Talk:Morphia of Melitene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMorphia of Melitene has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 14, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 7, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when her husband was captured by the Turks, Queen Morphia hired a band of secretly armed fake monks and merchants to infiltrate the prison and rescue him – only for him to be captured again?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2021.
IS THERE A SPECIFIC FAITH  Greek Orthodox faith DAUBTFUL

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Morphia of Melitene/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 16:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am glad that I have the opportunity to review this nice article about a nearly unknown medieval queen consort. Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations for this excellent article. Thank you for completing it. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • ...the city of Melitene (Malatya) in northern Syria I would mention that the city is now in Turkey.
    Ah, yes, I knew I was missing something. It is not in MOS but I now remember seeing it done like that in the articles you worked on. But what to do then about Harpoot, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc? It might look odd to specify this only for Melitene; or perhaps not because Melitene is the one with which she is identified. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although ethnically Armenians, the family practised the Greek Orthodox faith. I think the sentence is unclear for many readers who do not know that the Armenians adhere to their own Church.
I think so too. Unfortunately, none of these sources say that she would normally have been non-Chalcedonian. I will try to think of a solution. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Middle East instead of Near East or Levant?
Middle East is the most recognizable term to English speakers. Levant is more common in academia. I do not mind changing to Levant. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking of the term "Franks" to the whole article is not helpful. Perhaps section "Crusaders and other Western Europeans as "Franks"" should be linked.
Good idea. I have always been uncomfortable linking to that article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... region's indigenous Christian nobility... I would not include the term "nobility" in the link.
Misleading indeed. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...including the Armenians... As far as I remember the crusader aristocrats only sought marriage alliances with the Armenians because only the lifestyle of the leaders of other native Christian groups did not resemble to western chivalry.
I am not sure what you are suggesting. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that intermarriage between Jacobites, Maronites and local Orthodoxes and Franks was common? Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Amended. Surtsicna (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...another crusader, Baldwin of Bourcq... Was he a simple crusader?
Amended to "crusade leader". Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage[edit]

  • ...was probably celebrated in 1100 Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar?
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queenship[edit]

  • His cousin King Baldwin I... According to Alan V. Murray: "Whilst the older scholarship seemed certain that Baldwin II was a nephew or first cousin of Godfrey and Baldwin I, the most recent detailed research has demonstrated that a relationship as close as these must be discounted..." Murray, Alan V. (2017). "Kingship, Identity, and Name-giving in the Family of Baldwin of Bourcq". In Housley, Norman (ed.). Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber. Taylor and Francis. pp. 27–38 (on page 27). ISBN 9781351923927.
Are you concerned that the unqualified word "cousin" implies "first cousin"? Would you prefer "distant cousin", "relative", or not mentioning the relationship at all? Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, cousin primarily means "a child of one's uncle or aunt". Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "kinsman". Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baldwin II delayed his coronation for almost a year and a half so that he could be crowned together with his wife. Is this a fact or a scholarly PoV?
Funnily enough, Hamilton explicitly calls this a fact: "Matthew of Edessa remarks that Baldwin was devoted to his wife and this is borne out by the fact that he delayed his coronation for almost eighteen months, until Christmas day 1119, so that she could travel to Jersualem and be crowned with him." Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barber mentions possibilites to explain the delay of Baldwin's coronation although he also says that Baldwin most likely "wanted a joint coronation with his wife" (Barber (2012), pp. 119-120). I think a reference to Matthew of Edessa would be useful, and the article could mention that scholars accept Matthew's explanation. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barber discounts the other reasons though. When he explains the wish for a joint coronation as the "most likely" reason, he cites William of Tyre; Hamilton, who presents it as a fact, cites Fulcher of Chartres. I am not sure which of the chroniclers should be referenced, but it seems that there is a consensus among the scholars. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Orthodox clergy's status in the kingdom improved during Baldwin II's reign... Could some examples be mentioned?
Mentioned and significantly reworded, as I realized that the "King Baldwin" Hamilton refers to here is Baldwin I. Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...they may have been privileged because the queen herself was Orthodox Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar?
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Bernard Hamilton speculates... Does he speculate or write/state/propose?
He says "perhaps": "Perhaps as a resuit of the oriental environment in which she had grown up the queen took no part in the public life of the kingdom." I do not know how else to describe it, and I believe he himself would say it is a speculation. Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy[edit]

  • ...it must have been between 1126 and 1128 Why and according to whom?
  • Barber writes that if Morphia died, in 1126 "this is in itself might have been a significant reason for seeking a husband for Melisende". (Barber (2012), p. 394 (note 159))
  • ...and her own sons, Baldwin and Amalric, also married Orthodox women Is this necessary? (Is there a connection between their grandmother's and their wives' Orthodoxy?) Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will elaborate on the dating. I've removed the granddaughters-in-law; Hamilton is far too vague for me to be any clearer, and I also do not feel like naming them (which I probably should if I keep the reference to them). Surtsicna (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the section to discuss the dating of her death. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I replaced that one with File:Map County of Edessa 1098-1131-en.svg. Same author, but cited sources. I would prefer to show all the crusader states in the immediate aftermath of the First Crusade in one map but it seems that we have no such reliable map with a reference. On the bright side, this one shows Melitene. Surtsicna (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader scanned the photo of a postcard produced by Lehnert & Landrock, who are named in the file information. The eBay seller of the postcard does not have it on their profile anymore, but I included a link to the profile of another seller of the same postcard. Now, I am not sure which of the US PD criteria listed at commons:Template:PD-Egypt/en this file is supposed to fit. I have requested help at the Commons. Surtsicna (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted out. Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • The main text says that she died between 1126 and 1128, the lead and the infobox mentions the years 1126 and 1127.
I replaced it all with "c. 1127". That encompasses both 1126 and 1128. Everything else I have tried looks just too cumbersome for an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was Armenian, although followed the Greek Orthodox religion. I think this is unclear for our readers.
I took out the "although". The peculiarity of it should probably be saved for the main text. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her father, Gabriel, ... I think he should be introduced as an Armenian aristocrat/leader/warlord in northern Syria.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...one of the crusaders... Perhaps crusader leaders?
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...c. 1100... I would say "around" or "in about 1100" in the lead.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her religious practices left a lasting mark on the status of Orthodox Christians in the crusader kingdom. In the main text, this is not a fact but a scholarly PoV. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Changed to reflect this. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  • I think note 14 does not verify the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barber says that, according to Mayer, "Morphia was the first queen to be crowned in the crusader kingdom". I suppose that could be interpreted as meaning that Arda and Adelaide were crowned outside the kingdom, but this is obviously not Barber's intention. Mayer in his work says that Baldwin II's wives were never crowned. I suppose it could be reworded to: "Morphia was the first queen of Jerusalem to undergo the ceremony in the Kingdom of Jerusalem", but that is awkward and implies that previous queens were crowned outside the kingdom; or to "Morphia was the first queen to undergo the ceremony in the Kingdom of Jerusalem", but that risks losing a valuable link. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find any reference to Morphia on page 66 of Barber's cited book. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been 389. Fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that when her husband got captured by the Turks, Queen Morphia hired a band of secretly armed "monks" and "merchants" to infiltrate the prison and rescue him – only for him to be captured again? Source: Runciman p. 163: "Fifty of them came in various disguises to Kharpurt and were allowed entry as being monks and merchants of the district with a grievance that they asked to lay before the governor. Once inside the fortress they produced arms from beneath their garments and overpowered the garrison. Baldwin and Joscelin suddenly found themselves the masters of their prison."

Improved to Good Article status by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 22:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Morphia of Melitene; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Promoted to GA status on 11/14 satisfying DYK's newness requirement. The article is also long enough, well sourced and cited, neutrally written, and appears compliant with policy. An Earwig checks out fine. Hook is short enough (194 characters) and interesting. QPQ underway. The only thing holding me back from approving is the accuracy of the hook: The article says Morphia hired a band of 50 Armenian soldiers who posed as monks and merchants and in other disguises. The hook, by contrast, says she hired monks and merchants and omits to say that they were soldiers and not actually monks and merchants. The hook needs to be factual and accurate, so this needs to be fixed. Ping me when this is resolved.`Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, the scare quotes are there to indicate (or at least strongly imply) that the men she hired were not actual monks and merchants. Surtsicna (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the desire to come up with an entertaining hook, but DYK rules provide that a hook must include "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". Here, we have a hook that is clearly not factual or accurate, i.e., the band of 50 were not monks and merchants. They were hired soldiers posing as monks, merchants and wearing others disguises. "Scare quotes" do not make the hook any more "factual". To the contrary, the very purpose of "scare quotes" is to "convey an ironic, skeptical, or even derisive stance toward the word or phrase they enclose; they signal a nonstandard use, which often requires a reader to read between the lines to intuit the particular sense intended by the author." See here. A hook that at worst is false and at best requires the reader to "read between the lines" is the antithesis of "a definite fact that is unlikely to change", as required by DYK rules. Cbl62 (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider an alt hook along these lines ... that Queen Morphia hired a band of soldiers disguised as monks and merchants to rescue her husband from a Turkish fortress – only for him to be captured again? Cbl62 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That one is good too, and shorter, but I am not sure if it tells a good story. How about replacing the scare quotes with the word fake? ... that when her husband got captured by the Turks, Queen Morphia hired a band of secretly armed fake monks and merchants to infiltrate the prison and rescue him – only for him to be captured again? Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Thoughts on the above? Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New reviewer needed unless @Cbl62: returns. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt hook is fine. Cbl62 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Compress article?[edit]

Could this article be compressed? It seems the summary at the beginning is redundant since it mentions the same things as comes in the next paragraph. Sfar13 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morphia_of_Melitene&oldid=1209183996"