sutherland, Origins of the Thirty Years War and the Structure of European Politics. The English Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 424 (Jul., 1992), pp. 587–625, p. 606. → Sutherland, p. 606). Please see here for an elegant referencing system.
Do you have a source on that? Elegance is in the mind of the beholder. I find that system very cumbersome to write, read and understand. See WP:MILMOS#CITESTYLE for examples of discursive footnotes as a legitimate way to document an article. In this article, the first time I cited a source, I used the full citation, and after that an abbreviation. This is consistent unless I'm using the source in a discursive footnote, such as #39, to explain the origins of/or disagreement on some fact or other (such as the number of casualties).
    • Current refs 1, 18, 21, 28, 29 and 47 lack a page number.
Legitimate. I will take care of this in the next couple of days.\.
    • Citations such as #35 should split and each reference should have its own citation placed in the text where appropiate.
(This is now #39). I disagree with this also. Standards in historiographical reference combine citations all the time. In many cases, the source used in a secondary work is duplicated among other secondary works. For example, the story of the "salted" soldiers appeared in every account of Schenck's incursion into Werl. Would you have me put a half dozen separate citations after this? How cumbersome! All of those sources say the same thing, so it is appropriate to use a discursive footnote. The destructive power of this war was incredible, although there were few battles. The last sentence (which is uncited), just states that I am choosing 2 incidents as indicative of the war, rather than recounting the entire war: one army marches here, burns a village, plunders a convent, rapes the nuns. Another army marches there, does the same thing. It's a repetitive story. This method of dealing with the minutiae of the war was actually suggested by Magic♪piano, who did the GA review.
Eurocopter, thank you for taking the time to read and respond. I'm sure we can reach some agreement about how to resolve these issues. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources issues have been addressed. See the revisions, and comments below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, per other comments posted I have withdrawn my oppose and leave comments above as recommandations. Excuse me for the late response, I wasn't able to contribute during the last week. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eurocopter, this is very gracious of you. As you can see, I have incorporated many of your comments, and added several citations in places where you asked. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in much better form now, I'm ready to support its promotion. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Cite#How_to_present_citations, editors have considerable freedom in deciding how to organise their references and whether to place an in-line citation after each sentence, or just add a single reference at the end of a paragraph, if the whole paragraph is based on the same source. These things are personal preferences and should not affect article rating. JN466 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Jayen466. If a paragraph of information comes from the one source, then it is sufficient to have a single cite at the end of the paragraph. Placing the cite after basically every sentence in a paragraph is overkill, redundant and just looks poor presentation wise. I think many of these cite needed tags are just not needed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First impression of this article is very good. I'll read through it in detail over the coming days and will comment below:
    1. "Convened in 1555 by Charles brother, Ferdinand, the king had the authority to "act and settle" disputes of territory, religion, and local power.[7]" Can we rewrite this sentence? My understanding is that Ferdinand was the brother of Charles, the king, who had authorised Ferdinand to negotiate the accord on his behalf. Also, it is grammatically not clear what was convened. JN466 14:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I find the following sentence a little difficult to follow: "Firstly, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) marked the end of organized military action between Protestants and Catholics, but its limitations did not address the emerging trend toward religious pluralism throughout the German-speaking lands of the Holy Roman Empire." The word I am having problem with is "limitations". In what sense did limitations not address the trend? Are we saying that the scope of the Peace of Augsburg was limited, and therefore it did not address the emerging trend? In other words, one of its limitations was that it did not address ...? --JN466 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed this now.
    1. "The Schmalkaldic League called its own ecumenical council in 1537, and set forward several precepts of faith; Luther did not attend, but Philipp Melanchthon wrote a scathing condemnation of the papal authority in which he labeled the pope as the anti-Christ.[5]" Could you check into this? I read that Luther did attend in 1537 but was prevented from participating much because he was suffering from an acute bout of kidney stones. It was Luther himself who said the pope was "the true anti-Christ or Endchrist" in the 1537 Smalcald Articles (to which a tractatus by Melanchthon was added). It seems Melanchthon did not fully concur with Luther and favoured a more conciliatory attitude towards the pope, saying he should be treated "as though" he were the anti-Christ as long as things did not change. [1][2][3] --JN466 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed this now. In the interest of clarity, I summarized two councils into one paragraph, making it unclear.
    1. "First, Ferdinand had pushed ecclesiastical reservation through debate, and his ad hoc Declaratio Ferdinandei was not debated in plenary session at all; these failings came back to haunt the Empire in subsequent decades" Could we prettify this sentence? I am not sure what is meant by "Ferdinand had pushed ecclesiastical reservation through debate" ("had pushed it through against the resistance of others"?), and given that we describe two failings, perhaps we should say "First, ...; second, ...: both these failings ..." --JN466 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't wait for great debate, they spent most of the time debating cuious/ejus, and had no time left over for the other issues. See if it's clearer now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support. I am halfway through proofreading and copy-editing; I've found only a few minor things, on the whole it is beautifully written. I'll continue going through but don't expect to find anything that would prevent me from supporting when I am done. --JN466 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you check the page references in footnote 39 in the paragraph starting "The mere possibility of Gebhard's conversion"? I don't think they are right. I think it's pp. 294ff. in Ennen, perhaps pp. 25–32 in Hennes?
    • Also in this paragraph, we say, "On 19 December 1582, from the pulpit of the Cathedral in Cologne, he announced his conversion, from, as he phrased it, the "darkness of the papacy to the Light" of the Word of God". Page 32 in Hennes, which this quote is taken form, says he had a declaration published on his behalf on that date; page 297 in Ennen agrees. --JN466 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this is right. I changed the date, but not the place. I fixed it. Thanks for spotting it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke. Just a little thing: the paragraph beginning "Pope Gregory XIII excommunicated him ..." explains, in more detail than necessary I believe, who Ernst of Bavaria is. We've already introduced him to the reader above. Obviously, the Wittelsbach reference must remain,  Done; we've already said that. --JN466 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of the Cathedral feud section, we explain once more that Ernst of Bavaria became archbishop in Gebhard's stead. I think some of the other info in that para is redundant too. --JN466 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 57 in this version seems to be wrong: it says p. 67 in Hennes, but I cannot find that information on that page.
  • Ref. 59 is a 30-page range (pp. 60–90); this really should be a tighter page range. The information sourced to it is "In the summer of 1583, Gebhard and Agnes took refuge, first at Vest in Vest Recklinghausen, a fief of the Electorate, and then at the fortress of Werl in the Duchy of Westphalia. From there, Gebhard set in motion as much of the Reformation as he could, which included a burst of iconoclasm from his troops that alienated much of the population." It should be possible to poinpoint this to a more precise location in the book.
  • Generally, I think it would be worthwhile to check through the page numbers given in the citations. I know that is a royal pain, but in the spot checks I am making there are too many cases where looking up the relevant page does not yield the advertised information. --JN466 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the Hennes cites. I was originally using a different version, and switched to the online version, since it is most readily available. I think they are right now. Several of them I just switched to another source. Most of these sources are repetitive, and largely based on Max Lossen's work, which is not all that easily found, esp the second volume, so I didn't use it. (Plus it is fraktur, which makes it even less accessible.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support I'm not an expert on this period of history, so I'm reviewing more from the perpective of presentation. I note Eurocopter's comments above and, while we are justifiably tough in the sourcing department in MilHist ACR, I don't think we need citations everywhere they've been requested, however I agree there's still some work to be done in this department. Generally, if an entire paragraph employs the same source, one citation to that source at the end of the paragraph should suffice, and this has been acceptable in my experience right up to and including FA-level. In fact there have been lively discussions at the FAC talk page about overly dense or unnecessary citing so my advice would be to make it a minimum of one citation per para, but of course more granular if there are multiple sources for the para or for individual statements within the para. On the other hand, it does look like some of the page ranges employed in the citations are too broad. To take some examples:
    • Background I don't see why the opening sentence, Two events of the 1550s influenced the emergence of conflict in Cologne thirty years later, needs a citation when the rest of the para explains what those two events were and includes a citation at the end—so long as the entire para was in fact sourced from the same place, which I'll accept IGF if Ruth tells me it's the case. However, a citation to Holborn, pp. 152–246 doesn't help me much in pinpointing where Holborn asserts this; I'd expect a much more narrow range of pages than this, or a few narrower ranges, e.g. Holborn, pp. 152–165, 238–246.
    • Religious divisions in the Empire The same points apply to the first paragraph here. The only other consideration is that I know some reviewers, at least at FAC, will request an inline citation for the direct quote, even if it's the same source as the rest of the paragraph that's cited at the end.
    • Course of the war In the first para, I agree with Eurocopter that the last sentence needs a citation. Even though other parts of the para are cited, we need to finish each para with a citation as well to cover ourselves.
    • Spanish intervention I realise the last sentence of this para is a general one leading into the next section, nevertheless it goes against the standard of concluding each para with a citation and there may be better ways of wording it if in fact none of the sources put things quite this way.
The last thing I'll say here is that I don't think there's a requirement to separate citations and explantory footnotes. Some do it, some don't, and I've seen both at A- and FA-Class level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Ian, for your comments. I'll see what I can do about the Holborn citation. Basically, that paragraph is a summary of almost 100 pages in Holborn--which I thought was quite a feat, considering the complexity. I will see if I can narrow it down further, although to be fair to Holborn, and the thoroughness of his presentation, I'm not sure. On the Religious divisions, I took out the "quote". It really isn't a quote exactly, it's a general phrase that Charles supposedly used to describe the dispute, and which has been translated, retranslated, etc. So I just took out the quote marks. In the course of the war section, I will simply remove the unsourced sentence. the choice of those two battles was my judgment call, not the statement of anyone else, to set up the next two sections. The same with the following comment. Again, thanks for your help. I'll get to this in the next couple of days. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for addressing the items above; I'm also satisfied enough with the prose. Couple of other points:
  • There are quite a few instances of italics for emphasis. Ruth, I'd suggest reviewing these and perhaps cutting down a little because having that many tends to dissipate the effect.
  • In Implications of Conversion you have Ernst was a clever choice: he had been the losing candidate in 1578, when Gebhard had won the election by two votes; thus insuring the involvement of the powerful House of Wittelsbach in the contest. Firstly, "clever" sounds a bit opinionated so if the source says that I think I'd prefer it spelled out or quoted; secondly, I think "ensured" is preferable, assuming we mean "made sure of"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks Ian. I removed only 2 instances of italics -- the rest are foreign words, so should be italicized. If you find others, let me know. But I don't see them. I reworded one sentence, removed the clever part.  :) It was actually more of a diabolical choice, considering the consequences. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just two more things from me: last sentence of third para of Religious divisions in the Empire should have a citation, even if the same as the first citation in the next para;  Done
Horror at Neuss sounds emotive, unless the term is commonly used in connection with the event - if not then I think Destruction of Neuss is more suitable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ummmmm.....well, what else can we call something that included a 36 hour cannonade, the killing of the entire garrison, hanging of men from windows over the market square, a fire that burned nearly the whole city (8 buildings left), and a general storming of the city by 10,000 troops? With some 3000 dead, not only the military types. A friend suggested Armageddon. Possibly too strong. Raizing of Neuss? I thought I wasn't supposed to use the names of articles in the subheaders. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The enormity of the event isn't in question, just whether the phrase is commonly applied in this case. In terms of obviating that, I wasn't aware of any restriction re. article names in subheader titles, but if such exists then "Razing" works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
Tks Ruth, unqualified support now for a great (and patient!) effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
  • "The position of elector-archbishop was usually held by a scion of nobility, although not necessarily a priest, and a broad practice of medieval and early modern Europe, not simply in the Holy roman Empire." Eh? Rephrase please, and check your capitalization.
  • The position of elector-archbishop was usually held by a scion of nobility, although not necessarily a priest; this widespread practice allowed younger sons of noble houses to find prestigious and financially secure positions.
  • Good.
  • It needs a copy-edit. There are a variety of gramattical and usage errors throughout.
  • will do. Done
  • Perhaps you could include all the various people and nations who intervened in the infobox.
  • all of them? oooookay. Done
  • that is a juicy redlink that can be converted into an article at some point.
  • Perhaps "Sack of Bonn (1583)" or "Fall of Bonn (1583)" would be better than just a city name and year?
  • "City of Werl, which Cloedt and Schenck captured Werl through a "salty" strategem." Erm...?
  • Yes, but the sentence is a fragment and doesn't make sense to a reader.
  • expanded, made into real sentences.
  • There are places where the article seems to summarize itself, go into deep detail on an event, and then recap the last section.

This is rather confusing and another thing to do be dealt with in a copy-edit.

  • yes. I periodically summarize material, and then go into the next section.  ? Basically a response to other comments.
shortened. Done
  • I question the need for a link to bombing of Cologne in World War II in the See Also section.
  • If you search on "Cologne War" in most search engines, including Wikipedia's, you mostly get links ( or got) links to WWI in Cologne.
  • I'm not sure that's a valid reason for including in See Also as the link is so tenuous. Generally See Also items have a stronger content link to the article in which they appear. I'd say the same for Cologne War of 1114 unless it had a significant bearing on this conflict (and if it did, you'd no doubt have mentioned it in the Background section). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the "See Also" Section. Put the history of cologne link into the relevant paragraph, and removed the other two altogether.  :)  Done Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These, and the problems noted above, need to be worked out before it's ready for A-Class. – Joe N 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now, thanks! – Joe N 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport: there are no dab links and the external links all work according to the link checker. One of the images, however, lacks alt text according to the Altviewer, although all the others have it. It is the image of Gebhard von Waldburg-Trauchburg. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added that alt text for Gebhard's portrait, plus alt text on coats of arms per request of another reviewer.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
according to the German wikipedia, it was File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg|Version from www.ge-heugenvannederland.nl Frans Hogenberg was a Flemish engraver and painter, who was in Cologne during the wars. He died in 1590. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you plan on nominating this article for Featured consideration, from what I've observed the reviewers there are really strict about sourcing information for images. They require that the sourcing info be very clear so that it can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt that the image is public domain. I tested that link and it appears to be dead. Is it possible to find another source for that image? Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the heads up. I've just checked in the commons page for the image information and it looks good. All the links seem to work, and the original is held in some museum in the Netherlands. If Adewait or Eubildes, or another image maven object, I'll deal with it then. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary This review is getting long (and long in the tooth). I think I've covered everything that people have raised. Is there anything else I need to do here? So far there is support from Australian Rupert, JoeN, Eurocopter, IanRose, and "leading toward support" from JN (who I think is otherwise occupied with the Inner German Border and real life). Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With three supports it can be closed by any uninvolved coordinator. I've supported it, so I can't. – Joe N 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Cologne_War&oldid=1142557650"