Talk:Kreuzschule

Rewriting needed
I noticed this on the main page and was interested in it - the concept of schools attached to churches in the medieval period. I found a series of sentence that weren't fully clear to me, so I looked at the source, this pdf, and found that in this version of the article, the first two paragraphs are almost verbatim from the pdf - although not cited to that source. I've rewritten the first three paragraphs but haven't checked paragraphs 4 or 5 in the "history" section. Hopefully some else will while this is on the main page. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "this" pdf copied from the German Wikipedia, which was translated as noted above. Rewriting was certainly good but not needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Backwardscopy can be put on talk pages to indicate cases of backward copying from Wikipedia. But, if because that source is a copy of the German Wikipedia article, it cannot be used as a reference, since Wikipedia can't reference itself. Those 3 citations to the PDF should be replaced with different sources. Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. The backwards copying can be verified by looking at the history of the German WP article. The material was already in it by May 2009. The pdf file is for a periodical dated September 2009. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gerda, no I didn't know because when I looked at the source, I didn't realize this page was a translation. It is a little more problematic than that though, because much of what I rewrote was cited to a different source which isn't available to view, and I see that the German article isn't at all referenced. At any rate, if you believe rewriting wasn't necessary, then please feel free to revert the changes to the earlier version. When I have time later in the day I'll drop a note with MRG in regards to this. I assume the backwardscopy template would be useful, though honestly the wording now (if kept) is quite different. The source however, should be dropped altogether if it took from the German wikipedia, because by citing to it, we're indirectly citing to Wikipedia. Sorry for causing stress, that was not the intention. The intention was to rewrite while the entry was on the main page. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From the pdf, the part about history (from de-WP) wasn't used as a reference, only the part written by the pictured author. Unfortunately, the pdf doesn't make that difference. How to deal with that? - I learned to mark "translation" on the talk. - Rewriting wasn't necessary but an improvement! Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I reduced use of this source to one occurence, for the numbers of students. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda - this is confusing. It's the Schmuckstück that's the problem and shouldn't be used. The other pdf is fine and, in my view, should be used as it's the most informative. Will confer with MRG when I have time later. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding - the material now cited in the first paragraph in this diff to Schreiner is not in that piece. I'll sort it out later. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake, commented out again. What you call "Schuckstück" and I call cdu2009 is used as a ref for the number of students in 2009 ONLY, which is not part of the copied history section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. And yes, I did make a typo in this edit summary. But we're talking about the same source, the one that presumably used the German Wikipedia as their source. I'll go back in and sort out what I've done by tagging the pieces that came from that source so as to be clear. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No piece "came" from that source. The sequence was: (Smerus) translate the unreferenced German, (Dr. Blofeld) find sources. The German Wikipedia doesn't rely on inline citations but book sources. Only: I don't have those books, on the 775 years of history, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe we're talking past each other. I'll explain in a new section below what I've done and then leave a link for MRG. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I removed the dubious source now, replaced it by the newspaper, and used Schreiner for one of the questioned facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of edits
As I was copyediting, in this version I found a problem in the "History" section. This sentence didn't make sense: ''With this, the school, first documented in 1270, took on its present name. In 1393 the first school building was opened on the south side of the Kreuzkirche.[4]''. If the school was documented in 1270, why was the first school building opened in 1393. So I looked at the the source. The source article includes a sidebar about the history of the school which is almost word-for-word the same as these paragraphs in that version: "The history of the school is closely linked to the Kreuzkirche (Church of the Cross), whose predecessor, the St. Nicholas Church, was dedicated in 1215. During the Middle Ages, education took on a new importance when schools were often connected to city churches because there was a need for a church choir. A schoolmaster was responsible for overseeing the practising of the music and to give the students instruction in theology. Records show that at St. Nicholas, a schoolmaster was assigned on 6 April 1300.

The church owned a Reliquary with a relic, said to be the fragment of the True Cross; because of the veneration of the cross in the Catholic Church, the church was reconsecrated in 1388 by the Bishop of Meissen as ecclesia sanctae crucis (Holy Cross Church). With this, the school, first documented in 1270, took on its present name. In 1393 the first school building was opened on the south side of the Kreuzkirche."

The problems I found were: So I rewrote accordingly. Apparently FN 4 cites a source that "took" from the German Wikipedia, but I had no way of knowing that, as the German version is entirely unreferenced.
 * FN 1 cited text that was in FN 4 - none of that was in the source cited for FN 1
 * FN 2 & 3 didn't show anything close in the sources.
 * FN 4 had it all - but verbatim

Furthermore, whilst looking at the rest of it today, I found that the text here is also cited incorrectly, so I've fixed it, matching the correct cite with the text, and adding the correct page number.

I've now tagged the pieces cited to the source that took from Wikipedia, so we can know which is which and so that we don't cite to WP. Hope this makes sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)