Template:Did you know nominations/Jimena Sánchez (queen)
- 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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 03:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jimena Sánchez (queen)
- ... that King Sancho III of Navarre seized control of León in 1034 and arranged the marriage of his daughter Jimena to its king, Bermudo III?
- Source: Margarita Torres Sevilla and José Miguel Ortega del Río, Kings of the Grail: Tracing the Historica Journey of the Holy Grail from Jerusalem to Spain (Michael O'Mara Books, 2015), p. 100.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Inner Cambodia
- Comment: The source I offer is (a) accessible online, (b) in English and (c) written by experts in medieval Spanish royalty and nobility, so the highly questionable thesis of the book is not, I think, relevant to it as RS.
Created by Mychele Trempetich (talk) and Srnec (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.
Srnec (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC).
At a glance everything looks sourced (will do a spotcheck soon enough) but is this hook really interesting? It boils down in my eyes to "a king took power and arranged a marriage" at first glance. I think either making it clear that the king was out of power and adding chronological context would be great, or having another fact from the article as hook - the one that stood out to me in the article was the length of the prose about her tomb - there's probably a good hook to be made in there somewhere. Departure– (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Departure–: The interesting part was supposed to be that the king arranged the marriage of his own daughter to the man he displaced as king. How about the following as an alternate? Srnec (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that by the 13th century, Spanish chroniclers knew neither the correct name nor parentage of Jimena Sánchez, the queen of León from 1035 to 1037?
- Source: Jaime de Salazar y Acha, "Una hija desconocida de Sancho el Mayor, reina de León", Príncipe de Viana, Anejo 8 (1988): 183 and 185: "casi olvidada por la documentación. El error de los cronistas posteriores y su lápida sepulcral en León, han producido el desconocimiento de su auténtica filiación. . . Los cronistas del siglo XIII ... aseveran ... [lo] que es a todas luces erróneo a la vista de la documentación, en cuanto al nombre de la reina ... y los historiadores posteriores, tranquilizados por esta coincidencia, no han vuelto a poner en cuestión la filiación de nuestro personaje."
- ALT2: ... that only a fragment survives of the tomb in the Basilica of San Isidoro belonging to Queen Jimena Sánchez (1035–1037), which once had an effigy and two epitaphs?
- Comment: Could take out "in the Basilica of San Isidoro" and link tomb effigy and epitaph instead.
- @Srnec: I don't speak much Spanish, but Hook 2 (the one I'm looking at) comes out a bit incoherent when translated. From my understanding, it's something along the lines of "Early chroniclers were incorrect about Sanchez's name, but later historians have full confidence as to her parentage". Is this on the path of being right? It nearly verifies the hook, I just want to double check that's what I'm reading. Other than that it's ready to go. Departure– (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would put it differently. Later chroniclers were incorrect about her name and her father's name, but modern historians are certain about the former and confident about the latter. It was difficult to come up with a wording to express this. A possible rewording below. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Srnec: I don't speak much Spanish, but Hook 2 (the one I'm looking at) comes out a bit incoherent when translated. From my understanding, it's something along the lines of "Early chroniclers were incorrect about Sanchez's name, but later historians have full confidence as to her parentage". Is this on the path of being right? It nearly verifies the hook, I just want to double check that's what I'm reading. Other than that it's ready to go. Departure– (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that both the name of the queen of León from 1035 to 1037 and the identity of her parents had been forgotten by the 13th century, although recorded in contemporary documents?
- Source: Salazar y Acha, p. 189. The document of 1062 refers to "Queen Jimena his [Ferdinand's] sister". The documents of Vermudo III cited in the article call his queen Jimena.
- @Srnec: I'd still go with ALT1. As long as there's an end-of-sentence citation, this is
good to go, as I have no other problems with the article (just change "by" to "in"). Departure– (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pulled per WT:DYK.--Launchballer 05:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: So what is the problem? Srnec (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Srnec, please review Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#Jimena Sánchez (queen) to see comments made after your post. You did post there, and wrote
I can understand that the article is hard to parse and will try to fix it.
, but the article hasn't been edited in almost a month. The nomination will time out in about two and a half weeks, so if you wish it to run, you'll need to fix the article sooner rather than later. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)- @BlueMoonset: Is that the problem? Like, is the reason it was pulled that the article itself is not good enough? This is unclear to me and I certainly don't think it is true. Still, I do intend to give a read through and make some tweaks. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Launchballer: I have gone over the article and made some changes. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Cielquiparle, who expressed reservations at the discussion referenced above, to see whether their concerns have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Srnec: It reads better. A few more requests: 1) Please expand the lede. It is not OK for an article to run on the main page with a one-sentence lede, as it would automatically get tagged for being too short to adequately summarise the article. One or two clearly written sentences may suffice. It seems like a good idea to mention the mistaken identity issue, so that section doesn't come as a surprise. 2) The mistaken identity section is better than before but is still confusing. Is it not possible to tell the story in chronological order? Unclear why it jumps from 12th century to 18th century then back to 13th century. Regardless of how you structure it, try to make it clearer what is going on. The current wording of "Scholars today identify..." is somehow still not entirely convincing. How do they know they are right, and why should we believe them? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- (1) I have expanded the lead. (2) There is absolutely no question that Vermudo III's queen was named Jimena. Nor that Sancho III had a daughter of that name. The only document that expressly links them is that of 1062/3 that calls her "Queen Jimena, sister of [Ferdinand]". To that may be added the fact that there are no references to a daughter of Count Sancho named Jimena other than the epitaphs, which are certainly later and not contemporary. The first 2 paragraphs under "Tomb and mistaken identity" are really about the tomb. Only the last paragraph is about how later writers invented a queen named Theresa. Srnec (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle and Andrew Davidson: Have your concerns been assuaged (and if not, this should be timed out)?--Launchballer 14:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- (1) I have expanded the lead. (2) There is absolutely no question that Vermudo III's queen was named Jimena. Nor that Sancho III had a daughter of that name. The only document that expressly links them is that of 1062/3 that calls her "Queen Jimena, sister of [Ferdinand]". To that may be added the fact that there are no references to a daughter of Count Sancho named Jimena other than the epitaphs, which are certainly later and not contemporary. The first 2 paragraphs under "Tomb and mistaken identity" are really about the tomb. Only the last paragraph is about how later writers invented a queen named Theresa. Srnec (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Srnec: It reads better. A few more requests: 1) Please expand the lede. It is not OK for an article to run on the main page with a one-sentence lede, as it would automatically get tagged for being too short to adequately summarise the article. One or two clearly written sentences may suffice. It seems like a good idea to mention the mistaken identity issue, so that section doesn't come as a surprise. 2) The mistaken identity section is better than before but is still confusing. Is it not possible to tell the story in chronological order? Unclear why it jumps from 12th century to 18th century then back to 13th century. Regardless of how you structure it, try to make it clearer what is going on. The current wording of "Scholars today identify..." is somehow still not entirely convincing. How do they know they are right, and why should we believe them? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Cielquiparle, who expressed reservations at the discussion referenced above, to see whether their concerns have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Srnec, please review Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#Jimena Sánchez (queen) to see comments made after your post. You did post there, and wrote
- @Launchballer: So what is the problem? Srnec (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Srnec: I'd still go with ALT1. As long as there's an end-of-sentence citation, this is
