Jump to content

Talk:Prester John: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,960 edits
m Signing comment by Danindenver - "updated response"
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
|action4oldid=654446198
|action4oldid=654446198
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WP India|class=GA|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=low}}
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=GA|importance=low|indian-work-group=yes|indian-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|indian-work-group=yes|indian-importance=mid}}
{{WP King Arthur|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject King Arthur|importance=low}}
{{Wikiproject_mythology|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{Wikiproject_mythology|importance=mid}}
{{WPMA|class=GA|importance=mid}}}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no|box-width=80%|large=yes|
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no|box-width=80%|large=yes|
*[[Talk:Prester John/Archive 1|Prester John - Archive 1]]
*[[Talk:Prester John/Archive 1|Prester John - Archive 1]]
}}
}}

== Neutrality check: ==
I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality. The reason was given in the summary, but the tag was soon removed again, cont rary to policy, by another editor, on the pretext that I needed to give a reason on the talk page. So here is the same explanation again, from my edit summary:

This article clearly has a point-of-view, but it's not a very neutral one, it represents only one opinion and scorns others

According to my understanding, it is not considered helpful to remove neutrality concern tags, when an editor raises neutrality concerns. If an editor raises neutrality concerns, it means there is a neutrality concern that needs to be worked out. If another editor then summarily removes the tag, it looks like that editor is assuming he is above all others, "owns" the article, and alone knows what is best. That is exactly why the policy says not to remove those tags UNTIL the neutrality issue is addressed to everyone's satisfaction. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:Calm down. I removed the tag because your edit summary was extremely vague as to the reasons why you added it, and you did not explain yourself on the talk page. Placing NPOV tags without appropriate explanation is not helpful to improving an article, and I know of no policy (or guideline) indicating that inappropriately placed tags must be left in place. What point of view does this article have? What is the "one opinion" represented here? What others does it "scorn"? Virtually every statement here is cited to reliable sources, and most of it is just an account of the various incarnations of the legend through the years. You'll have to elaborate.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

::I admit that I was also puzzled by the tag. Would you please explain as specifically as possible your concerns about the neutrality of the article. [[User:Aramgar|Aramgar]] ([[User talk:Aramgar|talk]]) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm still newish here, but as near as I can tell, there's no way to do a POV check without [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] describing the POV problem? [[User:Cretog8|Cretog8]] ([[User talk:Cretog8|talk]]) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

::::There's no way to address his concerns if he doesn't tell us what they are. Placing a template like that is useless without discussion.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Talk:Prester John/GA1}}


==Assyrian / Nestorian==
Hi, I tagged one of the sentences as needing a citation. This is because I've been doing quite a bit of cleanup on some other "Christianity in Asia" articles, and have found several places where someone seems to have done a global search & replace, swapping "Nestorian" for "Assyrian Church of the East". In one place they even changed a quote from a source, to say "Assyrian" instead of "Nestorian", even though the "Assyrian" term doesn't appear anywhere in the book! So I'm trying to do a big sweep and get things set right. I see that other sentences in that paragraph are referenced to a book by Silverberg. I don't have that source handy, but when I checked it via Google Books, I was told that the term "Assyrian Church of the East" does not appear in the book anywhere, which is why I've tagged the sentence. Can anyone who does have the source, verify the usage of the name? Or if it's true that it's not in the book, and we can't find some other reliable source, let's please pull that sentence. Thanks, --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

:Silverberg does not use the name [[Assyrian Church of the East]] (he just uses "Nestorian"), but that's clearly what he's talking about: the Christian church called the "Nestorians" in the medieval West. It matters in this case since for whatever reason, Wikipedia has two articles, one on the early heresy of Nestorius, which is titled [[Nestorianism]], and one on the church known as "Nestorian" to medieval Europeans, here titled [[Assyrian Church of the East]]. Just linking to [[Nestorianism]] will not take the reader to appropriate article. The other common name for the church, [[Church of the East]], is a dab page directing the reader to "[[Assyrian Church of the East]]" and several other churches. Can you suggest a better way of addressing this problem?--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Hi, happy to work with you to try and come up with a consensus version. :) To move forward, could you explain more about why do you feel that the article on [[Nestorianism]] wouldn't work? I've recently given it an overhaul, so it might address things better now. My own opinion for the easiest fix as far as the [[Prester John]] article might be to simply quote what Silverberg says, and leave it at that. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 20:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Oh, I hadn't seen your much-needed work at [[Nestorianism]]. The article formerly focused on Nestorianism as a doctrine (the Nestorian heresy), while discussion of the actual "Nestorian church" and its activities in the Middle Ages was located at the article "Assyrian Church of the East". My only desire in terms of this article is for readers being told about a medieval church to be linked to the article discussing that church, and not to an article about a doctrine with a fairly opaque connection to the later church. If the [[Nestorianism]] article is made into such an article, then I'm fine with just linking to [[Nestorianism]] and being done with it. The problems among our articles on Nestorianism and Church of the East is something to be dealt with elsewhere; hopefully it will be worked out effectively.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::::I've made an amendment, but kept a link to the [[Assyrian Church of the East|Church of the East]], since that article contains a lot of relevant information. What do you think?--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: Hmm, I'm reluctant to link anything about Prester John to the Assyrian Church of the East unless we have an actual reliable source which makes this connection. I've gone ahead and edited the paragraph a bit to something I like better. Feel free to keep tweaking, and maybe we can circle in on consensus that way. :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: (followup) In looking at the [[Assyrian Church of the East]] article, I'm seeing several statements which look like straight copy/pastes of incorrect sections from other articles as well. It's looking like sometime over the past couple years, someone went through several articles on Wikipedia and made a concerted copy/paste effort to replace "Nestorian" with "Assyrian Church of the East" in several locations. Or in other words, in trying to find out what the actual historic reality is, please don't rely on Wikipedia articles... We're going to need to actually produce reliable secondary sources to get things straightened out. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yes, quite so... It does seem to be a pretty substantial problem across the board. I don't know how much help I could be in terms of a wider solution, but it seems to me that the article on "Nestorianism" should contain information on the Nestorian Christianity; if we need a separate article on the Nestorian doctrine, it should go elsewhere, perhaps [[Nestorianism (doctrine)]], [[Nestorian heresy]], or something like that. --[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 21:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::This is also made more complicated because there is also a lengthy, really annoying edit war all over Wikipedia about whether to use "Syriac", "Assyrian", "Chaldean", or "Nestorian" to refer to (what I would call) Syriac Christians. Good luck with that :) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Hi Adam! And yes, I've been seeing remnants of it as I've been trying to cleanup the Nestorian-related articles... What are your own favorite sources on the issue? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 04:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't know, I don't really have any, so I've tried to stay out of this dispute (aside from stopping edit wars occasionally). Personally, I've only ever met people who identified as "Assyrian", and for my own work, they are called Syrians or Jacobites, but that is a narrow time and place and not really the same thing. I know I've read about the Mongols being Nestorians, so I assume that "Assyrian" means a group that stayed in the Near East, and Nestorians were a group that moved further east. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 09:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::This seems to be quite a wide reaching problem (read: clusterfuck). But anyway, under whatever title, we need a good base article for discussing all related "Nestorian" groups. From what I can tell Adam is right that the surviving church variously known as the "Church of the East", the "Persian Church", and the "Assyrian Church (of the East)" is the branch of the wider Nestorian movement now existing mainly in the Middle East. As such it's hardly the best place to discuss the pan-Asian Nestorian Christian sect. ''Britannica'' discusses this under "Nestorian (Christian sect)"; though this may have its own problems, it seems like the most reasonable course.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::: My own general impression is that most of the reliable sources refer to the medieval term as "Nestorian". However, there is this modern [[Assyrian Church of the East]] that identifies as Nestorian, so my guess is that there are some modern-day church members who feel that since they have the "Nestorian" name, that they can then claim credit for everything that happened under that name. So they're going through and trying to nail it down in all the historical articles and make clear that it's "Assyrian" not "Nestorian" (I even saw one spot where they changed a quote from Runciman to make it look like he said Assyrian instead of Nestorian!). Anyway, I think the [[Nestorianism]] article is as good a place as any to try and collect all the information. I was working on the [[Assyrian Church of the East in China]] article yesterday, which seems to be effectively about Nestorianism, so perhaps we should merge that article into Nestorianism? It looks like there was at one time a [[Nestorianism in China]] article, but it ran afoul of the Assyrian camp, an effective duplicate was created as [[Assyrian Church of the East in China]], and then someone set the Nestorianism in China article as a redirect to the Assyrian article! My recommendation is we change things back:
:::::::::::* Anything that has sources which ''specifically'' refer to the Assyrian Church of the East, we put in the [[Assyrian Church of the East]] article
:::::::::::* Everything else gets put in the [[Nestorianism]] article
:::::::::::* If the Nestorianism article gets too big, we split off a [[Nestorianism in Medieval Asia]] or [[History of Nestorianism in Asia]] article
:::::::::::* In the [[Nestorianism]] article, we include a section on "Modern Nestorianism", which has a {{tl|main}} link to the [[Assyrian Church of the East]] article.
::::::::::: How's that sound? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sounds great. Shall we move the discussion to [[Talk:Nestorianism]]?--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Works for me. :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 02:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

==A comment on ''Ismisms''==
I term the libidinal tendency to seek to cathegorise ideologies, movements and so on with terms having the ''-ism'' suffix as ismism. In regard of the discussion above regarding the so called edit war about labeling the christology pertaining to the Patriarch [[Nestorius|Saint Nestorius]] (according to the [[Syriac Orthodox Church]]) for Nestorianism it is obviously frustrating for people pertaining to churches in line with the Nestorian Christology to be labeled heretics or Nestorianists. That is not very strange. It certaintly has been labeled a heresy from the Rome for centuries, but the ecumenic situation is totally different in modern time. The Roman Curia is aware of the widespreadness of the Nestorian point of view, and is today in ecumenic relationship with the Assyrian Church, or Methodists for that matter (who may also should have been labelled Nestorianists). The Syriac perspective on the relationship between the human and divine nature have been to such a degree extensive that to label it Nestorianism makes a wrong idea of what it's all about, and arguably derogative. Probably not even Nesorius would associate himself as Nestorian. The undisputed point that he tried to make clear, was that Jesus Christ was one hundred percent Human, and one hundred percent God. The Easter churches are no more geographically bound to Syria than the Church of Rome is bound to Rome. A little know sincerity (nowbody really talks about?) is that from the Greek orthodox view (point in the middle), The Church of Rome is actually an offspring of the Antiochian apostolic throne, allthough it is accepted as the fifth apostolic throne in the Pentarchy of Christendom. In terms of authority within the church in regard of apostolic succession, the Holy See of Rome may represent the biggest number, but it is not elevated above the other Holy Sees, except from in the eyes of the most conservative Roman Catholics, and in history those of Rome most ardently rejecting the doctrine of the Pentarchy. Saint Peter was the first bishop not merely of Rome, before that he was episcopos of Antioch. This congregation, the first to have been called christians is inherited by those here termed as the Nestorian sect, the Nestorian heresy, and whose christology is referred to as Nestorianism. It's a bit out of touch. European culture othered Islam by calling it Muhammedanism, we've stopped that. I don't see why we should keep on othering oriental christianity anymore either. The scholarly discussion above feels symptomatic for how many academic researches fail to go beyond mere classification, to such an extent that the ''ism'' of rationalism appears to be its irrational blind spot. --[[User:Xact|Xact]] ([[User talk:Xact|talk]]) 05:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::Here, we're not talking so much doctrine, we're talking about the church as an institution. The church is more appropriately known as the [[Church of the East]], but it's obvious it has been known as the "Nestorian Church" by Westerners (and by members themselves, for that matter), so the real issue for this article was making that clear.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

== Prester John in India? ==
It comes as a complete surprise to me to find that Prester John was ever associated with India. I thought he was always reckoned to live somewhere in central Asia, to the east of Persia. I can't find a citation in this article quoting a source for his alleged connection with India, and I would be very interested to see one. I hope it's more than just one of the many dubious traditions of the Saint Thomas Christians.

[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 06:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

:The localization in India (or the "Three Indias") came to a head with the ''Letter of Prester John''; there are several sources given in that section, but you can find translations and different versions in a few places online (for example the Welsh one is [http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/presterjohn.html here]) Prior to that there were two associated texts, only briefly mentioned here, that describe an archbishop or patriarch (not a king, but in one he's specifically named John) coming from the "Shrine of Saint Thomas" in India to the West. [[Otto of Freising]] does not localize Prester John, and with the coming of the Mongols, he was often associated with Central Asia (and sometimes specifically identified with [[Wang Khan]]), but some later writers maintained the old connection with India ([[John of Mandeville]], [[John of Hildesheim]], and [[Wolfram von Eschenbach]]). Later still, Prester John was relocated to Ethiopia. Hope that helps.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

::Well well, one lives and learns. So it's one of the many dubious traditions of the western churches instead. My apologies to the [[Saint Thomas Christians]]. Much obliged for that fascinating information.

::[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

== What is "Prester"? ==

So... what is [[Prester]] (currently a bad redirect)? Is it a given name, or a title (corruption of [[pastor]], perhaps?)? I am a bit surprised this article achieved a GA status without addressing this issue. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

:It's an Old French form of the Greek [[presbyter]]. The modern French "prêtre", and the English "priest", come from the same word. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

::What he said. It probably ought to be made clear somewhere in the article.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

:::With a reference, hopefully. Thanks, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Prester looks to be a corruption of the word "Presbyter" or "Priest" according to Sabine Baring-Gould, who attributes the origin of Prester to Sir John Mandeville's travel diaries.

He quotes, "Sir John Maundevil gives the origin of the priestly title of the Eastern despot, in his curious book of travels. “So it befelle, that this emperour cam, with a Cristene knyght with him, into a chirche in Egypt: and it was Saterday in Wyttson woke. And the bishop made orders. And he beheld and listened the servyse fulle tentyfly: and he asked the Cristene knyght, what men of degree thei scholden ben, that the prelate had before him. And the knyght answerede and seyde, that thei scholde ben prestes. And then the emperour seyde, that he wolde no longer ben slept kyng ne emperour, but preest: and that he wolde have the name of the first preest, that wente out of the chirche; and his name was John. And so evere more sittiens, he is slept Prestre John.”
[[User:Enterthesansan|Enterthesansan]] ([[User talk:Enterthesansan|talk]]) 16:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

==Forgery or art?==
A strong notion of a binary way of regarding things compells me to ask in when I read the following: "certainly a forged Letter of Prester John". This letter is a most fascinating piece of litterature. I'm not primarily arguing against the point that this letter hardly can be written by the legendary Priestly King John the Devine. But the negative connotation of the word 'forged' make it sound as if the letter is made up for a politically dubious purpose, or something like that. It is a letter that not unlikely originates from an oriental nestorian christian source, and copied in various versions, more or less claiming authenticity to varying degree. The letter may very well have a authentic original, stemming from a source within a cultural context of a somewhat different history/tradition in regard of codes of conduct regarding the demarkation lines distinguishing between fiction and fact. It may even be characterised as part of a broader scope of what we may term as [[Shambhala]] litterature. As a matter of fact, at least, [[Djenghis Khan]], a probable candidate for being the first to entitle himself [[Dalai Lama]], may even have been entitlet what is here translated Prester John, in context of the [[Nestorianism|Nestorian]]s in the Mongolian court. The [[Vajrayana]] Buddhist concept of reincarnation is parallelled in Christian tradition, even though the notion is still rejected by mainstream occidental christianity today (confer [[Catharism]], [[Bogomilism]] and present day [[Anthroposophy]] and other continuous traditions of [[esoteric christianity]] such as the ones pertaining to Master [[Peter Deunov]]. It is important not to mistake this for an argument for any specific alternative, other than an insistment on keeping possibilities open, and for being less reductive and narrow in perspectivation. I'm not arguing that the letter was written by Djenghis Khan or any former Dalai Lama, but pointing to the fact that the authorship of this letter may have been of similar credence. The fantastic style of the letter is not itself a proof for its lack of authenticity. The authorship may have had honest intentions; thus another wording would be preferable than 'clearly forged'. The letter ''may be'' a forgery, but I cannot see the proof; copies of it evidently exist, and appearantly some has tried to make a profit out of claiming authenticity of the copies. Pre-Guthenberg litterature is a totally different situation in regard of degrees of authenticity and the power of the word.

Thus to express in our time this litterature as a forgery could be compared to a present situation: if His Holiness Dalai Lama writes a letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, would we say it is a forgery? simply because it is outside of credibility from a secular or western christian worldview, that he could possibly be the fourteenth incarnation of the Dalai Lama? --[[User:Xact|Xact]] ([[User talk:Xact|talk]]) 03:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:Actually, it is now considered unlikely the letter ever had a Nestorian origin. It is more likely to have had a Western origin; according to the Silverberg book it may have been written by Latin Christians in the [[Crusader States]]. It was certainly not written by Prester John, and there's no evidence it is some kind of transmutation from an earlier authentic letter written by someone else. "[[Forgery]]" would seem to be an appropriate word here.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

== Christian Kings in India? ==

First, I apologize, I know this isn't a forum, but while reading through the talk page, it occurs to me that the data I am curious about may have been deleted due to some over reaching 'neutrality' policies. I recall that several Christian kingdoms of antiquity were adjacent to India and that a few them were actually IN India. Of course, all of them have been wiped off the planet utterly by Islamic encroachment. In fact, as I recall, it's only been in the last hundred years or so that the Pakistani Christians were massacred, and the country converted to Islam. Anyway, about half way in to this article, I had to re-read the statement about John being a King within the borders of India several times. Well.. there once WERE Christian kings within the borders of India, but the Muslims wiped them out. What are the odds that this portion of the 'legend' is related to those Christians?

Anyway, that's just me thinking in my head. My question would be to you knowledgeable scholars, on what documents and language the quotes originated in, is it even POSSIBLE to track them down in their original form, or is it possible to track the representative back to an actual court, church or entity that he could have represented? I forget the name of the scholar who has been documenting and archiving all of the ancient Muslim conquests, but it would be terribly interesting to get him to compare notes with the dates and pertinent information surrounding this quote to see if he could add any veracity to the alleged Christian kingdom. :)

Again, I apologize for making a scholarly request here not directly related to the article.. but this IS where the scholars knowledgeable on the subject will see the request. If a more appropriate forum for this specific request does exist.. kindly point me in the right direction. Thanks so much!
- James Long

p.s. I couldn't resist looking up the name of the scholar who has been documenting the Islamic conquests. Bill Warner, PhD. :) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Crogonint|Crogonint]] ([[User talk:Crogonint#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crogonint|contribs]]) 15:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You might be looking for something like reddit. They've got all sorts of places for people to ask questions, like [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ AskHistorians]. This is a place for discussing specific ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of the topic. The relevant talk page that rules this stuff out is [[WP:NOT:FORUM]]. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 00:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

::I would say this is a perfectly relevant question for this topic. We do have a pretty good article about [[Christianity in India]] which talks a lot about ancient and medieval Christians. There weren’t any Christian kingdoms though, just Christian populations living in various other states. Also [[Bill Warner (writer)|Bill Warner]] is not an historian and is the very definition of an unreliable source for Wikipedia. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 10:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
:::Bill Warner PhD is an anti-Muslim physicist. See the link above. His research is crap. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:[[Thoma of Villarvattom|Christian kingdom in India]]. Matches the narrative regarding [[Saint Thomas Christians]], and links to the Patriarch of the East (Nestorian). I think it merits mention in the article. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.190.105.33|107.190.105.33]] ([[User talk:107.190.105.33#top|talk]]) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Cosmographia ==
== Cosmographia ==
Line 149: Line 55:


[[User:Aavindraa|<em style="text-shadow:1px 1px 0 lightBlue,1px -1px 0 lightBlue,-1px 1px 0 lightBlue,-1px -1px 1px lightBlue">Avindra</em>]]<span style="margin-left:3px;background-color:lightGray;padding:5px;border-radius:7px;font-size:10px;">[[User talk:Aavindraa|talk]]</span> 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Aavindraa|<em style="text-shadow:1px 1px 0 lightBlue,1px -1px 0 lightBlue,-1px 1px 0 lightBlue,-1px -1px 1px lightBlue">Avindra</em>]]<span style="margin-left:3px;background-color:lightGray;padding:5px;border-radius:7px;font-size:10px;">[[User talk:Aavindraa|talk]]</span> 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Aavindraa}} I included the second one in the article. --[[User:Error|Error]] ([[User talk:Error|talk]]) 10:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


== Ethiopian focus after looking at the Americas? ==
== Ethiopian focus after looking at the Americas? ==
Line 161: Line 68:
:::Thanks for a great response! I'm still a newbie in this palaver, and I try to tread politely if I can.
:::Thanks for a great response! I'm still a newbie in this palaver, and I try to tread politely if I can.
Am I supposed to delete this section, now? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Danindenver|Danindenver]] ([[User talk:Danindenver#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Danindenver|contribs]]) 02:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Am I supposed to delete this section, now? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Danindenver|Danindenver]] ([[User talk:Danindenver#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Danindenver|contribs]]) 02:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Pakistan ==

can we introduce a theory where Pakistan is the best candidate to be known as "Prester John"?

12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[[User:Truffle457|Truffle457]] ([[User talk:Truffle457|talk]]) 12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\[[User:Truffle457|Truffle457]] ([[User talk:Truffle457|talk]]) 12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:17, 29 December 2024

Good articlePrester John has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion 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 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Cosmographia

[edit]

It seems some recent editors have destroyed the external link section linking to Cosmographia (Sebastian Münster).

So, I have uploaded the images individually to Commons in an effort to preserve the linkage:

Avindratalk 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aavindraa: I included the second one in the article. --Error (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian focus after looking at the Americas?

[edit]

Under Ethiopia, the article says, "After looking for Prester John in the Americas" while citing a German source that I can't begin to fathom right now. Then, the paragraph concludes with, "Evidence has suggested that locating Prester John's kingdom in Ethiopia entered the collective consciousness around 1250." Is the article suggesting that people were considering Prester John's existence in America prior to the European awareness of America? Or am I reading this wrong? danindenver (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was added by Nsae Comp (talk · contribs) last year in this edit. I can only see a snippet view on Google, but it seems to say that explorers of the Americas in the 16th century may have been looking for Prester John there. Whether that's true or not, it's certainly a bizarre statement to add to the middle of a paragraph about the 13th century. I think we can probably just remove it, unless Nsae Comp can give us more specific information (a page number in the book, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging me instead of just taking it out. Well I must admit that I am a bit at a loss my self about my edit here, i cant remember it. I also cant answer your question because I do not have the book anymore, since I had it from the university library. What I do remember is that it was talking about how early portuguese explorers looked for Prester John. But since that is being discussed further down I dont know which detail I was refering to. I never the less have notes which state page seven of the book as the part that I might have wanted to reference here, about Columbus also looking for Prester John, but I cant double check that now.
So while I would like to add the reference more explicitly about Columbus, I cant though be sure if that is what Baum is talking about, might as well be just the portuguese. So I have to excuse my self for a very sloppy edit. Ill take it out and might add a better reference if I find the source about Columbus looking for John. Thanks again and happy editing! Nsae Comp (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a great response! I'm still a newbie in this palaver, and I try to tread politely if I can.

Am I supposed to delete this section, now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danindenver (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

[edit]

can we introduce a theory where Pakistan is the best candidate to be known as "Prester John"?

12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Truffle457 (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\Truffle457 (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prester_John&oldid=1265967974"