Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Athanasius Kircher/archive1
Athanasius Kircher[edit]
As one of the sources puts it, "just about the coolest guy ever". Self-nom, ignored on Peer review (which I optimistically take as a sign that it's perfect). Markalexander100 08:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Web references should be listed with date of retrieval though (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Jeronimo 13:10, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Markalexander100 02:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Zerbey 16:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Securiger 12:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. (I have edited this article in the past.) Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Suport. (After I made a few tiny changes.) L33tminion 05:34, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. But very. Filiocht 08:37, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fascinating person, and -as far as I can determine- a comprehensive article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Two minor objections I would like to see resolved before featuring. 1) The article appears to imply that Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, but then states that he joined the priesthood in 1628. This is either contradictory or else the difference between the two events is inadequately explained. 2) The caption for the "ears" illustration fails to establish for someone casually scanning the article why this picture is relevant to the subject.--Michael Snow 17:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Number 2 is done. As for number 1, I don't understand. The Jesuit Order has never been solely for priests; the article makes this clear by saying that he joined the two institutions at different times (I think it would be overly patronising to say it more explicitly). Markalexander100 02:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it is made clear at all, except perhaps to those well-versed in Roman Catholic procedures. I would guess that the average reader here associates Jesuits with the Catholic priesthood, without much thought as to whether the former necessarily implies the latter. In this situation, it is easy to read the article and wonder if we have our facts straight. I note that not even the Society of Jesus article will provide you with the information that Jesuits are not necessarily priests. --Michael Snow 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Since, as the article says, Kircher became a Jesuit before he became a priest, you can be a Jesuit without being a priest. I don't know how much clearer it can get. Markalexander100 09:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The Jesuits do have "lay brothers" (which ought to be mentioned in the Jesuit article...). However the explanation of this case much simpler: when Kircher joined the order, he became a seminarian, studying for the priesthood. What about saying (to the effect) "Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, entering their seminary to prepare for priesthood in the order. He was ordained in 1628." That avoids over-patronizing and clarifies for those who assume that anyone who walks in off the street and says "I want to be a Jesuit" is ordained on the spot. Mpolo 10:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I just added the words 'as a seminarian'. Is this OK? Filiocht 10:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Fine for me. ;) Markalexander100 10:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly an improvement, so I'll withdraw the objection. Personally I would lean toward something like Mpolo's suggestion. --Michael Snow 16:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I just added the words 'as a seminarian'. Is this OK? Filiocht 10:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The Jesuits do have "lay brothers" (which ought to be mentioned in the Jesuit article...). However the explanation of this case much simpler: when Kircher joined the order, he became a seminarian, studying for the priesthood. What about saying (to the effect) "Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, entering their seminary to prepare for priesthood in the order. He was ordained in 1628." That avoids over-patronizing and clarifies for those who assume that anyone who walks in off the street and says "I want to be a Jesuit" is ordained on the spot. Mpolo 10:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Since, as the article says, Kircher became a Jesuit before he became a priest, you can be a Jesuit without being a priest. I don't know how much clearer it can get. Markalexander100 09:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it is made clear at all, except perhaps to those well-versed in Roman Catholic procedures. I would guess that the average reader here associates Jesuits with the Catholic priesthood, without much thought as to whether the former necessarily implies the latter. In this situation, it is easy to read the article and wonder if we have our facts straight. I note that not even the Society of Jesus article will provide you with the information that Jesuits are not necessarily priests. --Michael Snow 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Number 2 is done. As for number 1, I don't understand. The Jesuit Order has never been solely for priests; the article makes this clear by saying that he joined the two institutions at different times (I think it would be overly patronising to say it more explicitly). Markalexander100 02:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)