This is an archive of past discussions about Middle Ages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Ealdgyth, I don't have time to argue with you about this, but I object to your reversion of my edit. We really should put in the approximate dates of the different parts. I really did correct a sentence that was bad – read it carefully! The sentence I restored about the three periods is useful information. The timeline is a good thing. And if you don't like me using "ca" to mean "about", then edit it, don't revert! Please be more considerate, and restore my edit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
But ... the approximate dates aren't exact and are actually contradicted in the text - we're better off giving the context than misleading folks with the parentheticals. The timeline is subject to the same issue - it makes things look neat and tidy when they aren't. And the sentence which you added about Pirenne is unsourced - this is a FA ... everything is sourced. You added it in before a sentence sourced to Mommsen's "Petrarch's Conception of the Dark Ages" - but nothing in Mommsen's article discusses what you added at all. Ealdgyth - Talk15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm restoring my edit, with a couple changes. I've used "about" instead of "ca", and put "citation needed" after the sentence about Pirenne and Huizinga. That sentencce is almost sourced, since it says exactly who popularized that way of subdividing the Middle Ages. I don't have their books, but I'm sure that anyone who does can check, and put in an exact reference. It's not forbidden to put in a sentence that does not have full reference. As for the division dates (476, 1000, and 1300), of course they're not exact. That's why I said "ca" and now "about". There's no such thing as an exact date for these divisions, because the divisions are arbitrary anyway. I think some dates should be given in the introduction (as I have done), because people want to know. They don't want to read the whole article to find out. If the body of the article gives different dates, then edit it so that either they agree or there is some explanation about differing opinions. Don't just revert! Also, the timeline obviously gives one particular (popular) way of dividing the Middle Ages, but it's useful. Nobody is going to get some wrong idea from it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"Almost" sourced isn't good enough - if you don't have a source (and it needs to be a secondary source stating that those scholars popularlized it ... you can't use their works for that statement. Please remove the unsourced statements (including the unsourced timeline) from this featured article. You're actions are not helpful to it keeping it's status as a featured article. Ealdgyth - Talk15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm reverting for now, following the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. We shouldn't be adding new material into any article complete with a cn tag, particularly after it's already been challenged by another editor, and we shouldn't be adding material to the lead that we know is at odds with the cited material in the main body without discussing and getting consensus on the talk page first. I'm not keen on the timeline either, btw, as I don't think it helps communicate the ambiguous message in the main text well. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
So why don't you fix the things you don't like instead of reverting? Did you notice the sentence that I corrected, and which you and Ealdgyth have both put back to the ungrammatical form that it had? By the way, Ealdgyth doesn't contest the fact that Pirenne and Huizinga popularized the division into the three periods with divisions at 1000 and 1300 – he just doesn't like it that there's a sentence without an explicit and full reference. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know either way if it's Pirenne and Huzinga. And it's probably not that important in this article either that those names get mentioned - we mention the person who first used three part division - this isn't an article on the historiography of the concept of the Middle Ages - it's an article on the Middle Ages. As for the grammar problem - it's better to make changes to well-established articles in small steps - your improvements won't be lost when sweeping changes get reverted. Your change to the sentence in the lead about the Carolingian Empire is wrong - the breakup started in the mid-9th century and we should not be saying it lasted until the end of the 9th century. If that sentence is your concern - I've tweaked it. Ealdgyth - Talk13:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Eric, you say "why don't you fix the things you don't like" -- I agree this is common practice on pages that are still being actively worked on, but it's not the usual approach for featured articles. When I edit a featured article (and often this applies to good articles too) I assume that multiple people have looked at and agreed on the current text, and even if I have good reasons for a change I comment on the talk page first to try to get consensus for the change. That doesn't apply to small fixes, grammar changes, and wording, of course. In addition, there are two specific things about your suggested edit that definitely need to be discussed before implementing. First, putting in something with a {{cn}} tag seems like a backwards move -- why not just wait till you or someone else can get the source in question, and add it with a proper citation? Second, the timeline directly contradicts the content of the article. That means it shouldn't go in without accompanying changes to the article, and surely you'd agree that would need discussion, even if this weren't a featured article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The pre-existing version, now reverted to, isn't really ideal. In the lead you can piece together from various paras the top-level timeline, apart from the high-late boundary. And that doesn't even appear in the section on periodization. Eric is at least correct that this information, with suitable caveats, needs to be in the lead, and in the periodization section in some form. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
recent edit
[1] Personally I think a shorter version of this point worth keeping. It's not just their views (the Bulgarian nation is no doubt 100% with them!). Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It really belongs more as "Historiography" than "modern perceptions" and while I'm not opposed to a shorter version - I haven't seen it in other writers. I'd want to see that it's a mainstream view rather than just (as presented) the view of two historians. Ealdgyth - Talk14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
1.(broadly) the period from the end of classical antiquity (or the deposition of the last W Roman emperor in 476 ad) to the Italian Renaissance (or the fall of Constantinople in 1453)
2.(narrowly) the period from about 1000 ad to the 15th century Compare Dark Ages
The period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (5th century) to the fall of Constantinople (1453), or, more narrowly, from circa 1000 to 1453.
The earlier part of the period (circa 500-circa 1100) is sometimes distinguished as the Dark Ages, while the later part (circa 1100–1453) is often thought of as the Middle Ages proper.
in European history: 1 the period (c.500-1500AD) between the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the Renaissance. 2 sometimes strictly the period between 1100 and 1500.
The definition at the start of this article fails to acknowledge the secondary definition that I have highlighted above in red. For example, in English and British history, the "Middle Ages" is sometimes considered to start at the Norman Conquest in 1066. If my memory serves me correctly, attempts to note this secondary definition within the article have in the past been reverted by people who for some reason could not understand or believe that this definition was in use. It is time that this issue was looked at again. 109.152.148.40 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No, this has been done to death, and not very long ago. Dictionaries are not the best sources to use, and to restrict the MA to "circa 1100–1453" completely bizarre. Bringing the Dark Ages in is another issue - see that article. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Alternative definition of "Middle Ages" [restored from archive]
The following issue, which I have restored from archive, was dismissed by a single editor who falsely claimed that a definition acknowledged by dictionaries, and in actual use by British historians, is "completely bizarre". No, it is not "completely bizarre", it is a real definition that actually exists. I have restored the thread here for further comment.
1.(broadly) the period from the end of classical antiquity (or the deposition of the last W Roman emperor in 476 ad) to the Italian Renaissance (or the fall of Constantinople in 1453)
2.(narrowly) the period from about 1000 ad to the 15th century Compare Dark Ages
The period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (5th century) to the fall of Constantinople (1453), or, more narrowly, from circa 1000 to 1453.
The earlier part of the period (circa 500-circa 1100) is sometimes distinguished as the Dark Ages, while the later part (circa 1100–1453) is often thought of as the Middle Ages proper.
in European history: 1 the period (c.500-1500AD) between the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the Renaissance. 2 sometimes strictly the period between 1100 and 1500.
The definition at the start of this article fails to acknowledge the secondary definition that I have highlighted above in red. For example, in English and British history, the "Middle Ages" is sometimes considered to start at the Norman Conquest in 1066. If my memory serves me correctly, attempts to note this secondary definition within the article have in the past been reverted by people who for some reason could not understand or believe that this definition was in use. It is time that this issue was looked at again. 109.152.148.40 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No, this has been done to death, and not very long ago. Dictionaries are not the best sources to use, and to restrict the MA to "circa 1100–1453" completely bizarre. Bringing the Dark Ages in is another issue - see that article. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Christian propaganda
At the end it uses a single source to say (paraphrased) 'anti-scientific views of the church are false and no one agrees with it'. That is using selective Christian sources to say this. Anyone from another background could say otherwise, making the point entirely moot. Stop promoting Christianity instead of actual history. The quote is simply not true, plenty of historians can be found to agree that the church is anti-scientific, from then until this very day (ie, denying evolution). If you want to say 'some' historians disagree, then fine, but also write a section about the ones that agree for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.215.204 (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It could certainly use a better source, but I'm not sure how you could argue that the church was anti-science in the Middle Ages. Maybe in the Renaissance and afterwards... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the "church" as a monolithic body opposed evolution in the current day either. Some Protestant denominations do, but most mainline Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church don't - Catholic Church and evolution is instructive here. As for the Middle Ages, there are plenty of works that address the attitude of the Church during it. A good work for all sorts of "common beliefs" about the Middle Ages is Misconceptions About the Middle Ages edited by Stephen J. Harris and Bryon L. Grigsby in 2008. They have several chapters devoted to misconceptions about science in the Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk13:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Including "occasionally" next to the "mediaeval" spelling
I see Ealdgyth reverted the removal of "occasionally" next to the "mediaeval" spelling, and included a comment in the edit summary that it is not in use in modern secondary sources. I don't feel strongly about whether "occasionally" should be included, but I think for usage of a word like this, which is in broad use outside academe, we should be paying at least as much attention to sources that document lay usage, such as dictionaries. I don't know how widespread the usage really is in the UK, and I think it's at least possible that "mediaeval" is substantially less common than "medieval" in the UK, in which case "occasionally" would be justified. I think we should discuss the sources here rather than edit war over it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
We just put up a huge list on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages - I'll point out that none of the American dictionaries I consulted even gave "medieaval" as an alternate spelling. If one of the two main English speaking countries doesn't use the spelling or list it, it's an occasional spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk13:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that it should be changed, just that the usage in academic sources (which is what the Wikiproject discussion referred to) doesn't seem to me to be the right standard to use for the discussion. I think academic usage does settle it for article titles, and for our own usage -- I don't think anything in Wikipedia's voice should use "mediaeval". But in this case we're explicitly talking about general usage, not about academic usage. An ngram doesn't seem to me to show a dramatic shift. The ngram isn't a reliable source for this, of course. I think if someone were to show that current British dictionaries include "mediaeval" as an alternative spelling, with no comment such as "uncommon", or "obsolete", then we should do the same, though of course it should be noted that this is for BrEng (and the same would go for Canadian, Australian, and so on). Anyway, I don't have the sources to do the research; I'm just commenting about the difference between defining our own usage, and the usage in the general population. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Owed rent and labour services" ...
Historians do not say "compelled" or "extorted" to describe the manor system. The serfs owed rents and labor services, and even the free peasants owed rents. Saying "compelled" is actually LESS NPOV than "owed rents", not to mention being closer to the meaning of the sources. And "Islamic" is the usual term to describe the various empires established after Muhammad. And "aristocracy" is usually a form of government - it's easier to use "nobles" to avoid confusion with the type of government. Ealdgyth - Talk01:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that all my edits on the Middle Ages on the 8th April were undone by User:Hchc2009. Argumentation: "not an improvement to the lede, which is supposed to summarise; other changes seem to run counter to the cited sources; probably worth discussing on the talk page first". I think he was too hasty and made a mistake, but this things happen on wikipedia, were reviewers have not much time to make a decision. My edits were triggered by a number of too me obvious omissions and errors I encountered when reading this article. All in all I have counted I have made nearly 20 changes click here to see all my changes. To keep this paragraph readable and to see if we can come to a constructive dialog I will for the moment only mention four sentences I changed:
"The emperors of the 5th century were often controlled by military strongmen such as Stilicho (d. 408), Aspar (d. 471), Ricimer (d. 472), or Gundobad (d. 516), who were partly or fully of non-Roman background."
I changed this to
"The emperors of the 5th century were often controlled by military strongmen such as Stilicho (d. 408), Aetius (d. 454), Aspar (d. 471), Ricimer (d. 472), or Gundobad (d. 516), who were partly or fully of non-Roman background."
My comment: My first change in this article. Its clear to me that Aetius is one of best examples of this military strongmen, so adding him seemed an improvement..
"In 376, the Ostrogoths, fleeing from the Huns, received permission from Emperor Valens (r. 364–378) to settle in the Roman province of Thracia in the Balkans.".
"In 376, Arian members of the Thervingi, a Gothic tribe, fleeing from the Huns, received permission from Emperor Valens (r. 364–378) to settle in the Roman province of Thracia in the Balkans."
My comment: Read Heather, Wickham and other wikipedia articles. In 376 the names used were Thervingi and Greuthungi. If one insists on using the terms Visigoths and Ostrogoths it should be Visigoths since the Thervingi mostly ended up in the polity of the Visigoths.
My comment: The Alemanni and the Burgundians didn't end up in the northern part of the former Gaul, far from it. Further one should not use the term "Gaul" in this article. Gaul was the area of land conquered by Julius Ceasar. After 500 years of Roman rule Gaul didn't exist any more. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes settled in southern and eastern Brittain.
"In northern Gaul, the Franks and Britons set up small polities. The Frankish Kingdom was centred in north-eastern Gaul, and the first king of whom much is known is Childeric (d. 481)."
I changed this to
"In the northern part of the former province of Gallia Belgica the Franks first set up a number of smaller polities, The first king of the Frankish Kingdom of whom much is known is Childeric (d. 481).
My comment: That Britons settled in northern Gaul is clear nonsense, later in the article it is correctly stated that they settled in the area now known as Brittany. The Salic Frankish Kingdom was centered on the northern part of Gallia Belgica (not Gaul), not the northeastern part
I personally know very little about this period, as I would assume many are who have edited this page. I think every editor here would be more agreeable towards your changes if you had reliable sources to back up a few of your claims, such as "the use of Ostrogoths is wrong." This may be common knowledge to most, but I've got absolutely no idea, and as this article received FA status as is, many editors are less lenient at allowing changes without verification from reliable sources. SamWilson989 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with your additions other than perhaps the fact that parts of both branches of the Goths were at Adrianople (IFAIK) and the your assertion that the High Middle Ages began before 1000, which would seem to contradict the High Middle Ages article itself. You don't need to add refs for all your additions, because most are common sense: the Aetius addition is acceptable, your clarification of the actual locations of the barbarians in Gaul, the addition about the Vandals. Those are all fine.--Tataryn (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tataryn, thank you for comments and support. You are right about the starting year of the High Middle Ages. I see that most of the main wikipedia's have it start around the year 1000. Sources I used in the past let it start around 970. I will drop this change. I agree that subtribes of both the Thervingi and Greuthungi were both present at the battle of Adrianople, but that is also what I have stated in my changes. JRB-Europe (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You need sources for these changes. For example - Brittany is in northern France - is it not? We do not need to get into the minutiae of the exact previous provinces ... we are a wide overview article. As for not using Gaul - you need to tell that to Collins, Edward James, and Wickham - all of whom use "Gaul". None of your changes were accompanied by any sources - and you can't change already sourced information without new sources. We aren't writing a detailed history here - we aim for an overview and that does mean some simplification and using terms that the reader is more likely to be familiar with if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth, I have great respect for your work on wikipedia, but no, Brittany is not in northern France. If you don't believe me, please take a look at a map. You further have a point that this an overview article, but I think you would agree that this doesn't mean that we should give the reader incorrect information. JRB-Europe (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is not Brittany is the northern half of France? Keep in mind we're writing for a general audience - they are going to consider anything in the northern half of France to be close enough. Ealdgyth - Talk21:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
No it's not, Brittany is the most western part of France. From an American perspective it probably doesn't matter so much, but for a northwest European it is really quiet ridiculous to state that Brittany is in northern France. JRB-Europe (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
And that's the point - the worldwide perspective (rather than a northwest European perspective) would be fine with "northern Gaul". However, in the interests of compromise - I've changed it to "Elsewhere in Gaul, the Franks and Britons set up small polities." as an intro sentence which then leads on to the more specific locations given in the following sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk21:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Also in the interests of compromise I have made a further change in one of the followup sentences, were the centre of the Salic Frankish kingdom is mentioned. I changed only one word: northeastern Gaul became northern Gaul. JRB-Europe (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I see a compromise has been reached, and I don't disagree with the outcome, but it seems clear to me that Brittany is in northern France. I've just had a quick search to find some uses of this in the media and by different scholars. The BBC, here, describes Brittany as in northern France, and in academia Brittany is described as such in a range of topics from botany to medicine, geology to economic history. Yes, it could be argued north-western France would be a better description of Brittany's location, but I think saying its "really quite ridiculous to state that Brittany is in northern France" is unfair. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm well aware of where Brittany is on a map, and I would say north-western would be the best description, but what we think is not important, but what is true, and what we can verify. I've given five reliable sources. I understand the locals may call it western France, but as the rest of the world describes is as both western and northern, can we agree on north-western, or better yet, not use the phrase at all by changing the entire sentence and just saying Brittany if needs be? SamWilson989 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Sam, the problem is that in this case (but the same applies to many other situations) for every source that you can provide that says Brittany is in northwestern or northern France, I can give you another source that states that Brittany is in western France. Sources are not always conclusive, in fact in many cases they are not. It seems hard for many people to accept that sources can be inconclusive or as in this case (to my amazement) be even nearly contradictory. Back to this particular case of Brittany; if I may speculate a little bit over the differences in opionion we have. Maybe there is indeed a cultural difference between the manner in which the English speaking world give names likes north, west, east and south, this in comparison which Dutch, German and French speakers. If I remember correctly I never had similar discussions as this one over Dutch, German and French texts, but I had this discussions before In England with English people. I find it for instance rather strange that people in London call everything 50 miles to the north of their city the "North" or the "North of England". This is of course for a large part because London is by far the largest city in England, but maybe there is more to it. Best regards JRB-Europe (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Completely understand where you're coming from. I'm all for using a different phrase or different wording here, and in cases where reliable sources contradict each other on something like this. I'm from the North - I currently live in Manchester - and it's an odd example because you're right, I've heard people use the description for places that I think are pretty far south, but also I know people from Cumbria who think I'm basically no different to Birmingham. Language is odd, so I think there are probably better ways to solve this issue, I just wanted to show you why editors here weren't "ridiculous" to describe Brittany as northern France when our media and literature does it so often. Thanks for bringing a different POV. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As per my edit summary, JRB, you need to provide sources; as far as I'm aware, all the material in the article as it stands is backed by reliable sources. Any proposed changes also need suitable sources. I'd also emphasise that the article needs to be accessible to a broad audience - excessive detail, particularly if its not essential to the narrative, can easily prevent that. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that we need sources. On the one point above that I feel qualified to comment on, I'm not sure about "settled in southern and eastern Britain". The Angles (&c.) initially settled on the southern and eastern shores of what is now England, but were in the Severn Valley by the 6th century. The timing of the Migration Period (which is the context of the sentence) isn't confined to the 5th century, but runs for the next couple of centuries, by which time almost all of England had been settled by the newcomers. To make this accurate in this context isn't easy; I think it's better to avoid giving specifics which require qualification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The works of Bauer nor Collins state that the Ostrogoths were the sole group at Adrianople. Bauer merely says the "Goths". So it appears somebody has misused the sources.--Tataryn (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Or somewhere along the line in the various edits by all sorts of people ... someone came along and inserted their own opinion that it was the Ostrogoths and someone didn't catch the change ... it's not very helpful to accuse others of misusing sources. It's also possible I had a brain fart along the way and typed "ostro" when I meant just Goths. It's really not worth a lot of bother - it's been corrected. Ealdgyth - Talk19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"Not worth a lot of bother"? It was indeed you Ealdgyth, who on March 17, 2012 changed [2] the content from "Goths" to "Ostrogoths", yet did not change the reference. This error remained unchanged for over four years, and constitutes a misuse of a source. While you have indeed greatly improved this article, that does not negate the fact that this is a misuse of a source. Considering this Ostrogoth error is the first one I looked into, I wouldn't be surprised if this article has several more errors that have gone uncorrected for years.--Tataryn (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the error. It happens to all of us. Can we please not be confrontational - it's not helpful to collaborative editing. Nor is jumping all over someone for an error. Ealdgyth - Talk20:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm just stating the facts. A user made edits that corrected your error and made useful additions to the article, yet you and other users "jumped" on him. His edits were immediately reverted, with you all saying he's not using the sources. Yet it appears you and perhaps others are likely prone to misusing sources or simply don't have a command of this material to properly verify your additions. Perhaps you all should welcome this user and assist him in finding sources, rather than "jumping" on him.--Tataryn (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's fair. For someone to say they're "stating the facts", I find it odd for them to then speculate and accuse editors here of being prone to misusing the sources, or not having an ability to verify. Hchc was simply following the WP:BRD process, and when it was brought to discussion, I gave the editor the advice of providing some sources, which other editors then agreed with. There was no revert without explanation, and there was no denial of assistance. Personally, I saw an editor that seemed to know what he was saying, so I assumed he would also have sources available. I understand editors on Wikipedia can be prone to 'biting' newcomers, but I think that's an unfair assessment of what's happened here. SamWilson989 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules state: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." It also states: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged..." The user's additions were certainly an improvement, as they were correcting several errors. Any issues could have been fixed by refinement. Much of his additions were not material that is challenged nor likely to be challenged, either. To say that the Vandals crossed the straight of Gibralter and took north Africa need not be cited because it is a well-known fact and is not even remotely challenged by any academics. The reverting user merely did a wholesale rollback on all his edits instead of addressing them one-by-one. It's possible he didn't even examine the edits themselves. Frankly, that is pure laziness, an abuse of the rollback function (if it was indeed technically a rollback), and is not conducive to improving Wikipedia.--Tataryn (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've restored more of the information - including the bits about the Vandals. And saying that something "is not even remotely challenged by any academics" does not mean that it doesn't need citing. The standard isn't "well known to academics studying the subject" but whether any Randy would challenge it - which in effect means pretty much everything needs a citation beyond the "sky is blue" or "water is wet" stage of facts, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk20:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
On another note: "It's possible he didn't even examine the edits themselves." I really don't understand editors who understand the importance of verification on article pages but feel completely willing to speculate entirely on talk pages. It's a bit bonkers. I'm all for citing Wikipedia policy, but then you've got to remember to assume good faith, which I don't see happening, and therefore I think this why this has led to some disagreement. SamWilson989 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a manuscript illustration from around 1450 from Italy. At that point, Italy was well into the Renaissance, so the art style is not representative of even the art being produced north of the Alps in the 1400s. Its a manuscript illustration of a scene from a poem that wasn't written until 1320, thus very late in the period of the Middle Ages. By being so late, it gives a misleading idea of what art looked like in most of the middle ages. One reason for the choice of the cross is that we wanted an image that was not cliche - we wanted something from early in the Middle Ages, something that wasn't a manuscript illustration, and something that clearly showed one of the major themes of the age - Christianity. You also want an image that is visually striking - which the cross image is - against the dark background it jumps out at the reader. All of these reasons are set forth in the very long discussions in the talk page archives. Please do not dismiss them as "a lot of time has passed, and now it is time for a new discussion" without actually having read them and understood them. Ealdgyth - Talk12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. The question ought not to be 'what is wrong with the Dante image?' File:Divine Comedy. Dante. 08..jpg but 'is there a better image than the one currently used?' Ealdgyth has explained why the cross is more appropriate than the Dante image. The image has to be appropriate both in terms of what it's depicting and the quality of the image. I'd simply add that the Dante image is visually unappealing, a low-quality image, and the borders are not cleanly aligned to the edge of the picture making it appear lop-sided. Overall, it's a poor choice of image to counterbalance the lead section of a featured article. BencherliteTalk13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You might ask the same question of "Eastern" or "Western". I didn't want to revert all of your changes, otherwise I'd have hit "undo" to restore this capitalisation to the style used since this article became a FA.[3] I may well have erred here and there, but my capitalisation of "church" was intended to replicate that. But by all means don't take my word alone for it. I didn't do any of the heavy lifting here. Nortonius (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Blimey, talk about shooting from the hip ... That's twice today someone's suggested ownership to me, what gives? Who said anything about trying to protect a stable version? It's consensus that matters. If you want me I'll be doing something useful. Nortonius (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, Nortonius, I didn't mean to accuse you of ownership behaviour more generally. While it is something I do come across, I didn't clearly see it here, so I apologise if I gave the impression that I did. I was merely making the argument that protecting the style used at an arbitrary point in history – in this case, at the time of the article's promotion to FA status – is to protect a 'stable' version and, on that basis, it is not worth taking into account what was done then rather than making a full and independent assessment of how to apply guidelines relating to capitalisation. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Just check my use of the word "since" – that's a reference to about four years of consensus. Challenging consensus creates, well, consensus, but care is needed when citing policy. That one came across as mud-slinging. Nortonius (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
"Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter." would apply here. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That would apply to the Roman Catholic Church, not the church, even if the latter is referencing the former. See MOS:INSTITUTIONS which provides that, "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals [emphasis in original]". The example provided is that one would use "The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences" and "The university offers programs in arts and sciences." The term the church is generic and is thus neither an "organized religion" nor an "officially recognized sect" in itself. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, in the Middle Ages, especially the early part, the Church was not divided, so it's ... capitalized. It is referring to the one monolithic Church of the time, the only one around. I suppose we could go "Christian Church" but it would be a bit monotonous. Ealdgyth - Talk19:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The MOS permits "Church", and it is normally capitalised outside the wiki, so I can't really see the problem with this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
It depends what sources you're looking at. Looking at this article from yesterday's News York Times, for example, the standard practice is followed. Yes, capitalising church is a common practice in Roman Catholic sources, but one must be careful not to commit the specialised-style fallacy. So, no, it is not accurate to say "The MOS permits 'Church'". 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Even if we accept your premise for the sake of argument, the Eastern Orthodox Church existed outside of communion with Rome for the latter half of the Middle Ages, and even before the East–West Schism there was more than one church in the world, notably the Oriental Orthodox churches. And you're constructing a straw as no one is suggesting replacing uses of the church with the Christian Church. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to ping me, I've got the page watchlisted. "Church" here is shorthand for "Christian Church". It's quite common in historical writing about the Middle Ages to capitalize Church, that's what we mean when we say "sources" here, the historical works that the article is based on. And before I get accused of being Catholic, I'm not. I'm not even Christian, so I'm certainly not worried about pushing some Christian POV. Consensus is going to rule here - Church in these cases is referring to an organization and is a proper name. Ealdgyth - Talk19:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't accuse you of being Catholic. Even if you were, that is no reason to assume that this is some kind of Catholic POV pushing on your part. It does seem, however, that you are using the specialised-style fallacy. I don't dispute that Church is "referring to an organization". It is not, however, a proper name, just as the word university is not necessarily a proper name in my above example quoted from MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
You wrote that, "It's quite common in historical writing about the Middle Ages to capitalize Church, that's what we mean when we say "sources" here, the historical works that the article is based on [emphasis added]". Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy provides:
The sources we use to verify content are not necessarily our best sources for style, even in cases where they may be reliable on certain style matters in specialized publications. Wikipedia and its Manual of Style, article titles policy, and related guidance draw primarily upon reliable general-purpose, broad-scope sources for editing guidelines ...
Typical SSF wording is "we are guided by the most reliable sources in our field", as if the Wikipedia community in writing the Manual of Style were relying on novels and blogs. The most reliable sources on how to capitalize, italicize, hyphenate, or otherwise style the name of a subject or its subtopics in a general-interest work like an encyclopedia are reliable works on style and grammar in English broadly, not just in the specialty at issue. Specialized works are notoriously unreliable for this purpose, because in a great many fields they tend to reflect conventions for specialized publications that widely depart from grammatical and style rules of everyday English, for reasons usually specific to that sort of publication, tailored for that field's special internal needs, or simply aimed at very expedient communication between experts in the same speciality. There is also a natural tendency to capitalize, italicize, boldface or otherwise emphasize things that are important in one's field of interest, to highlight their especial importance in that context. That specialized context is not the encyclopedic context that Wikipedia presents to its users.
So given that there is not, in fact, "one monolithic Church" during the Middle Ages and that when it comes to matters of style on Wikipedia we privilege our MOS and everyday English usage above the usage of specialised sources, what in our MOS would lead us to capitalise the term church? You are correct that "Consensus is going to rule here", but bear in mind that WP:CONLEVEL provides that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:SSF is an essay, not a policy. Not a guideline. So arguing from it isn't helpful. One reason for capitalizing Church when referring to the Christian Church as an organization is to make it clear we are referring to the organization, and not a building, and avoid confusion. Many historical works hold to this convention for precisely this reason - to avoid confusion when you are referring to both churches in a generic sense and the organization that controls them. Ealdgyth - Talk20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That is untrue. WP:SSF is not, in fact, an essay; it is an explanatory supplement. The guideline WP:INFOPAGE makes clear that explanatory supplements have a status distinct from that of essays and, unlike essays, they "clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms." Therefore, arguing from it is immensely helpful.
WP:SSF conforms with the MOS and with the MOS' FAQ which includes the following question:
Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
From the MOS: "Exception ("City" used as proper name for the City of London): In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London." Here, we are using "Church" as the proper name for the organized Church in the Middle Ages - the one headed by the papacy with bishops and all that. So, yes, the MOS does allow for this usage. Ealdgyth - Talk20:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that as part of provisions of both WP:MOS and MOS:CAPS relating to the capitalisation of the names of geographical areas there is an exception written in for the City of London. That exception has clearly been carefully written so as to apply only to the City of London and not to any other localities – and clearly not to institutions and other nouns. If you feel there should be another similar exception written into the MOS for this case, we can certainly have that conversation at WT:MOSCAPS if you wish. That is, however, a separate discussion. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The prominently featured map of 450 AD File:Europe_map_450.PNG seems to show a vastly different extent for the Hun empire compared to File:Huns450.png which looks more accurate. It is also crudely drawn, arbitrarily colored (some areas left uncolored), and lists no source for its information. It is used in quite a number of articles on different wikipedias. I feel that it should be replaced or possibly deleted if replacement isn't readily accomplished. Does anyone know of a source map we could use to create a new version? —DIY Editor (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the map for the Hunnic empire you refer to above is of poor quality. I even would go further. It's totally wrong. For instance in the period of the Hun empire there were no Frisians (The map describes the situation arond 700). The Lower Rhineland also was never part of a Hunnic empire, although there were a few Hunnic raids (the most noteworthy being the 451 expedition). It's also clear that the Huns never had a presence in the north of current Germany and Poland. The alternative map is much to be preferred. JRB-Europe (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If it were a case if this map being used just in this article I would simply replace it with the seemingly more accurate map. However it is used on quite a number of foreign language Wikipedias and I think it would make sense to look into drawing a new one so it can be directly replaced (by overwriting this version). I had hoped to generate more discussion from people familiar with the time period. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
On August, 25th, 410 A.D. The city (Now capital of Italy) Rome was attacked by the Visogoths who was lead by a man known as Aloric. Germanic slaves beat their masters, buildings were burned, famines out broke. Which officially caused the so called "Medieval Ages" or also known as the Dark Ages. Throughout that time period people would be punished by the church for not believing god or any other crazy reasons.
Plague also out brook in Europe during that time thus the Black Death. But, the Hundred Years' War which was between France and England over their monarchies ended the Dark Ages. Bubba2018 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Reversion of edits to "New societies"
@Ealdgyth:My edits to the New societies section were reverted on the basis that they are "not an improvement - makes an entirely too bulky paragraph and some inforatin is not in the sources given". Perhaps that's the case, but I thought there were a few things that bear discussing (and I don't want to start an edit war).
On the first point, that it "makes an entirely too bulky paragraph", I would contest that, while perhaps a little long, my version is at least not worse than what is already there. The purpose of paragraphs is to split content into logical/meaningful sections to make them easier to digest, not merely to make them smaller. In both versions the section is basically just a list of the states that emerged during/following the fall of the western empire, but the original version is for whatever reason split up in the middle of the discussion about the establishment of Francia and Brittany. If my version is indeed too long then I'm sure an appropriate place can be found to divide it up; perhaps it could be divided by region (say, Italy, Gaul, Iberia) or chronologically. Neither of these seem to apply to the old version, which is divided seeming arbitrarily into "Ostrogothic Italy, Burgundians, Franks and Bretons" and "More Franks, more Bretons, Visigothic & Suebic Iberia, Vandal North Africa and Lombard Italy". Certainly the establishment of the Lombard kingdom could be separated off as it was a later development than the rest of the kingdoms, and the Visigoths should probably precede Clovis's expansion as it was partially at their expense.
On the second point, that "some inforatin [sic] is not in the sources given", I cannot verify that one way or another, as all the existing citations are to books to which I do not have (quick/easy) access. However, none of what I added is controversial (as far as I am aware) so providing sources should not be an issue. Regardless, a {{citation needed}} tag is probably more useful than wholesale removal.
Also, some of what was already there is misleading (or even demonstrably false). The biggest issues are with the part about the Lombards. It is asserted that the Lombards replaced the Ostrogothic Kingdom, when in fact Justinian I had (re)conquered that kingdom during the Gothic War (535–554); the Lombards didn't invade until 568. It states that the Lombards "settled in Northern Italy", implying that that is the only area they took, when in fact they also took most of southern Italy (Langobardia Minor), but didn't take Liguria, Emilia or Romagna (which are part of Northern Italy) until later. I'm not sure if the description of Lombard politics is accurate either: as I understand it the only (significant) period without a king was the period known as the rule of the dukes, which would make that the exception rather than the norm; if it is also including the period prior to the Italian conquest, or referring to the looser affiliation of the early realm, then that needs to be made clearer. Finally, there is no mention of the territory retained by Byzantium after the invasion, implying that the whole peninsula was under Lombard control (which also contradicts the "Northern Italy" assertion), nor the part of the Ostrogothic Kingdom outside of Italy. (I'm not sure how to best refer to it. Illyria?)
It is also asserted that the Visigoths established a kingdom in Iberia, when in fact they established it in Gallia Aquitania, then later expanded into Iberia (and Gallia Narbonensis), then lost Gallia Aquitania to the Franks. I feel that the way in which the Bretons are discussed implies that all of the Britons left Britannia for Brittany, which is obviously not true. Finally, Clovis I's reign is listed as 509–511, which implies that his rule and conquests began in 509, rather than in 481 as was actually the case; he simply did not rule the Ripuarian Franks until 509.
While I'm here, it might also be worth adding a sentence or two about the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (and possibly also the sub-Roman British kingdoms, although they emerged earlier), which aren't even mentioned. I also think at least a passing mention of the Roman foederati would be appropriate.
None of this needs to be dealt with in the way I did of course; I'm not necessarily arguing that my edits be reinstated, but rather that there are several issues with it in its current/former state.
I've changed Huns to Hungarians in the intro. I don't remember Attila as being a factor in the decline of the Carolingian empire in the 9th century. But if Hungarian nationalists (I suppose?) would be against, feel free to explain it to me.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you say Columbus discovered the Americas on behalf of Spain in 1492?
Why don't you say Columbus discovered the Americas on behalf of Spain in 1492? Is it because he didn't do on behalf of England and it hurts so much? English wikipedia, what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.71.32 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean something like “The combined Spanish monarchies of Castile and Aragon sponsored the voyage of exploration by Christopher Columbus (d. 1506) in 1492 that discovered the Americas.”? Strange, that’s right there in the article...Ealdgyth - Talk16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Northern and Eastern Europe...
I very much doubt that the two sources given actually support ALL of Northern and Eastern Europe. "For Northern and Eastern Europe, the Middle Ages are considered to start much later, around 1000 CE.[1][2]" The first appears to be a history of Sweden alone, and has no preview available on Google Books. The second is about the economic history of Russia. We need a statement that directly supports the information in the sentence - that ALL of Northern Europe and Eastern Europe, the Middles Ages are considered to start around 1000 CE. This is a featured article - it needs to be impeccibly sourced. (We'll leave aside the issue of not conforming the citations to the style already in use in the article). If you insist on the statement, it needs to be sourced to a source that supports it all, not just two countries. As against the statement - I'll reference the title and subject of Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250, which covers events in Central Europe also. And Roger Collins' work Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 which includes information on Scandinavian history prior to 1000 (starting about 793, actually). Note also the subject description of this work, which is about the second half of the first millenium (i.e. from 500 to 1000 CE). Note also the title here Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to Reformation, Circa 800-1500, which conflicts with the 1000 CE generalization above. Or Portraits of Medieval Eastern Europe, 900–1400. Here the medieval period is defined as starting in the 6th century in Poland. Here the start of Medieval Hungary is given as 895. Here the history of the Slavs is given as from the early 5th-century with its subtitle being "Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe". More could be found ... but it doesn't appear that so sweeping a statement is supportable - since the above show that there are scholarly and academic works on the areas that define medieval as starting earlier. Ealdgyth - Talk14:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to this, I think there should be more emphasis on the Viking Age and its impact on Europe. Viking raids transformed much of continental Europe as well as Scandinavia and should have its own section.
-Sunriseshore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"And Roger Collins' work Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 which includes information on Scandinavian history prior to 1000 (starting about 793, actually)."
Information on Denmark starts appearing in the Royal Frankish Annals of the 8th and 9th century and their continuations, because it shared a border with an expanding Francia and they had diplomatic relations and on-and-off wars. Figures like Harald Klak and Rorik of Dorestad are primarily known through Frankish chronicles.
First: my aim here is not to defend the dating of "ca 1000", but rather that the article should acknowledge that the Medieval period does not start at the same date all over Europe. Above, a date for Hungary is cited as if it would disprove what I wrote, but apart from Hungary not being located in "Eastern Europe" in a stricter sense, the date of 895 rather reinforces my point.
I do not deny that histories that treat Europe in a general way can include e.g. 6th century Scandinavia in the "middle ages". But when writing solely on Scandinavian history, the common periodization is Pre-history, then the Viking age, followed by the Middle ages. That one can find historians that use different epochs should really not be surprising: compare with the dates given for the end of the period.
If it really is necessary to give sources for each country separately, I can try. For Denmark, see Den store danske lexikon. Store norske leksikon is not quite as explicit, but still suggest the same period [4]. For a general history of Scandinavia, Den långa medeltiden, by Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, uses a "European" defintion of the Middle Ages, but this is done in direct and acknowledged opposition to the traditional view; the author apparantly saw this as enough of a novelty that he begins by explaining that he has done so, and why.
I've not been able to find anything on Poland that goes clearly either way, but for Lithuania, I've found this snippet, which could have done with being just one line longer, but which I believe says that Lithuania entered the Middle ages when it became Christian, i.e. 13th-14th century.
I really do not want to bog down the article with too many differing definitions, but it seems clear to me that the starting point of the Middle Ages varies far more than the end date does, and that the article should reflect this.
Your best shot at finding something that supports such a general statement (and it needs to be a general statement, not just one or two works) is likely going to be high school or lower university textbooks, where they are generalizing in broad strokes. I did not find any such statements in any of the works I used to work on this article, so it's something that probably needs to come out until we find sources that support it, not just support one or two countries. We can't generalize from one or two countries to "Eastern and Northern Europe", that's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Ealdgyth - Talk23:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're not content with what is already provided, how about The Cambridge History of Scandinavia? [5]. Furthermore, there is History of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland[6], where one can see that it considers writings such as those of Snorri Sturlason and Saxo Grammaticus to be from the "early middle ages".
The first clearly says "in the present volume" which means they aren't stating a general fact, but they are setting out the limits in the work at hand. The second doesn't appear to mention a start date at all (it does mention an end date). Again, though, all of these usages don't come out and say something along the lines of "in Scandinavian history, the Middle Ages are held to begin about 1000" or "in Eastern Europe, the Middle Ages are held to begin about 1000". We could say something in a footnote along the lines of "Some Scandinavian and Russian written works begin the period of the Middle Ages for those locations at later dates than 476." But we still lack the generalization support. Please do read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, they cover the taking of bits of information and drawing conclusions from them... Ealdgyth - Talk12:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
A perspective from the major preceding period in these areas may be useful. From Iron Age: "The Iron Age is taken to end, also by convention, with the beginning of the historiographical record....The Germanic Iron Age of Scandinavia is taken to end c. AD 800, with the beginning of the Viking Age.", which I think is correct. I think the Viking Age can & should be considered part of the EMA, but equally I don't think the Scandi EMA can be considered to begin in the 5th century. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
but that section is unsourced in our article on the Iron Age. I’m not objecting to including something, but we need sources that support the information...it’s often very difficult to find sources for this kind of information, but we have to have it for an FA. Ealdgyth - Talk13:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Cambridge history does say "in the present volume". However, reading the preceding text makes it clear that this was in preference to 1050 CE, not anything else.
It still doesn't support the generalized statement in the article presently. If sources that support that statement cannot be found, the statement cannot remain in the article. Please, please ... try to understand why a generalized statement needs a source that makes generalized statments. Ealdgyth - Talk00:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have provided two general histories of northern Europe, one which explicitly says that the Medieval age can be taken to start either 1000 or 1050 CE (similar to how you can discuss several endings for the period), and one that explicitly says that this is the traditional epoch. I can hardly be expected to find anything more explicit than this.
unfortunately, google books will not give me the preceding pages for the Cambridge History. I have, however, read all the searched excerpts and pages in the second, and they all do not define the beginning of the Middle Ages in Scandinavia. If it is a case that they place Snorri and Saxo as part of the early Middle Ages in Scandinavia, it’s still OR and SYNTH to take that information and arrive at the conclusion that the Scandinavia Middle Ages started around 1000. This leaves aside the issue that nothing from Scandinavia will support the statement on Eastern Europe that is currently in the article. I’m not trying to be difficult, but I worked my behind off over a year and a half to drag this article up to something that is of decent quality. I’m not willing to let it be dragged down again by poor sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk11:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I can quote it for you: "The [...] Viking Age is the transitional period between Scandinavian prehistory and history ... In the light of Viking activity abroad, the end of the Viking Age is usually placed at about AD 1000 and 1050. When important new internal developments in Scandinavia are taken into consideration, such as the earliest steps towards consolidation of the medieval kingdoms and the offical, ruler-supported conversion to Christianity, AD 1000 would seem to be the more suitable turning point between the Viking Age and the early Christian Middle Ages. Thus, in the present volume, the Scandinavian Middle Ages will encompass the period between c. AD 1000 and c. 1520." (1520 is the year of the Stockholm Bloodbath and what would prove the definite end of the Kalmar Union).
The reason I have focused mostly on Scandinavia thus far is because it is by far the easiest region for me to find sources for. I have ahd less success with Eastern europe, as I am more or less confined to sources in English or Scandinavian. I did find one, however [7], but I can not see enough pages in it to determine whether it actually discusses the term "medieval" or not.
Again, my aim here is not to argue that the current wording is optimal, but from sources presented thus far, also by you, it seems clear that the year 450 as a starting point is by no means universal. Would you agree on changing it to something along the lines of "in some parts of Europe, the Middle Ages are usually taken to start much later, e.g. in Scandinavia (first half of 11th century)"?
I would be okay with a footnote, but I don't think the Cambridge History is quite as strong as you think - it says "Christian Middle Ages", which seems to imply that they may consider the Viking Age as part of the Middle Ages also (which, I'll note, most historians tend to agree with). I could see something like "Later starting dates are sometimes used in the outer parts of Europe.<ref>For example, Scandinavia in Helle, Kouri, and Olesen (ed.) ''Cambridge History of Scandinavia Part 1'' where the start date is 1050 (on page 6) or Russia in Martin ''Medieval Russia 980-1584''</ref> (I have the Medieval Russia book and consulted it before my first reply, but unfortunately it goes right into the narrative without any introductory material describing why the opening date was chosen.) Ealdgyth - Talk13:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
You could interpret it that way, or see it as a general characteristic: Pagan Viking Age, Christian Middle Ages. Anyway, I went ahead and used your suggestion, except that I changed 1050 to 1000, since I assume it was a typo.
We currently say that Justinian's Codex was rediscovered in 1070 and "admired". Can't we say something less psychological? Was it adopted? Studied and argued over? Mined for particular insights and incorporated into some existing law codes? (Which ones? When? Where?)
This isn't the place for a discussion of the Codex -- its own article is the place for that -- but can we insert an illustrative sentence, an appositive phrase, or even just a more outcome-related adjective than "admired"? Jmacwiki (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
You realize that's in the introduction - which is an overview of an overview article. There is no way we can possibly justify inserting an illustrative sentence or adding any information. You might want to note that later in the article the Code is discussed a bit more, in the proper place. But again - it's an overview article - we don't go into great detail. And I'm baffled by the idea that "admired" is "psychological"... Ealdgyth - Talk12:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I won't press the point -- though I'm baffled that admired could be considered non-psychological. (If it doesn't express how someone feels or thinks about a subject, what does it express? And if feeling and thinking don't describe someone's state of mind, what do they describe?) Jmacwiki (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Inclusion of world history template
Greetings,
I have been placing the World History template on articles that it links too, including this one. This is done for continuity's sake as Medieval Europe was a part of the greater medieval or Post Classical era. The User Ealdgyth objected to the inclusion of the template on the grounds that is not necessary and that the template lacks ascetic appeal. The area did not exist in a vacuum.
I would like to see how other users view the inclusion of this template, and how the Medieval Europe article relates to the World history category (if at all).
Thanks for considering
Sunriseshore (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
In the "Modern perceptions" section it says:
Other misconceptions such as ... "the medieval Christian Church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy," are all cited by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research.
I read the source, and part of the basis for the claim that this is a "myth" is that while Galileo's scientific books were banned, they didn't physically torture him, and put him under house arrest instead.
Even so, banning scientific books could be construed as "suppressing the growth of natural philosophy."
Certainly the medieval Christian Church advocated and advanced science in some areas, but it did suppress it in others. I think it's too much of a blanket statement to say declare "the medieval Christian Church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy" a myth.
In fact, in the article, Ronald Numbers does not even refer to that statement as a myth. One could infer that he meant it was an oversimplification; but to call that perception a myth could be an oversimplification itself.
Perhaps the sentence could be improved, by acknowledging that the church often suppressed natural philosophy for its political purposes, but that some individual priests themselves contributed to natural philosophy.
Sunriseshore (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"the basis for the claim that this is a "myth" is that while Galileo's scientific books were banned, they didn't physically torture him, and put him under house arrest instead. "
Which is largely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Galileo Galilei was alive in the late 16th and early 17th century, part of the early modern period. He was not active in the Middle Ages.
Yes, Galileo is well off-topic. I don't think much can be pinned on the medieval Western church, but the disappearance of Greek scientific writing in late antiquity leaves the Orthodox with a case to answer. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Need more info on agriculture
Eighty to ninety percent of Europeans made their livelihood through agriculture in the Middle Ages -- yet this article barely has a paragraph on agriculture. It seems to me that an article titled Agriculture in the Middle Ages is needed. And perhaps more on the subject is needed in this article. I could work on it -- although it is a broad subject that probably needs input from others. Comments? Smallchief (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The fall of Rome and the Western Roman Empire is correctly acknowledged as the end of the Ancient Age and start of the Medieval Age. However, it uses the Renaissance and Age of Discovery to mark the end of the Medieval rather than the general accepted view that it was the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire and subsequent fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. Both the age of discovery and renaissance where impacted by this event, due to the loss of trade routes and the mass migration of Greek Scholars. As such, I believe it is more appropriate to use the fall the Eastern Roman Empire to mark the end of the Medieval Age as it conceptually links better with the total political collapse of the Roman Empire and was more of a defining trigger for change in Europe. Elias (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
there is no "generally accepted" end of the Middle Ages. It actually is considered to have ended at different times by different countries and/or historians. See the third paragraph of the "Terminology and periodization" section - where a quick overview is given. Ealdgyth - Talk18:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I can accept that. The issue is using a specific event in the opening second sentence of the entire page which was the partial collapse of a political entity (Rome and a part of the Empire) but not of the complete collapse with Constantinople’s fall (which was the capital of the undisputed continuation of the Empire). The fact it’s already mentioned in the section you refer and its an event that accelerated the trends mentioned in the second sentence (the Age of Discovery and the Renaissance) makes the second sentence incomplete. Elias (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and 1453 is the first of various options given. Who is it in "it uses the Renaissance and Age of Discovery" - not this article. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The opening second sentence is my issue. “In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages (or medieval period) lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery.“ To use the fall of Rome but not the fall of Constantinople or the Eastern Roman Empire, is not using a consistent standard. Elias (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with Ealgyth. Scholars disagree on the date the Middle Ages ended. The present text of the article says the Middle Ages ended about 1500 -- and I think that is as good a date as can be cited. Smallchief (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Aside from the fact itself that the Middle Ages are a fascinating period of history, this article is truly well written and I very much enjoyed reading it. It has so many aspects of the Middle Ages from so many angles it never gets boring. I made a variety of minor improvements to the text. Most of the layout was just fine so I did not have to work too hard there. I have a series of comments and questions.
1. "In 376, the Goths, fleeing from the Huns, received permission from Emperor Valens (r. 364–378) to settle in the Roman province of Thracia in the Balkans. The settlement did not go smoothly".
It should be explained what "did not go smoothly".
2. "Most intellectual efforts went towards imitating classical scholarship, but some original works were created, along with now-lost oral compositions."
What is the point of using a disjunctive conjunction like "but" in this sentence? It has to create a contrast and I just don't see it.
3. "Officially they were tolerated, if subject to conversion efforts, and at times were even encouraged to settle in new areas."
The sentence is unclear and "encouraged" is probably not the most appropriate word.
4. "The Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul split into kingdoms called Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy during the 6th and 7th centuries, all of them ruled by the Merovingian dynasty and descended from Clovis."
If that Clovis is Clovis I there should be a link to the relative article.
5. "Grammarians of the period modified the Latin language, changing it from the Classical Latin of the Roman Empire into a more flexible form to fit the needs of the Church and government. By the reign of Charlemagne, the language had so diverged from the classical Latin that it was later called Medieval Latin."
When is that "later" exactly?
6. " Louis the German (d. 876), the middle child, who had been rebellious to the last, was allowed to keep Bavaria under the suzerainty of his elder brother. The division was disputed."
What does "rebellious to the last" mean?
7. "Some kings converted to Christianity, although not all by 1000."
Would it be possible to further explain/expand? Who did not convert?
8. "Missionary efforts by both Eastern and Western clergy resulted in the conversion of the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'."
Conversion to what? Clarity is needed.
9. "The importance of infantry and light cavalry began to decline during the early Carolingian period, with a growing dominance of elite heavy cavalry. The use of militia-type levies of the free population declined over the Carolingian period."
This argument around the "decline" is redundant. The sentence needs to be improved. I propose "During the Carolingian period the importance of infantry and light cavalry began to decline and the use of militia-type levies of the free population also declined. This point in time marked a transition to a growing dominance of elite heavy cavalry."
10. "Another order, the Teutonic Knights, although founded in the crusader states, focused much of its activity in the Baltic after 1225, and in 1309 moved its headquarters to Marienburg in Prussia."
Moved from where? It should be added for completeness.
11. "Concave spectacles were invented around 1286 by an unknown Italian artisan, probably working in or near Pisa."
What is a "concave spectacle"?
12. "Romanesque art, especially metalwork, was at its most sophisticated in Mosan art"
The word "sophisticated" must be associated to a noun which is missing.
13. Is it possible to assign a date to the image of "Guy of Boulogne crowning Pope Gregory XI in a miniature from Froissart's Chroniques"?
11. You'd probably call them "glasses". I'm not sure "concave" is necessary here; this somewhat contradicts our article there, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The image file says "15th century", indeed Froissart's various versions were written between c. 1384, & his death in 1404. Probably it is after 1450 in fact, from the style. I'll add something. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, thanks for the comments.
2. Nevermind: I read a few times the sentence and it now makes sense.
3. I am disputing the idea of "encouraging" people to settle in other areas since history has had repetitions of forcible reallocation.
4. Then it would be a good idea to add "I" since there are plenty of Clovis and this can be confusing.
8. I cannot completely agree since Christianity is not mentioned at all in the paragraph and it can be unclear.
I've been debating over bringing this up for the past few days now: I discovered this article a couple of weeks and I was blown away by the comprehensiveness of an article on such a vast period of time and I don't mean to undermine the work of the main contributors in any way. That being said, I'm concerned that there about how there is almost no information on Medieval Music. I wasn't confident in bringing this up as I assumed I must be missing something, but after looking through the article more (other than a brief mention of the Gregorian chant and Boethius – although not in a musical context) it truly seems like it is mostly ignored. (Or perhaps forgotten is the more appropriate word? Again, no ill intentions here) Even the "Architecture, art, and music" doesn't have any information on music. The Medieval period of music was undoubtedly the formative one for western art music, especially in Léonin and Pérotin's creation of polyphony, as well as Guido's standardization of the musical staff – by no means small contributions. The absence of Machaut, Ars antiqua, Ars nova, Ars subtilior, Trecento Music and perhaps even Landini or Adam de la Halle is troubling. To be honest, I wasn't going to bring this up as I thought I might cause more trouble than good, but after seeing the line "The theology of Thomas Aquinas, the paintings of Giotto, the poetry of Dante and Chaucer, the travels of Marco Polo, and the Gothic architecture of cathedrals such as Chartres are among the outstanding achievements toward the end of this period and into the Late Middle Ages" without something like "The music of Machaut", or perhaps "Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame" I felt like I had no choice. I'd love to hear the thoughts of the main contributors, Johnbod and Ealdgyth, on this. If need be I would be happy to draft a couple paragraphs on the topic, although I can't promise it would be quick, as summing up the longest era of western music is by no means a quick task! Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed, but rather than a couple of paragraphs, it probably makes the most sense to insert a few sentences in already existing paragraphs, in the proper chronological sections. Again, though, a draft would be nice to see, with sources. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that inserting information would be most appropriate. Although I don't think this would be sentences, as I would have to match to some extent the information about art and architecture already there. I thought that a good inclusion of information would probably end up being a paragraph at the end of each of the "Art and architecture sections," that could then all be changed to "Art, architecture and music" (Although admittedly the Early Middle Ages music section would probably end up being quite short). I wasn't sure if you guys would even be open to the idea, since it seems like such a finalized article so I figured I'd ask first before attempting to draft something. But since it seems like you both are, I will begin drafting something. (With sources of course!) Aza24 (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
No idea what you mean. The article we have on Medieval music is barely sourced and comprhensive. We have articles on Medieval art and Medieval architecture so should these relevant sections in this article be replaced with a "few wikilinked statements and maybe a hatnote"? Btw – I haven't forgotten about this, been slowly collecting sources. I'm trying to make sure I have a better grasp on Medieval music as a whole before condensing down so much for this article, will probably be a while until I have a draft I'm comfortable with ready to present. And don't worry, it won't be some crazy amount of info, I can tell steps were taken to keep this article concise, anything I propose will be with that in mind. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Unless you already have lots of expertise in the subject, it's probably best to bulk up Medieval music, researching as you go (where you are more likely to get comments from others with expertise), then boil this down for here. So killing two birds with one stone. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Given the sheet length of the time period, my knowledge is uneven, mostly towards the later half. I had considered going the route you suggested and your input makes it probably the most likely. I may even go a step further and work on some of the movements/school articles of Medieval music first, then the Medieval music article itself and then here. Either way, a long process for sure :) Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I changed the period of the Middle Ages to have closed at 1500 CE, rather than the date given as 1400, as it does not correspond with the article itself, which covers dates well into the 1400s, as well as all of the separate sub-articles that divide the Middle Ages (such as Early, High and Late) that assert the end of the Middle Ages, as the end of the 15th century - not the beginning, as it was previously composed in the opening. While the precision of the bracketing of dates of the Middle Ages, has for years been under debate, the generally agreed upon range ends at the start of the 16th century with the beginning of the Early Modern Period. Certainly, the Wikipedia articles on the High and Late Middle Ages, indicate the same conclusion. Please let me know, if you believe that I am wrong about this... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod. If the wording is too much for some, we can with "from the 5th through the 15th century", but we really haven't had many complaints about the previous wording. I reverted my mistaken rollback because the edit wasn't vandalism, but it's still wrong. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
As previously discussed, both the start and finish are vague and various dates are rather randomly chosen by historians, often varying with the location - like 1485 for England, though Italy was well into the Renaissance by then. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for my delay in responding. Real life called. Well, actually by saying that the Middle Ages lasted until the 15th century, places that termination point at 1400. By saying the Middle Ages lasted to the 16th century, would place that date at 1499, not 1599. In the various iterations of the text, it has varied between the use of the term through and to, over the years. The approximate date of 1500 for the generally agreed upon close of the Middle Ages is even discussed in a section devoted to it in this article. If I had said through the 16th century, then it would have said 1599. But now it reads that the Middle Ages lasted until 1399, and is clearly misleading. But changing it to read "from the 5th through the 15th century," as Victoria has suggested, would solve that dilemma. Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Except that's in American... "lasted from the 5th to the 15th century" seems clear enough to me - we don't use "until". Do you think that means it started in 500? We could spell the years out, but "lasted from 400 to 1499" would be absurd. It actually petered out over the 15th century, at different times in different places, and a degree of vagueness is appropriate, or we need to load up with "about"s. We could say "lasted from the 5th to the late 15th century", which is arguably more accurate & fits the usual cut-off of 1485 for England. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with Johnbod that some vagueness is called for, per "lasted from the 5th to the late 15th century". For what it's worth, the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors pontificates at p. 239: "Middle Ages period from the fall of the western Roman Empire (5th cent.) to the fall of Constantinople (1453), or more narrowly c.1000-1453". It also defines Dark Ages (p. 92) as "period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the high Middle Ages, c.500-1100 AD". That justifies vagueness for the English--though not the Welsh, who have plenty of illuminating literature for that period! Bjenks (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Everyone, consider that some of you are engaging in a level of pedantry that is unwarranted. But it's a weird pedantry that involves a confusion between "vague" and "misleading".
"To" is simply inappropriate because it is confusable with "until", and to further the confusion, a century is a range. Even saying from 1965 to (say) 1970 is inviting trouble because a single year is a range and you're inviting a form of fence-post error.
If what you mean is "through most of the 15th century" (which is what the "vague" dates allow for) then say through most of the 15th century.
I'm impartial to the use of "most" but at the very least "through" should be used. If this article means to present the 500s–1500s as the generally agreed upon starting dates, then the current use of "5th to the 15th century" can easily be interpreted as 500s–1400s (and was interpreted as such by myself). Otherwise the article seems to contradict itself in this respect. Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
?? "1500s" means "1500 to 1509", are we all clear on that? The article says the the MA ended during the 15th century - say around 1430 in northern Italian cities, with 1485 taken as the usual date for England. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies I should have left the "s" out, I'm basically echoing what Stevenmitchell said earlier. If the article says 1430/1485 this doesn't match the lead sentence, which I interpret (and it seems others as well) to mean 1400 – surely "through the 15th century" is all that is needed to avoid any chance of confusion. And to Bjenk's point about "to" causing "necessary vagueness", in my mind "through" results in more vagueness, which is surely preferable. Aza24 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I still prefer Johnbod's "from the 5th to the late 15th century", because through moves us from vague to incorrect inclusion of the 1490s. Bjenks (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That's fine with me. My issue here is less with including "through" and more of being concerned over how it's currently written. Imo "to the late" or "through" is an improvement. Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
"Through" is an out & out Americanism, and the article is in BE. Even "to the late" is over-precise, as Italy for one was out of it in the early part of the century, as I said above. I'm still somewhat amazed anyone thinks "to the 15th century" excludes all the 15th century, & I can't quite believe this a widespread way to construe it, or more people would have raised the matter. We may have to re-engineer the whole sentence, which is a pity as it bound to be a good deal longer. User:Ealdgyth? Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
But is "from the 11th hour to the 12th hour" two hours? Anyway, I don't really care what convention is agreed on for wording, as long as it doesnt imply something incorrect; and as for years, I'm fine with c.500-1500, because these are approximations, and 476-1453 or 476-1492 or 1485 etc is ridiculously too precise in my opinion. I do think that both 400 and 1400 are too early for start and end dates. BTW, I would also point out, in reaponse to various contents made in this thread, that no centuries actually end with with years ending in 99. The 15th century then, for example, is the years 1401 to 1500. Since some editors object to using the word "through", and to avoid misconstruing "to the 15th century" as "until 1400", perhaps it could be written "from the 5th to the end of the 15th century"? that would not contradict either 476 nor 500 as start-years. It would set 1500 as the end year, so if there is strong opposition to that, usjng "late" instead of "end" is fine. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
History written by catholic priests?
How much of European middle age history was written by catholic priests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
First image
Has enough time passed that we can talk about the cross image again? Because I can't express in words how much I hate the idea that it represents the Middle Ages. "Can you explain why it bothers you" no. "Do you have a better idea" also no! No further questions! But anyway. It sucks. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Now, you've been around long enough to know this isn't how it works. You have to suggest an image, & stand back as everyone rubbishes it. A link to the debate where this one was chosen (assuming it was) would be good too. Didn't it used to be the Sutton Hoo Helmet? Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles with a mosaic of images at the top, wouldn't that make more sense here? Then we can even keep the cross. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
It's tough to reduce a thousand years of history across many different countries to a single image so a mosaic is a good idea. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I love collages, but here my suggestion for a single image. That Hhistoriated initial is apperently the first of its kind. I like this picture because with a book the middle ages are not stereotypically depicted as church and knights age. The oldest historiated initial known from the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People) (8th century).Nsae Comp (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Lack of reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
"came under the rule of the Umayyad Caliphate, an Islamic empire, after conquest by Muhammad's successors."[citation needed]
Academics haven't been able to prove that Muhammad existed, the claims made by later documents rest entirely on their own merit. There are no historical references made about him at the time of his claimed existance, without which he cannot be said to have "successors". Archeologists have failed to find any supporting evidence for his life, therefore in order to uphold true Wikipedian standards the above quotation should be written in such a way as to affirm the highly successful Umayyad Caliphate without any further comment unless "reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" can be provided to prove that the founding member existed. If this evidence isn't provided Wikipedia will increasingly be known for misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indipage (talk • contribs)
This information is well sourced in the article body. I'm well aware that there are a few writers out there who are challenging whether Muhammad actually existed (or if he existed in the form he's protrayed in later sources as) but these writers are still a very small minority and most scholars and historians accept the existence of Muhammad. Until that consensus changes, we don't need to worry about it. This sort of polemical statement isn't necessary or useful here in this article - if you want to debate the existence of Muhammad, it needs to be elsewhere. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Colonialism
@Ealdgyth: please suggest a better sentance if the sentance is the problem.
What does it MEAN, though? Greer isn't a notable enough scholar to have their own article ... so it's not clear that their statement is important enough to have gathered significant coverage outside the original paper. The paper is also a JOINT paper, by two authors, not just Greer. Has this paper had a huge impact in medieval studies - such that it's talked about in high level studies of the Middle Ages? It's also linking to "decolonization" which is the ... act of a colonizing power leaving a colony - which does not apply to the Middle Ages. It's also got a misspelling "themselfs"?? In all aspects, this just seems like a random factoid that doesn't add anything to the understanding of the Middle Ages in modern historiography or popular conceptions of the Middle Ages (which is mainly what the section it was inserted into deals with - not academic discourses such as settler colonialism and the like. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I was also puzzled by that sentence, so I looked at the reference. In a quick scan of the reference, I found it to be esoteric -- using the word "colonialism" in a new and weird way. In other words, I don't think that sentence can be repaired and is best left out of the article. If you believe the scholarship on the subject of a "colonized" Middle Age history, is sound, maybe you should try to create an article titled something like, "The Colonization of the History of the Middle Ages." Otherwise the sentence and the concept of colonizing history is confusing and meaningless without context. And in a broad-scaled article like Middle Ages I don't think either the sentence or the concept merits inclusion. Smallchief (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree, also having scanned the reference, which is the introduction to a journal special issue of papers by very diverse authors, who don't seem to agree much between them as to what "decolonization of the Middle Ages" might mean. No need to include anything on this - if anywhere it might go in the "Dark Ages" article, as much of it seems to be an extension of that metaphor. It's also now 21 years old, so has had plenty of time to make an impact - has it? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Greer is writing about the historiography of the Middle Ages and seems to be using colonialism as a faddish and confusing metaphor. The use of it in this article is more a distraction than a contribution. Glendoremus (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I haven't read the reference yet, however two points occur to me straightaway. This papers is more than 20 years old. I wasn't expecting that as decolonisation is a very current topic. But when it's that old, and there are people still engaging with this subject it is less of a 'fad' and more of a 'trend' in historiography. On the issue of whether Greer has an article, this feels like a tangential point. The article cites J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann, Bernard F. Reilly for example none of whom have articles as far as I can see. I appreciate that with a topic where there is so much written and such an academic legacy that there will be a host of notable authors to cite (and of course it is possible to be notable and not have an article yet), but I don't think that should be a pre-requisite to being cited here. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes I seem to have missed out on the second author, I am sorry for that sloppy editing and naming Greer in the sentance was a bit enthusiastic.
Regarding the academic impact of the reference I partially agree, though I dont see a problem in the case for a one sentance reference.
Particularly I spmewhat agree that the input might be better suited for the Dark Ages article. Creating an own new article though is too much for a single perspective on the Middle/Dark Ages, especially since it shares the notion of the whole section I inserted it in.
PS: the critique of being "academic jargon" (see revert note) I really dont understand.
I think I see now what the problem with the sentance was that made no sense. Therefore here my proposal for a solution:
"The concept and period of the Middle Ages has been analysed by some more contemporary scholars, calling for decolonization of the characterization of the Middle Ages, as a colonial product by European histographers from the times of European colonization who constructed with it a superiority of their times over societies from older times.[4][5]"
I also again looked up how the paper was referenced in later papers and added one (there would have been more), which all use and expand on the Dagenais/Greer paper, so I do not know what you looked up and why its not worthy to use here? Please write your answer why it is not to be included here and/or at Dark Ages article.Nsae Comp (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The whole thrust of the paper (and the critique) is that applying the concept of a "Middle Age" to areas outside Europe (either during the time period 500-1500 or as an analogy during other time periods (as was often done in Japanese history) is ... wrong. And, this article does not do it. It is purely about the European time period. So it doesn't make sense to include your revised sentence here (you would need to discuss its inclusion at the Dark Ages article separately on the Dark Ages talk page) because it ... doesn't make sense to include it in an article that is purely about the European historical period. Or if it's referring to the old-fashioned "Dark Ages as the whole period of the European Middle Ages" ... we also don't do that ... so I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to apply TO. It's documenting a purely academic discussion about the actual historiography of things, and as such, is really better suited to either an article devoted to the development of more modern views of the Middle Ages or an article on the historiography of the Middle Ages - neither of which is this article, which is a top-level overview of the entire period of European history. The minutiae of academic discourse belongs elsewhere ... for example, we don't discuss Susan Reynolds theory that feudalism is a modern construct that didn't exist in the Middle Ages in the usually described form - which is arguably one of the biggest trends in medieval studies. Nor do we discuss the Annales school or the trends towards more focus on social and economic history among scholars. So we should also avoid discussing other academic trends. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes - this is a super-compressed article and including it (especially as the ideas are hard to express compactly) would be WP:UNDUE. According to google, the paper has 101 citations (after 21 years), which isn't too bad, but suggests it hasn't had a massive impact. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
That the article is more than 15,000 words is a good reason to think hard about any further additions, especially ones which are tricky to explain succinctly. I think it would be worth doing, though consensus may be challenging to reach.
It is a complicated topic, and stating that "applying the concept of a "Middle Age" to areas outside Europe [...] is ... wrong" oversimplifies the situation. It is an emerging area, but the field of the global Middle Ages is developing. There is a course on the topic at the University of York, the University of Oxford hosts a Defining the Global Middle Ages Research Network, and the 2018 volume of Past & Present contained a paper about the global Middle Ages. I'm still not comfortable with the idea, possibly because I haven't fully delved into the issues, but characterising it as 'wrong' overlooks that there are plenty of researchers approaching it in this manner. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Here a reference to a recent conference (incl. Symes) that had exactly this issue and even pushed the envelope.[6] Beside Richard Nevell's interesting insight, I dont think that the discussed sources talk about colonization in the sense of apllying the Middle Ages to the non-European. Furthermore reading into the topic I dont think that it is any more talking about the Middle Ages than about the Dark Ages category. It sounds more like that histography as a whole radiating out of the Middle Ages category and begun by reflections on the Dark Ages term, is being scrutinized. So it is about periodization and histography and not about if it is talking about something that includes or is outside of Europe. Colonization in this sense is not about the landtaking but rather of the also histogrophy permeating coloniality. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Those confused about "decolonizing the Middle Ages" would do well to look at postcolonial studies, a large topic of discussion in medieval studies (see e.g. [8]. This rather abstract usage of "decolonize" isn't uncommon, see this search at Regesta Imperii [9]. I don't claim to understand exactly what it means, but it's best not to react by saying "this is a new and novel use of language!". Anyway, I express no opinion on whether or not to include it in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
A new proposal:"Furthermore contemporary scholars have started scrutinizing the historiographic characterization of the period by seeing it colonized by early to late modern historiographic work, as such calling for the decolonization of the middle ages." Ok? Nsae Comp (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Our articles should reflect scholarship, but should not require a deep knowledge of scholarship in order to be understood, particularly on broad topics like this one. I don't think the average reader would have any chance of understanding that proposed text. As Ealdgyth notes, we want to avoid trending into academic minutiae. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I cant understand that argument at all, since Wikipedia has articles about quantum physics and about complex math. I think we shouldnt patronize the readers. If ut is too convoluted then it is not a question of content but of writing, which I gladly elaborate for. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is the issue, as has already been pointed out. You need to explain why, virtually alone among recent trends in medieval historiography, this one needs mentioning. Historiography of the Middle Ages just redirects to a very long list of historians, & while that remains the case, "Dark Ages" is your best bet. This is a featured article, & here the approach of "I saw this thing on the internet, & while I don't quite understand it, I thought I'd add it here" doesn't work. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough that there is no consensus, I asked if there is one yet, afterall. But I am still challenging the WP:UNDUE for this case, because there has been plenty of references to show that it is an issue relevant for the understanding of the Middle Ages. PS: does the source get better and the issue more relevant if I give you my CV and how I am involved in a field? I dont think so. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
A constructive idea, now we are getting somewhere. Maybe we can collect a list here in the discussion what topics we can think of and go from there into making that article. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
^Dagenais, John; Greer, Margaret Rich (Oct 1, 2000). "Decolonizing the Middle Ages: Introduction". Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. 30 (3). Duke University Press: 431–448. doi:10.1215/10829636-30-3-431. ISSN1082-9636.
Europe_map_450.PNG
Huns450.png
