Talk:Regina Protmann

Untitled

I read the whole article and I can't find a single thing this person did that warrents an encyclopedia article. Life history is fine, but in the first line or two the reader needs to know why this person was important. --maveric149

Mav -- she is only vaguely possibly of interest because she founded a cloister -- like hundreds (if not thousands) of other vastly more interesting people. She's here because she came up in user:H.J.'s genealogical research -- Regina is from Braunsberg, which we all know is in Ermland which, as we all by now know, was in Prussia. JHK

Yes and she started community hospitals, whereas before there were no such things. and Yes she started schools for girls, but maybe that was a mistake. And yes 400 years later she is still important enough to the pope, that he came there to visited. But maybe that is only because he wants to declare her Polish, but then again, maybe not, he did not change and polonionize her name. Anyway maybe without her having started a school for girls JHK may not have been able to attend a school. Think about it. And thanks again maveric, it seems like it (browser) cause some space again. I'll have to check it. user:H.J.

OK, that's great. Then just say that in the first line or two. Remember -- it is best to start an article with a good defintion first. Just say she was one of the first people to start community hospitals in a certain area. I think that may be the problem so many people have with your articles -- they are not proberly framed around a good definition and go directly into life history stuff that is only of interest to someboyd after they are introduced to why this person was important. --maveric149, Sunday, April 21, 2002

User:maveric, I added a line up front. It already explains her work in the article, but I guess for those who cannot get it or who want to know instantly, without reading all of an article, it is a good idea to summarize or define up front. That is not done in other countries and I followed the original article. There a "surprise ending" or "the point" is being revealed only after doing the "work" of reading it all. For the "instant gratification crowd" here we must begin with a summary. Thanks for the good advise, I should have figured it myself. (However,perhaps the trouble with the education system here,is, that so many students only read the summary ?). user:H.J. Mon,Apr 22

No, user:H.J., it isn't the education system here -- it's what we call good writing. Check out any style manual, and it will tell you that, in writing any kind of scholarly essay, the main point should come at the beginning, and then be illustrated in the body. This is also true in other countries, i can tell you for a fact. However, it may not have been done as often in the 18th century, when your source was written. Also, since your source is clearly directed at people who already had some idea of who Regina Protmann was, it is likely that there was a lesser need to make the main point come at the beginning. Today, she is only a very minor figure, and so it is more important to let people know what she did to deserve an article of her own, from the very beginning.

As for your very unnecessary comments about the education system in this country, again, I suggest that you should stop calling the kettle black, Ms. Pot. Few, if any, of your contributions demonstrate that you have even the most minimal background knowledge for making those contributions accurate and meaningful. Several people who actually do have training in how to read different kinds of sources critically and how to look at the broader historical picture (as well as those who have the ability to write decent English) have tried to help explain these things, in order to help you to create better articles from the start, but your response has always been the same: either we are trying to cover up the "truth" as you see it, or we are only (in your estimation) only "so-called experts", whose opinions are somehow irrelevant, or you make personal attacks. These often stem from an attitude which does in fact affect the educational system here, i.e., that one doesn't need to be an expert to teach -- and especially to teach history. Trained historians are expected to think and examine evidence critically -- and they spend years gaining the background to make that possible. If you think that the system is bad, then stop promoting the attitude that someone with no training and no apparent willingness to learn (which makes all the difference -- there are lots of people out there who acquire the necessary skills not through formal training, but simply because they wanted to learn) is as qualified as someone who has gone through 5-10 years of advanced, post-baccalaureate training. Most aren't. And most of your "so-called" experts, that is, the people who are occupied in higher education and the academic world in general NEVER think they know everything, because we're constantly bombarded with new discoveries and interpretations. It's our job to try and keep up.

Oh -- and by the way, I'm very sorry, but I think that, in the US, the dame schools in the Protestant colonies that existed as early as the 17th century were very unlikely to have been influenced by a Prussian Catholic, of whom few would have heard. Women of the upper and merchant classes often received some education anyway, even before the time of Regina Protmann, but this was usually within their own homes. Also, privately funded hospitals were hardly new -- there are examples to be found all over Europe. Finally, it is difficult to believe that Regina Protmann was more influential than the Enlightenment thinkers and writers who proposed education for the masses-- or especially more influential than Mary Wollstonecraft! Oh -- and when the Pope beatified Regina Protmann, it was for her importance in setting an example to Catholics in Poland, because she was a native of Braniewo. It's in his homily from July 13, 1999, given in Warsaw.JHK

---

To JHK Hello, JHK ,Oh ,that is so nice of you to take the time and write such indept talk. That is so beautiful. I am really touched. Thank you so very much. And I am so glad that you are keeping up with the new discoveries user:H.J.

What does indept mean? If I might make a suggestion, perhaps sarcasm works better for those with a true command of the language. I also note that you have again resorted to snide comments, rather than actually speaking to the point. Or does it bother you that I was able to mention actual facts that reduce the weight of your arguments? Please note that all I have ever asked for here is that you please:

• cooperate with the naming conventions agreed upon (and feel free to contribute to those discussions, if you have some reason for not liking those conventions)
• try to write articles that make sense in English to people who don't know much about the subject -- you tend to write as if we should all know who these (often) relatively minor historical figures were. This means telling us more about the person's accomplishments than his lineage -- generally, what a person DID is more important than his bloodline
• don't plagiarize, and when you give a source, please give a correctly formatted bibliographical reference -- unless it's adapted from a Public Domain source, in which case, you should just use the footer everybody else uses "from a 1911 encyclopedia", "adapted from ...", etc.
• watch your punctuation, and create informative stubs, because that way, you aren't imposing upon other people's time. The people who take pride in well-written, solid articles often spend a lot of time correcting typos and silly errors, when they could be adding real content. No one expects perfect English from non-native speakers, but at least please make sure that there are no spaces before commas and periods, and that there are spaces after them, and that the links you form are valid (that is, you check to see if there are already articles on available before you create a new, incorrectly titled, article)

That's basically it. I really am not sure why you want to contribute, if you don't want the articles here to be the best they can. And, if you do want that, I'm not sure why you refuse to take well-meant advice (for example, the advice from User:maveric149 above) without making nasty comments. JHK

---

To User:JHK No, not nasty comments. maveric makes sense. I addressed him, stating that. I agree with him, it is best to have a short to the point definition right at the beginning of an article ... as he suggested. Thank you again for all your good effort. user:H.J.

Polish Prussia

It's actually a very common and popular error to confuse Royal Prussia (integral part of Kigdom of Poland 1466-1772) with the Kingdom of Prussia (1701-1871). Check the well resourced, following articles Braniewo, Warmia and Royal Prussia. Now, I know that yours was a good faith edit, but it would be nice, if before reverting you actually check sources before blindly following your instincts. Sunday Hippie (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)