Talk:Barhebraeus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Barhebraeus was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 12, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | Barhebraeus is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by ~ Hogshine (talk) at 08:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the good article instructions. Short description: Scholar, polymath, and primate of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (1226–1286) |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Unattributed sentence
- Modern scholars are so impressed by his genius that they call him "The Encyclopedia of the 13th century".
This statement may be true, but without attribution (i.e., exactly who said this?) it is inserting one POV into this article. And at the time of this comment, there are many more unreferenced assertions in this article. -- llywrch 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Biases
Perhaps a word on his anti-Muslim biases, which colors some of his histories with inaccuracies? -- Barryap 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not without specific references, I suggest. Roger Pearse 09:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)
Name change
The article should be renamed to "Barhebraeus" from the current "Bar Hebraeus". This is in line with scholarship, taking into account the frequency of Barhebraeus vs. Bar Hebraeus and the recency & prominence of these sources.
Sources that use "Barhebraeus":
- Barhebraeus: A Bio-Bibliography (2013) – Hidemi Takahashi [arguably the most important one]
- Barhebraeus’ Metrical Grammar and Ms. BML Or. 298: Codicological and Linguistic Remarks (2016) – Margherita Farina
- Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume IV (1200–1350) (2012) – David Thomas, ed. David Thomas; Barbara Roggema
- Comparing the Syriac and Arabic Chronicles of Barhebraeus: The Question of Intended Audiences (2018) – Dibo Habbabé
- East and West in the Crusader States: Context, Contacts, Confrontations (2003) – Krijna Nelly Ciggaar; Herman G. B. Teule [books I and II]
- Gregory Barhebraeus’ Mystical Hermeneutics of the Love of God in Dialogue with Islamic Tradition (2022) – Jennifer Griggs
- Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 3
- Reflections on Identity: The Suryoye of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Bar Salibi, Bar Shakko, and Barhebraeus (2009) – Herman Teule
- The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (2014) – Virginia Trimble; Thomas R. Williams; Katherine Bracher
- A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (2011) – Sebastian P. Brock
- Studies in Syriac Christianity: History, Literature and Theology (1992) – Sebastian P. Brock
- Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation (2009) – Muriel Debié
- The Syriac World (2019) – Daniel King
Sources that use "Bar Hebraeus":
- A Short History of Syriac Literature (1894) – William Wright
- On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus: His Aims and Audience (1994) – Lawrence I. Conrad
- The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus (2003) – E. A. W. Budge
- The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature (2004) – Ephrem Barsoum; translated by Matti Moosa
- Syrian Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman Period (2017) – Khalid S. Dinno
Certainly, others exist, but this is all I could find from my wide research. It appears mainly archaic sources use the double‑worded name, and thus the page should be moved. Edit: about 3 more sources use the transliteration "Bar Ebroyo", but I don't believe that's an appropriate name anyway. Hogshine (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Barhebraeus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Hogshine (talk · contribs) 06:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! As discussed, I will be your GA reviewer. The review will almost certainly begin tomorrow (but may begin tonight if I have the time) 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- An important update: I'm so sorry for the delay!! Something came up, and I wasn't able to do anything on Wikipedia for a while. I'll get this review done TODAY! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 16:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Please take all the time you need :) Hogshine (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Reverosie Nudge. Tarlby (t) (c) 05:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Hogshine @Tarlby I have been meaning to do this review, but I have only grown busier and busier. For this reason, I would like to transfer my open reviews to a new reviewer, but I am not sure how. If you could help, I would appreciate it. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
An update from Reverosie
Hello. I am aware that it has been a while, and I'd like to explain everything. I opened this GA review believing that I would be able to do it despite my busy schedule outside of Wikipedia, but this was unfortunately not the case. I irresponsibly refused to drop the review over a few weeks, telling myself that I would eventually be able to do it, but never did I have the chance. On top of this, my busy schedule distracted me from the topic of medieval history as a whole, and I gradually started to lose interest. Eventually, my incompetence was no longer able to go unnoticed, and with the help of other editors, I requested for my articles to move to another reviewer. However, this was clearly to no avail. You are still waiting as a consequence of my irresponsibility. This is no longer acceptable.
When I requested for my articles to move to another reviewer, I did not know that this would occur instead. I did not know that this review would remain sitting in limbo without an editor to notice the situation. I was gone from all of Wikipedia for an extended amount of time, oblivious to this predicament. Now that I have time on my hands again, I am shocked to see that nothing has been done about this.
It is time for me to finish what I started. This review will be done today
On top of this, I owe you a deep apology for all of this trouble. None of it should have happened, and I take the responsibility that comes with such a colossal failure on my part as a reviewer. I entirely understand if you do not wish to work with me again, but if you do, I will be happy to open any GA review you'd like so long as I have the time to do it, and I will get it done within three days. While I was not anticipating that no new reviewer would be assigned to this article, I should have never let this situation occur in the first place. I deeply apologize to you.
Please disregard any plans of picking up a new reviewer for this article (though, it does not appear that one would ever show up). The review will commence shortly. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 21:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping: @Hogshine 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 21:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will hear none of that stuff about being incompetent, we all understandably get busy with real-life stuff. I hope that whatever it was has worked out well for you and that you're doing great. I myself did not request a new reviewer due to being busy as well. Barhebraeus is still yours if you want it, and as always, please take all the time you need. ~ Hogshine (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Update: I'm saddened to say that, once again, something has come up (I'm dismayed as well!) I will be able to do this review in a week from now, but if you'd like a new reviewer, you should certainly get one 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 02:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
November 2025
@777network Note that your latest reverts () were not in good faith, one of which was undoing MOS improvements. You have been thoroughly warned about this a total of six times . Once again, you need to establish consensus before you push in your edit once it's contested. Hogshine (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hogshine, the issue here is POV. You're not objecting to the content based on Wikipedia guidelines but rather personal bias, as was seen on Asilvering's talk page, when both Asilvering and a non-involved editor (copyright checker) noticed that the reason you objected to the content was to get a "opponent" out of the topic area, as well as POV.
- If you're objecting to my additions to the article, I might as well object to your version which does not lift up the additions I added. Do you see in what kind of endless circle we end up in?
- You first objected to my additions because of copyvio reasons, now that it's been fixed, you're referring to WP:BRD, which in fact, also has a WP:BRD-NOT section clearly outlining the issue here. 777network (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- For the same reason as on Michael the Syrian's talk page, Wilmshurst 2016 represents a niche, WP:UNDUE opinion mentioned in passing, contrary to the established scholarly consensus, and thus it is inappropriate to include. Moreover, you've removed well-cited content from established historians as Richard N. Frye. Hogshine (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Barhebraeus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Hogshine (talk · contribs) 06:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I read the article. It is a biography of an intriguing personality who produced an impactful series of works that echoed over centuries. There is definitely genuinοus effort to improve this article. Unfortunately, I have to quick fail this one based on WP:GAFAIL#3, which states: It has, '''or needs,''' cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}) (emphasis added).
- There are at least 5 cases (a few too many) where citation needed tag can be placed.
- There are a couple of whole paragraphs without any inline citations.
The latter is a serious omission, because one of the criteria for Good Article, i.e., WP:GACR6#2, is about verifiable content. No citations means no way for us to verify, which leads to automatic failure. Advice for the future: make sure to have a relevant citation at the end of each paragraph in the main body (lede excluded). To make clear where citations are needed, I placed citation needed tags in the text.
Also from a quick read, I would suggest to avoid repeating information in the article. There are several other minor issues that need to be addressed. For example, you mentioned twice how he died, repeating the quote "Nestorians, Armenians, and Greeks". I suggest for you to familiarize with the WP:MOS and to find a mentor to help you with the WP policies and manual style (check the Wikipedia:Teahouse for advice and finding a mentor). A.Cython(talk) 00:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- They do not appear to me as summaries, which is why I recommended to you finding a mentor. Extensive use of summaries in the main body should be avoided. IMO, the article has other issues in terms of prose, which are not easy to fix and I have not even tried to look the interpretation of sources. An article to be considered for GA must overall address these issues before hand. Happy editing! A.Cython(talk) 13:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)