Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wiki non super grammaticos

Shame on the mediaevalists here for allowing such an abvious boo-boo as "medius aevus" to remain prominently displayed in the very opening lines of the article. How DO they read their Aquinas, one wonders, if this is the current standard of Latinity amongst the brethren?

So, good sirs - "medium aevum", PLEASE!

willezurmachtAThotmail.com

Fixed, with footnote. Thanks for pointing this out! --Old Moonraker 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE AGES The people of the middle ages were divided into three groups:the lord, the well-to-do people and the peasants.the lords and ladies were wealthy and lived a life of luxury. They control the peasants. They were very important to the king an queen because they could give them arms. The well-to- do people usually were blacksmiths, carpenters, or midwifes. The peasants lived the hardest life of all. They were cheated and made fun of by the wealthier people. They had to give a"tax" of grain to the wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.32.214 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dark ages

When were the dark ages?

---

The term 'dark ages' is not used by professional historians any more.

That's largely missing the point, which is to communicate to users of wikipedia in the ways appropriate to how they are using it. Consider this excerpt: "Traditionally, the Middle Ages is said to begin when the West Roman empire formally ceased to exist..." Well, it's wrong. Traditionally, i.e. the way it used to be called, that was actually when the Dark Ages began. Traditionally, the Middle ages were considered to begin as early as Charlemagne or as late as Manzikert, depending on who was drawing the line and why (which varied with the geographical area in question). So, if the article is instructing people on modern usage, well and good (but the word "traditionally" should be changed to, say, "currently"). Conversely, the term "Dark Ages" should be handled properly for people like me, who have been using it as a way of explaining other things in terms of people's ordinary understandings - and for that, you have to avoid terms of art. PML.

The more we learn about the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (note the preferred Periodization) the more clear it is that the 'Dark Ages' was a misnomer. There was never a time in Europe when people didn't read and write, buy and sell, etc., etc. There was a time when there was no particularly efficient central government in most parts of Europe, but if that's your definition of 'darkness,' then I can't help you. The term 'dark' was originally used by Italians in the 15th century to refer to the time between themselves (obviously enlightened, a time of Rebirth [Rinascimento = Renaissance]) and the Greco-Romans. Very self-satisfied of them to think of themselves as on one of two well-lit peaks with a dark valley between them, no? --MichaelTinkler

Michael wrote: There was a time when there was no particularly efficient central government in most parts of Europe, but if that's your definition of 'darkness,' then I can't help you. He might have added: "and neither can the EEC in Brussels!" (Sorry - couldn't resist the easy shot - Tannin)

I was under the impression that dark ages referred to the fact that modern scholars have a very spotty breadth of knowledge on the period before Charlamaine, and almost no knowledge except for the names of some of the Kings and a few other leaders after the Roman Era until the eighth and ninth centuries in the bulk of europe. Colin 8 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

...perhaps because there hasn't been an "EEC in Brussels" since 1992.

re: Perioditization and other terminology

---

Michal is right about the usage of the term 'dark ages' -- a term I think was first used by Petrarch? Another term that I have seen used (or rather, misused) in several places is 'feudalism.' May I suggest that anyone using this term make sure they have first read the relevant articles by Peggy Brown and Susan Reynolds, and then use the term in a VERY qualified way? -JHK

To answer the original question, the Dark Ages were 500-1000. Britannica still uses the word, although they have a note that many historians try avoid it. There isn't any widely accepted alternative name for the period -- 'Late antiquity' hasn't caught on.

I don't think there is any question European civilization went into decline. The climate cooled, harvests and trade declined, Rome became a village, and the stone for what few new stone buildings went up was taken from the old buildings. The low point was arount 700-750. There is a famous story about Alcuin, an advisor to Charlemagne. People at the time thought the guy was a genius because he could read without moving his lips.Kauffner 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Dark Ages --Stbalbach 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rumors based on Climate changes of 535-536

Some people also think that some climatic astrological event may have turned the sky dark, and that for a long period the sun was completely blocked out over what we now call Europe. RebelScum 16:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who thinks that? Astrological event? Do you mean "astronomical"? Either way, the sun would not be blocked out for centuries, everything would have died. Whoever think this is simply wrong. Adam Bishop 01:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feudalism

I don't want to change this without some discussion, since I know there's a lot of academic debate on the subject, but there's something on the page that seems to suggest that the entirety of Europe was "feudal" for the entire Middle Ages. Do we have room for (and would anyone mind) a more thourough discussion of "feudalism" and its permutations and variations, or should I go ahead and create a new page for it? -- Kate Secor

---

go right ahead Christopher Mahan

---

Note that there is already a page about feudalism. --Eloquence 21:20 Nov 14, 2002 (UTC)

---

Thanks, Eloquence. I put in a new link and am trying to figure out which of several new pages needs to get written first. ;P -- Kate Secor

Spelling of the adjective

Tedius Zanarukando has edited the page so that it now reads:

(The corresponding adjective is spelt medieval in American English [influenced by French mediéval]

Is there any evidence that the American spelling is influenced by French? I would have thought that it was part of the general American simplification of spelling. I can think of several instances of a British "ae" being shortened to an American "e". David Stapleton 22:57, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

No, it's just like Americans not being able to spell Archaeology and Oeconomics properly - 19th Century innovation by spelling "reformers". But more importantly, seeing as the Yanks didn't have the Middle Ages, why, oh why, are the links to the articles on the Middle Ages by area all spelt the American way? Surely, the clear point is that British English is an official language of the EU, so to be consistent with the recent decision on "Gdansk", we should go with the native spelling. Phlogistomania 21:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cool: go for it as soon as you have an afternoon free.--Wetman 21:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

We usually spell it "medieval" in Canada too. But I suppose you think we're all "Yanks" over here, and we don't count because we didn't have a Middle Ages either... Adam Bishop 00:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Like it has been said, in America (and apparently in Canada) it is generally spelled medieval, while the non-North Americans like to spell it midiaeval or midiæval. However, as it was written midiæval during the time this article is talking about, and it did happen in the UK and Ireland, it probably should be written midiæval. User:Cameron Nedland|Cameron Nedland]] 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I read in R.L. Trask's Mind the Gaffe! that "medieval" is gaining ground in England, too. Of course, I don't really have a straightforward way to verify this, since I'm a Yank and probably won't be going too far from home any time soon.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Early medieval redirected

why is "early medieval" redirected to medieval? I thought to do something about archaeological chronology, but this doesn't fit on the medieval page?

--Yak 11:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Message to all people editing history articles

There seems to be a tendency for some editors to include the period between the Renaissance and the American Revolution, or at least the 18th century, into the "Middle Ages". I've seen articles discussing 17th or 18th century events after introducing them as "medieval". This is wrong with respect to the conventional historical periods. The period between the early 16th century and the late 18th century is generally referred to as "early modern", and its end as the "ancien régime" in some European contexts. David.Monniaux 10:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And, just for completeness, the article for this is at Early Modern period. --Joy [shallot]

Middle Ages WikiProject

User:Stbalbach has set up a Middle Ages WikiProject, if anyone is interested. Adam Bishop 07:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

China edit

From China's Middle Ages period, I removed the following text: ' Needham points out that the lever, a simple machine, was not implemented with straight rods in China, but rather had corners -- a clear misunderstanding of the principle. Perhaps the problem was compounded by the sense that China had the greatest civilization on earth, at the time.' -- I think it's too much point of view and too detailed for this article. -- Cugel 08:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Origin and use of term

I made some changes today in the "Origin and use of term" part since there were some major errors in it. For some reason it seems I got logged out while doing it so this is just to make sure it's clear who did it. Heelgrasper 04:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

High Middle Ages

The High Middle Ages would see the regrowth of centralized power, and the growth of new "national" identities, as strong rulers sought to eliminate competition (and potential threat to their rule) from powerful feudal nobles. Well known examples of such consolidation include the Albigensian Crusade and the Wars of the Roses.

Please explain to me how any of the Kings during the War of the Roses, had more centralised power than William the Conqueror (or for that matter Harold Godwinson)? As an example of centralised power it is difficult to think of a better example than the Doomsday Book. As for national identity, did the men on Senlac hill think of themselves any less English than the men who fought at Agicourt or at Bosworth if so what is the source for this claim? PBS 23:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Issues of periodization are one of fad and personal preferance, but roughly the HMA's fall between 1000 and 1300. Im not sure War of the ROses is part of the HMA, thats more Late Middle Ages or early modern, depedning on your perspective, but Willy and Harold fall in the HMA. Stbalbach 23:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Avars

This article mentions the Avars but WIkipedia has two articles about Avars: Caucasian and Eurasian. To which does this article refer? Jaberwocky6669 21:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

One year later... it'll be the Eurasian Avars; I'm repairing the disambiguation links to it as we speak. This prompt reply is from DeLarge 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Spice trade has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the article with your vote!--Fenice 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Inventions

This article mentions the astrolabe, gunpowder, and printing as inventions of the European Middle Ages, but the astrolabe certainly goes back to Islamic and possibly to Hellenistic times, and both gunpowder and printing were invented in China; gunpowder about 850 AD (which I guess is Middle Ages) and printing with moveable type in the 1200's - but in Korea (see Printing. Histprof 14:37, Sept. 29, 2005

A Technologies section

First off, a lot of that is just plain wrong. Second off, this article is about the Middle Ages, one thousand years, not just the 12th and 13th centuries. 3rd, there is a main article that deals with specifics, is there some reason highly-specific material is in the summary article, with no mention at all of the other 800 years? I'll await your reply before making changes. Stbalbach 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely the article Middle Ages will remain incomplete without a section on technology, which should present a brief overview of the range of new technologies, with a heading Main article: Medieval technology. Don't we all agree that this is what we're working towards? Currently the article Middle Ages itself is spotty, largely war, and dynastic maneuvers: we don't delete chunks of it. The pulse of new technologies in the 12th-13th centuries is a well-known phenomenon: naturally they stand out in the thousand year stretch. Let's make this section better, not judge it as if complete and discourage effort, and let's improve the very stubby article Medieval technology also. I'm barely competent to winnow some good on-line references in this area, but they belong at Medieval technology of course, not here. --Wetman 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough well said, will try again with a fresh perspective to incorporate the HighMA's and concerns of user above.Stbalbach 01:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, it's worse: actually I feel that all the topics in the box need to have really succinct summaries in the body of the article; clicking on a topic in the box doesn't complete the incompleteness of the article as it presently stands. But no matter... --Wetman 04:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's wrong, I think you might explain what was wrong and how you know? Wetman, the rapid acquisition of new technologies in 12-13th c. Europe is largely an effect of the existence of the Mongol empire at this time, which facilitated trade and the transfer of information across Eurasia. The reason for the end of this situation is that the Eurasian trade also facilitated the spread of bubonic plague in the mid-14th c. --Histprof 30 September 2005

Available technologies are only taken up by societies prepared for them: I think of Hellenistic pneumatics, Incan wheels, both "wasted" on toys. Or Charles Babbage's computer. The improved plow and the harrow weren't widely taken up until Europeans "needed" to work more difficult soils, because population expanded for other, unconnected reasons. I agree with you about the Mongol window to the east, but drag my heels at any suggestion of one-to-one cause/effect equivalences, today or yesterday—something you didn't intend, I'm aware. --Wetman 07:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Some edits

• In less than a century there were more inventions developed and applied usefully than in the previous thousand years of human history all over the globe.

Is there a source? In my readings of World History sources, such a statement sounds suspiciously old-school, the east was a major source of new innovation, most of the new inventions in Europe were not native, but cross cultural exhanges along trade routes.

• Printing not invented in Europe, moveabletype in the 15th century.

• Alfred Crosby described some of this technological revolution in The Measure of Reality : Quantification in Western Europe, 1250-1600 and other major historians of Technology have also noted it.

It's generally not good to make book recommendations in the main text of Wikipedia, since the author of the recommendation is essentially anonymous, it can be perceived as POV, favouring one over another. Unless there is a specific reason to mention the book, such as being the primary treaties of a well-known theory, and the reason for mentioning the book is explained. But it can certainly be in a references section, I have moved it to the main article references section (actually appears to allready be there).

Topic needs a lot more work. Stbalbach 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages (feudal europe)

I've got to write an essay about the Early Middle Ages, more specifically the the problems of the feudal system during the Early Middle Ages. Could anyone inform me on any problems that the feudal system had during the Early Middle Ages? And I mean the Early Middle Ages meaning before the Magna Carta since that was in the High Middle Ages i cant use that as an example.

-Mike

medieval

I would like to replace this text, "The corresponding adjective, from the Latin medium aevum, is most commonly spelled medieval in both American English and British English. Less commonly it is spelled mediaeval in British English, and rarely today with the Latin letter æ (mediæval), except to emphasise its Latin origins or as an antiquated spelling," with a link to the wikt:medieval article in the Wiktionary, as it makes more sense than to have the spelling and etymology of a word that is not the heading of this article in the front matter of this article. Especially when the text is somewhat presumptive POV. 24.221.121.232 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a proper etymology, so calling it an etymology, then placing it up against a dictionary in a "one or the other" black and white fashion is not really accurate; dictionary etymologies are more complete in some sense, and less narrative explanatory in another. We need it here because there is considerable confusion about how to properly spell medieval, it's an issue notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article, and the dictionary doesnt go into the details. There is nothing that prevents encyclopedias from discussing word origin when its significant. Professional print encyclopedias include etymology-like information when and where its needed. Wiktionary is a great project and is certainly needed also. Also it's not really POV see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/British spelling of Medieval. --05:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

what is that link meant to illustrate? it seems to say there is only one acceptable spelling of medieval. which would indicate that there is no reason at all to mention an alternate spelling. i don't get your point that this information is "needed". 216.237.179.238 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Many people continue to use the older spelling(s), so this information is needed to educate the reader on the modern spelling, and why the older spelling is outdated. As well, people who use the modern spelling may wonder why there are older spellings, and this tells the reader why. Note that older spellings are still "acceptable" (ie. you will come across them in both older and newer sources), depending on the context. Such as, an author who wishes to emphesis the antiquity of the word, or its latin origins, may use the alterantive older latin spelling. --Stbalbach 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pointing them to the dictionary is the right thing to do; putting the dictionary entry here is not. 24.221.121.232 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's encyclopedic, put it under medieval and intercept the redirect; the diction issues have nothing to do with the Middle Ages. But it's not encyclopedic, it's opinionated. Further, the fact that it's not a proper etymology speaks all the more to keeping it out of an encyclopedia.

As for "professional print encyclopedias", they compete with dictionaries and other encyclopedias. They have a vested interest in adding making you think their book is easier to use than a competitor's, so they'll include things they should not. They didn't have hyperlinking and collateral user-extensible databases.

The fact that there is or is not a British spelling is not POV; what's POV is the conclusion that the more arcane spellings are meant to convey a sense of age.

The information regarding the word itself belongs in the dictionary under the word proper, not wedged into an article twice-removed just because someone once quibbled over the spelling of a redirect... 24.221.121.232 15:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The most common (only?) meaning of Medieval is Middle Ages. Thats why it redirects here. --Stbalbach 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, "Middle Ages" is a(n) historical period. "Medieval" is an adjective that in one sense means "Middle Ages" and in others simply means "like something from the Middle Ages". If you were to quote Ving Rhames' classic line from Pulp Fiction, "I'm gonna get medieval on yo' ass", under Middle Ages, it's like putting Ving Rhames' biography under Pulp Fiction. Peripherally related, but taxonomically misplaced. That is the central problem. The information you think is important is not important in this context; that I think it's unimportant (and wrong) is a topic for after we've put the paragraph into the right page instead of the wrong one. 24.221.121.232 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The spelling lesson was terribly off-topic. I have created a page for medieval and moved the information there, and expanded on it as suggested. The replacement text seems much more appropriate for this topic. I have also linked here from Medieval period (note capitalization; wikipedia is picky about that stuff]. It occurs to me that a banner link to the wiktionary might be handy at the medieval page. I'll see about that soon. --216.237.179.238 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. I got a look at the "What links here" for "Medieval", once there was a medieval page. Incredible how this has been misused over the years, but not totally incredible, given the ad hoc nature of the wikipedia. You get what people believe is right instead of what is right, a lot of the time, and belief is not truth, not even when it's popular. --216.237.179.238 18:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was trying it and sometimes "Medieval" redirects and sometimes it doesn't. The idea of separate articles for "Middle Ages" and "Medieval" strikes me as confusing. The "Medieval" article seems to be all about the Pulp Fiction quote. Kauffner 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

renaissance

shouldn't there be some information in this page making clear that the renaissance is the ending of the middle ages? or at least implying it near the top where the middle ages are defined? it's kind of unclear on reading as the page is written...even looking at renaissance it's ambiguous, claiming that the renaissance came after the middle ages rather than forming the reason for its end... anyone got any comment on this idea? --216.237.179.238 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, IMO, periodization issues are contensious because there is no agreement on what they mean (or if conceptually they have any validity at all), so making hard chronological definitions based on periodizarion terms, without historiographic qualifications, ends up reading like one POV of history presented as fact. Most modern historians today are looking at things along smaller thematic lines instead of the over-arching metanarratives. IMO I'd rather see all these antiquated (pejorative-in-origin) terms: Middle Ages, Renaissance, Dark Ages, etc.. be devoted entirely to historiographical and etymology issues, with the actual history covered in other articles (such as History of England or Migration Period etc..), but that probably wont happen anytime soon heh. --Stbalbach 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

but that's what i mean. the renaissance overlaps the end of the middle ages, and in fact renaissance is the word chosen to term the renewal following the long period of stagnation imputed to the middle ages. so the idea is to remove the hard distinction between them by showing the overlap more clearly in both pages. there might also be room for an argument about just how stagnant the middle ages were, but i'm not historian enough to make that argument... --216.237.179.238 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

in fact renaissance is the word chosen to term the renewal following the long period of stagnation imputed to the middle ages -- therein is the problem. There are few medieval historians today who would say the Middle Ages was a period of stagnation, it is a value judgment created by 14th century humanists and propagated by Enlightenment thinkers (see Dark Ages and Middle Ages in history). The very concept of the Renaissance is POV. --Stbalbach 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The seems to me that this a nihilist point of view. You can make this kind of argument with a so many words and then what words would we have left to use? Whatever the origin, Renaissance has long been the generally accepted way to refer to the period.

I think the the Renaissance needs to be mentioned in the introduction as the end of the Middle Ages. The way the intro is written, you get the impression the the end of the Middle Ages had do to with strong monarchies and the Reformation. Italy, for example, didn't have either of these developments. Did is stay in the Middle Ages? The change from Medieval to Renaissance is usually defined in terms of artistic styles. Another point: shouldn't the periodization here should be consisent with the Renaissance article?Kauffner 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A year or two ago I had edited out the Renaissance at the end of the Middle Ages, and would like to do so again. The Italian Renaissance does not mark the end of the Middle Ages, it is simply a very important and influential movement in education art, literature, and philosophy (I.E. Humanism). Any historian worth their salt now uses the term Early Modern. It is the combination of European expansion, the division of Latin Christianity, and the rise of states that bring us to the Early Modern period. This complexity needs to be reflected in the entry, not a simplistic (and out of date) teleological Renaissance from the Dark Ages narrative. I strongly advise looking in any up to date textbook (Bennett-Hollister or Rosenwein for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.173.72 (talk • contribs) 20:40, January 13, 2008

Medieval (term) -- merge

It has been suggested that medieval (term) be merged with Middle Ages.

The reasons include:

1. medieval allready redirects to Middle Ages.
2. Medieval is most commonly used in relation to the Middle Ages. There are 100s (1000's?) of wikilinks on Wikipedia for Medieval and they almost all are in reference to the Middle Ages. As such, the information about medieval should be in the same article where the term redirects.

Please add your comments. This is not a vote.

--Stbalbach 21:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• disagree. the term medieval is redirected to middle ages now only because it's historically done so; given a bot or enough hands, it should link to its own page and reference middle ages in text. to claim that the links to here obviate the page there is to use the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. further, there are many things about the term medieval that do not belong in a discussion of the Middle Ages, nor in a formal dictionary definition. and anyway, who suggested it? --216.237.179.238 22:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The above user 216.237.179.238 is the one who created the split. He/she is an experienced Wikipedia veteran using an anon account in order to stir up controversy in a number of places around Wikipedia. --Stbalbach 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, what are you talking about? And to whom are you talking? You're replying to me but talking about me in the third person. And you're slandering me. I am not doing anything "in order to stir up controversy". I am doing what any rational person would do to make the Middle Ages page about the Middle Ages and not about some long-dead spelling flamewar. What I'm doing over on the page-creation thread has nothing to do with what I'm doing over here. That's not about controversy, it's about reminding admins that they are not special, something they tend to forget the moment they're ordained. The controversy erupted because they don't like being reminded of Jimbo Wales' intent for them. 216.237.179.238 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not possible to slander an internet protocol number, so dont take it personally. Your obviously "someone", probably with a history of another account(s) on Wikipedia, apparently on a crusade of some sort to make a point. It's pretty unusual for an experienced Wikipedia user to be using an anon account, it raises questions, why are you using an anon account instead of logging in? Userids lend credibility and longterm history, why are you hiding, what's your real history? It's an obvious question given your experience level. It puts the rest of us at unease, theres no recourse against an anon IP number, its like a sock puppet, it can change at a whim and re-appear as someone new the next day. The fact the article was created from from an anon IP account, by a wikipedia veteran, is a fair question and point to be made.

--Stbalbach 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect. IP addresses are less fungible than user accounts, and less anonymous. And in order to determine if a login is a sock-puppet you have to get a developer to crawl through the logs; whereas with me you just have to look at the face on my account. And despite your presumption, it is possible to slander an internet protocol number. I am a person, and when you cast false aspersions on my behavior you do slander me and feed prejudice against me. --216.237.179.238 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a static IP? That would be unusual. But not impossible. But it's only good for as long as the account with your ISP remains active, then on to a new number, and whoever uses your IP on Wikipedia next inherits your history. Userids are for good reason. Im not the first to point this out, see your talk page. IPs are less fungible/transparent because they can be dynamic, which is more the norm, and even with a static IP a person can have a pool to draw from and keep changeing, or even change ISPs and thus change IPs. Theres no way for the other users to know whats what. If theres any reason to doubt, its your own making for not signing up for an account for mysterious reasons. --Stbalbach 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would hardly be wise to create a user page for a dynamic IP, now would I? And ask yourself the practical question: what's easier? Asking my (not very cooperative on a good day) ISP to perform unprofitable and risky (you have to know their techs) network maintenance on a whim? Or logging in as a new user on Wikipedia (which by the way leaves me with exactly the same IP)? Yes, if I post from another network I appear to be someone else. But anyone can do that, by logging in as someone else when on another network. My method of identification is no less transparent than yours is. You can change logins three times a minute; and I can have two friends behind a NAT firewall acting as the same IP (I actually saw that today; I kept reverting the same IP; it was three kids at a high school doing the dozens on each other in dueling vandalism). And it's beside the point. I've improved Middle Ages by taking out the digression. --216.237.179.238 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of the merge. This article as it is too small, and would make much more sense (and be more convenient) merged. --Hetar 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Definite article.

I think we need the definite article on the terminology paragraph. I.e., "the medieval period, medieval times, or the medieval". They're synonyms for "the Middle Ages", rather than a list of adjectives. "The medieval" is a bit arcane, but that's the point of explaining what it means." Maybe it should be capitalized: "the Medieval". --216.237.179.238 22:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Medieval is used without the definitive article. For example: "Medieval History". We report on what people do, not create what we think people should do based on our own interpretation. --Stbalbach 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edit

I edited out a line mentioning that the Crusades were often at the expense of the Byzantine Empire. This was neither intentional (in fact, the entire Fourth Crusade which sacked Constantinople was excommunicated), and more importantly the Crusades were meant to relieve heavy pressure on the Byzantine Empire who shortly before the First Crusade had been hit roughly at Manzikert - and aiding the Eastern Roman Empire was a primary objective of the Crusades. Anyways, I felt it to be an unfair line in light of things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LawofLoud (talk • contribs) . 23 February 2006 (UTC)

midevil

The article needs an explanation of how medieval is now so commonly called midevil. the word midevil is not even mentioned once here. DyslexicEditor 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Any apparent rise in popularity of the usage of the term "midevil" can be unequivocally attributed to the grammatical slothfulness and blatant illiteracy of the incorrigible English-speaking people of the world. Your oblique reference to the supposed requirement of a literary emendation is spurious at best, and specious and scurrilous at its absolute worst. That's why Midevil redirects here. dreddnott 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is dyslexic...Adam Bishop 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

An explanation...well...in those days there were many evils -- plagues, Vikings, city streets covered with horse manure, floods, drought, no Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey in the outdoor market. Just one evil after another. So people would ask their neighbors "Is the evil finish?" It almost always wasn't. If the evil was continuing, you were said to be "midevil." Since that was the usual state of affairs, year after year, it soon became the name of an entire historical period.Kauffner 06:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about the equally common expression mildewville? How come that isn't mentioned? --Wetman 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

religion section

The "religion" section has to have information about how religion affected the life of the medieval people. Frosty ^('sup?) 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Viking Age

Why remove that the Middle Ages was after the Viking age? // Liftarn

Because it is incorrect. Middle Age is one of the 3 ages: Ancient-Middle-Modern .. that is why it was called "middle". It has nothing to do with Christianization. -- Stbalbach 12:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And the Viking Age is part of the Middle Ages, not something that came before. Adam Bishop 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That depends on your geographic bias. Over here the middle age was after the viking age. // Liftarn

I am dubious. Among professional scholars who work in universities I doubt that is how the term is understood. -- Stbalbach 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

During my entire education I was tought stone age -> bronze age -> iron age -> viking age -> middle ages -> renaissance. // Liftarn

That does make sense, but in that case the Renaissance starts a lot later for you too. In general, the Viking Age chronologically fits into the early Middle Ages, and there are other periods in specific locations that also don't fit exactly (Britain, Byzantium, Russia...they don't fit into the "Middle Ages" dates either). Adam Bishop 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Renaissance starts somewhat later, but not by many years (in a historical perspective). // Liftarn

In that structure, Liftarn, "middle age" is being used by analogy. It could be called anything .. in fact History of Sweden doesn't call it the Middle Age, it calls it "Early Swedish History" and says "The era in a way corresponds to the European Middle Ages." ie. by analogy. Although it is strange Sweden considers itself outside of, or equal to, the rest of European History :-) -- Stbalbach 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit strange, but then there was a high culture up north while the rest of Europe was in the dark ages. // Liftarn

See Dark Ages .. --Stbalbach 15:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In popular usage the Middle Ages is often used to refer to the period 1000 AD to 1500 AD, the period from 500 AD to 1000 Ad being termed the Dark Ages (in UK schools "The Time of the Invaders")

Dark Ages#Modern popular use. --Stbalbach 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted what?

Something missing at the end of this first sentence from towards the end of the section on the rise of the Franks.. "He was also a skilled administrator and ruler, organizing what would become the medieval european government - a system of fiefdoms, loyal to barons, counts, dukes and ultimately the King, or in his case, [what goes here?] Through translations these libraries gave rise to a vogue for the philosophy of Aristotle".

Holy shit...we all missed some massive vandalism. There have been huge parts of the article missing for almost a month. I've fixed it now...thanks for telling us. Adam Bishop 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Decline of the Roman Empire... Led to the Start of Middle Ages???

Ummm... I read in the Decline of the Roman Empire that the real date was 476. Therefore, why does it say "It happened in the 3rd century, when the Roman Empire ended.". --154.20.102.96 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Adam Bishop 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't; there is a map that shows the extent of the Roman empire in 476.

The 410 seige of Rome by the Ostrogoths was done from inside the Roman Empire I thought - rather than by a group of babarias who crossed the border specifically to sack Rome. The Ostrogoths had come across the border in 376 with permission of Valens, the Easter Emperor. In 376 the Ostrogoths were thr Tervingi - or were the theGreuthungi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newraf (talk • contribs) 14:55:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

The Rise of the Franks, and the Islamic Invasions of Europe

This section seems to contain an overuse of punctuation. Additionally it contains what appear to be run on sentences which utilize so many commas that a reader may not even notice that they are reading the same sentence as when they began. Also, while the writing is great I would wager the content is seemingly more "poetic" than an encyclopedia normally is.

I would consider touching up the usage of commas and other punctuation. I could make such changes if others seem to agree with this. I won't adjust the wording or content unless others also deem that reasonable, however.

Christianity

I didn't want to add anything without the concent of others but i feel that Christianity should be a seperate section. Paragraphs 7 and 16 talk about Christianity and it's a good start but Augustine of Hippo need added for this article to be complete. Christianity was a very important part of the Middle Ages and does need to be mentioned and orginized accordingly.

---

I actually disagree that Christianity requires a seperate section in this article. I'm sure the history of Christianity would be a better place for that.

Rather I would suggest that a sort of "Transition" heading would be a good subsection for including the talk of "dark ages" and would also be an excellent place to use Augustine as an example. *EDIT* as of now Augustine is mentioned in the paragraph right before the "New Order" subsection. --Dewener

---

I agree 100% with Dewener. We should make a subsection that includes talk about the dark ages and some how includes Augustine, because i believe, personally, that he played a pretty big role in (at least) shaping the start of the Middle Ages. If he is not included there, he should at least be mentioned a few times somewhere else. Good thinking Dewener. --+SPQR

---

I think a section on the "Dark Ages" should go before the New Order subsection. That creates a nice transition away from the end of Rome and the classical period into the more positive New Order subsection. Augustine's work City of God should be mentioned as an arguement against the belief that Rome fell due to incoming Christian ideologies. --

Kutlessphreak

---

Augustine...he is important but we should keep it relevant and flowing. I have redirected another statement to try to achieve this. --Dewener

Late Middle Ages politically

"Politically, the later Middle Ages were typified by the decline of feudal power replaced by the development of strong, royalty-based nation-states, especially in England, France and the Iberian Peninsula." It should maybe pointed out that the development in the HRE was pretty much the precise opposite. Whereas during the pinnacle of the Hohenstauffen dynasty, the central power was very strong, it increasingly lost importance compared to the electors and other powerful nobility -and in real political clout, even to commoner merchant houses. --OliverH 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Map Image of Poor Quality

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/World_820.png This is horrible, needs a version with better resolution. 209.129.85.4 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be better were the map a different projection as well. The current projection gives us lots of detail on culturally irrelevent areas--Greenland, northern Asia--and thus it's hard to make out the equatorial areas where civilizations flourished.

Clarification of Early Middle Ages

In the "Early Middle Ages" section I think there is a point that should be clarified as it is significant historically (although commonly ignord in many histories). Strictly speaking the Western Empire did not completely "fall" in the 5th century. Rome itself technically continued to be a part of the Roman Empire for a long time after 476, first under Odoacer who technically answered to the Roman Emperor (in Constantinople) and then under the direct administration of Constantinople when the Empire "reconquered" the lands (arguably Rome did not fully cease to be part of the Empire until Charlemagne's time). Much of the rest of southwestern Europe can be said to have varied in its affilation with the Empire for quite some time. In some sense it can be argued that the West was gradually separated from the empire over a few centuries starting in the 5th century.

The article as written conveys some of this but it tends to imply IMHO too strongly that all of the West just fell apart and became something totally different in the 5th century. Although this is true of the higher levels of governance there is a great deal more that did not change so rapidly (in many key regions did not change much at all in the 5th century). --Mcorazao 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Technology

It may be just wording, but I giggled at this sentence:

The period saw major technological advances, including the invention of cannons, spectacles and artesian wells;

Is the intent that people learned how to find artesian wells during this period? Artesian wells obviously weren't invented ... jrcagle 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubts

I thougt that traditionally the end of Middle Age was 1453 (Constantinoble fall). I would not talk about soveregnity before sixteen century as the text does. {unsigned}

It depends what aspect of history you want to emphasis determines which specific event marks "the end". So we just choose a middle ground and say 1500 which most can agree with. -- Stbalbach 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. The text says: "The hierarchy of military obligations, known as feudalism, bound each knight (Latin miles meaning soldier) to serve his superior in return for the latter's protection. This made for a confusion of territorial sovereignty (since allegiances were built up one on top of the other, could be contradictory, and were subject to change over time)."

I think that in the middle ages there were not sovereignty.. There were politicals powers or political powers in struggle Sovereignty is a modern or contemporary concept (Jean Bodin , s XVI) that legitimize the new power, unificated: the power of the states. Therefore,strictu sensu, in middle ages there were not states, nor sovereignty. {unsigned}

Agreed. Although "territorial sovereignty" is an analogous phrase for the modern reader, like we speak of a womans personal sovereignty in relation to courtly love, but obviously it could be better phrased to avoid a literal interpretation. -- Stbalbach 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

image

The map of the world civilization should be replaced, because Taiwan was never part of China in the Tang Dynasty, and was only conquered after Qing Dynasty, which was nowhere near the middle age.--Jerrypp772000 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Armies?

I cannot find a page about the medieval armies, I would happily make one for you guys if you want me to. Im sort of a medieval army buff... ~Sage1989 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sage1989 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistency about the start of the Middle Ages

There is an inconsistency about the start of the Middle Ages between this article and the Early Middle Ages article. This article claims that it started in the 5th century (401 - 500), but the Early Middle Ages article says that it covers the period between 500 and 1000. -- Kjkolb 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Obviously the author of the early middle ages article was not paying attention or something. The 5th century was 400-499. So when someone is talking about the 5th century, they're talking about the 400s. --Bbobbob 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Size of talk page

Some of the discussions on this talk page date from 2004, and the page as a whole is starting to show its size. Should we archive some and/or all of it?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Education?

Does anyone know anything about how education worked in medieval times? If there is something in the main article about his, forgive me, but I didn't notice it. Could someone add a section on this if they are knowledgable on the subject? --User:Crazy drunk hobo

I agree with you. If I could (wondering if I can), I would make sure there was a section on education: Scholasticism and the Quadrivium/Trivium ("Seven Liberal Arts"). IF anyone knows how to allow an edit from me, I could add that information to the article. Knight45 10:21 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Locked Page

I always wondered when this page would be locked against vandals. Why this page wasn't locked over other articles, like celebrity articles (ecch) is beyond me. To whoever locked it: thank you. -- Knight45 22 February 2007 10:18 (UTC)

Referencing

I think it's about time we provide some sources for this article. It looks bad to have such a central topic completely devoid of any references whatsoever. We could start by making a list of reasonably comprehensive (but not overwhelming) list of general English language literature on the Middle Ages. Please add any suggestions below or to the reference article itself.

It would, of course, be nice to also include the occasional citation, but let's try as best we can to avoid outright footnote hysteria.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the article and noticed that each heading has a sub-article links with several refs. Perhaps we could use those refs in this article?. Wrad 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Civilised barbarians? Really?

So the Carolingians were "romanized Germanic barbarians, civilized to some degree by Christianity", according to the article. Aside from the arrogant assumption inherent in this - that all civilisation sprouted from Christian Rome - there is the question of what civilisation actually refers to. Didn't these Germanic ethnic groups have their own systems of government and law? Their own culture? Seems that this sentence is very misleading. User:Wozocoxonoy 09:00 15 March 2007 (GMT)

I didn't write it, but I think in the context of the sentence "civilized = romanized", which is a common historiographical theme but certainly debatable. I don't think it says "all civilisation sprouted from Christian Rome"? The Germans did have culture and law which fused with Roman to create the Middle Ages. The Germans did not have some basic things we think of as civilization, such as writing, literature, monumental architecture, and other things. -- Stbalbach 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the implication I saw. It is a very typical view that Christianity, using the Roman Empire as its vessel, somehow tamed the ignorant German tribesmen. But then history is usually written by the victors, and Roman Christianity, via the Middle Ages, was victorious. In any case, I've made an edit to the sentence. The information given is the same, but the implication that the Carolingians - "merely" romanicized Germans according to the original - were "civilized... by Christianity" has been removed. If somebody thinks I've compromised NPOV then he might as well change it back, but I just think a Romano-centric assumption is too naïve for an encyclopaedic article. -- User:Wozocoxonoy 21:00, 15 March 2007 (GMT)

Periodization Issues

It seems to me that the reference to Pirenne's "Late Classical" period is out of date and that Peter Brown's idea of Late Antiquity is better articulated and more accepted in contemporary scholarship. I'd suggest changing the reference altogether... any arguments for retaining Pirenne?Brandon cohen 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pirenne is still influential and discussed, it should be included if for nothing else historiography. I agree a sentence or two about Late Antiquity is needed to bring up to current. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable. More issues with periodization: why is this group adhering to "High" middle ages for the period 1000-1300? "Central" is much more neutral and doesn't clash as much with historical traditions in other languages. brandon cohen 06:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Medieval history sidebar?

The entry for "Renaissance" has a useful navigation tool along the right side that directs the reader to different topics and regions. How can we get one of these for the Middle Ages, and how do we edit that sidebar? brandon cohen 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on the bottom of the page, less intrusive to the text. - Stbalbach 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page from ip editing?

According to the experienced wikipedians who work with this page, is the vandalism bad enough to warrant temporary protection from ip editing? It's probably all the same kid. brandon cohen 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• To whoever got this page protected, thank you! brandon cohen 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Map of territorial boundaries ca. 450 AD: Irish?

I don't think the inhabitants of the "island-now-known-as-Ireland" were called "Irish" in 450 AD. Take a look at Irish_people for better names of the era. Ligart 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

--87.240.15.7 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

can someone please remove vandalism?

Hi. I'm a newcomer, so I'm not sure how to remove a piece of vandalism after the first para of the article. someone wrote IIIITROCKS. no biggie, to be sure, but I hate to give comfort to the enemy. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.81.149 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Parlement" in England?

In Section 5.1 (State Resurgence) the following appears:

Both of these kings presided over effective states administered by literate bureaucrats and sought baronial consent for their decisions through early versions of parliamentary systems, called the Estates General in France and the Parlement in England.

The Parlement link is to an article about a French body (or bodies). I don't know enough to know which English Parliament article is most appropriate, but I'm sure someone does. Tt 225 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The word seems to be a spelling of the time (although "parliament" was also in use in the C15) and not related to the specific target of the link. The simplest redirect would be Parliament of England, but Curia Regis might also fit. Whatever, it should be changed, and possibly the spelling with it! I am citing OED for all this. --Old Moonraker 09:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and link changed. --Old Moonraker 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Autoformatting of year-only dates

This is not usually done, unless there is a special relevance to the subject. See MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking: "...articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Reverted.

--Old Moonraker 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Superseded History of Maritime Trade in "Early Middle Ages"

The third paragraph of the section "Early Middle Ages" discusses a near-cessation of maritime trade due to the Muslim conquest of much of of the Mediterranean Basin. Disregarding, for the time being, the claims' lack of cited sources (probably Henri Pirenne's Mohammed and Charlemagne or subseq.), It appears that more recent, and very detailed, historical research has shown this notion to be counter to fact. Please see Michael McCormick's Origins of the European Economy. But, I'm not an expert, so I added a Template:Disputed instead of removing the section outright. -- 67.112.123.178 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the Arabs weren't great mariners for the first few decades of their ascendancy; caravan trade increased. There'd have to be some fairly good evidence to suggest that sea-based trade didn't at least suffer a temporary decline with the loss of Byzantine hegemony over the Eastern Mediterranean. Slac speak up! 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons link

There were two sets of the same link to commons maps and images. I deleted one set (in see also) and the links to commons are now in the external link section. Nice template work though. The format changes by FrankB simply don't work. Modernist (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Modernist. The lead looked a bit messy before his/her revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

laura is the best!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.58.178 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Middle Ages and non-european history

I am not in agreement with the terminology of "Medieval" in the second paragraph under the heading Terminology. The term "Medieval" is a name given to a period of time in human history not to an era in the history of Europe specifically. The Middle Ages encompasses a period in the histories of all peoples. Therefore, I suggest the addition of non-european medieval histories to this article such as the Americas, Asia etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggur (talk • contribs) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m on board with you on the disagreement with the terminology of “Medieval” and not opposed adding thing non European histories.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If areas outside Europe cannot be classified as 'Medieval' then is there a non-european equivalent for this term?--User:Yggur 15:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding non European histories to this article. By definition the term Middle Ages means a period of specifically European history as it was historically categorised in three periods. This is the definition given in the first paragraph. The definition is about Historiography. The "three periods" is a view of history that has changed. At the time when the term was in use, the three categories were not used for other countries because they didn't necessarily apply. Try using them for Australian history!

As the term "Medieval" surplanted "Middle Ages" in the 20th century, then its use has often been extended to cover the whole world, during the "Medieval Period" in Europe. In other words, it has been used to designate a time frame, the fixed points of which are dates in European History- the fall of the Roman Empire, and the beginning of the Renaissance. For example, a book written from this historiographical standpoint is the Larousse Encyclopedia of Byzantine and Medieval Art, editor Rene Huyghe, published in 1968. The inclusion of non-European cultures as "Medieval" was at that time (1960s-70s) common among scholars. However, the term "Middle Ages" was rarely used like that.

Some editors may think that taking a more global approach and extending this article to include non-European cultures is in order, because the current approach might be considered discriminatory. This is not the case. Every region has its own history. That part of the world now called Europe has a history unique from that of Africa, Japan, South America etc, though with points of contact. It is perfectly valid to write a European, or a Western European history that only mentions other regions insofar as they touch upon the history of Europe. This article is specifically about the "Middle Ages", a European term for European culture in a European time-frame.

A few points

• The upper date is not a fixed date by any means. The Middle Ages continued into the 15th and 16th centuries in many forms, particularly in the Gothic architecture of England, and the Byzantine culture of Orthodox regions.

• I support the removal of the painting by Giotto, even though its date is as early as 1300. The earliest historian to write about Giotto's work was Vasari in the 1500s. Vasari did not perceive Giotto as a Medieval artist but as the first artist of the "Modern" period. His work has continued to be viewed in that way. It is arguably a "Renaissance" painting.

• I think that the placement of a non-neutral tag on the discussion of the Crusades is frankly ridiculous. Its placement needs to be fully justified by a discussion on this page. If it is not neutral, then let the person who challenges its neutrality give good reason for doing so, and propose an alternative that is more neutral. Once again, this is a European History, and so it states the European motives. The people who went on crusades were rallied together by the call to "liberate" the Holy Land and other areas.

Amandajm (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

'Medieval' and 'Middle Ages' are terms that only apply to Europe. That time period is virtually meaningless when applied elsewhere, as it is basically the period between the fall of the Roman Empire (at least in the West) and the Renaissance. Doug Weller (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What both Amadajm and Doug Weller are saying is correct and in response I would request merely aknowledgement of non-european history within this article. Perhaps, as a reference point, a section should be made to summarise what was happenning outside Europe during the Middle Ages. This need only be short, and its purpose would simply be to describe what was happening at the same time as the Middle Ages outside Europe since there is no single coherent non-european equivalent for this term. Also your(Amandajm's and Doug Weller's) points should be made clear in this section.--User:Yggur 10:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

As a lead image I prefer the Giotto to the Icon. I placed the Giotto image for now in the High Middle Ages section. While the Icon is an earlier work and is probably chronologically ok, I think the Giotto is a more prescient image in terms of works of art. Modernist (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Giotto

I prefer the Giotto remain. While I think the Giotto can be placed in the Late Middle Ages section, I think it should stay or be replaced with a better one. The painting is dated 1305. Clearly he's a figure of the late Middle Ages and of the Early Renaissance. Like Cimabue and Simone Martini, he straddles both eras. This article can use better art.. perhaps both Cimabue and Martini. Modernist (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article

I wish the editor who renamed this article had read WP:Naming Conventions#Avoid the definite article, or even discussed his/her proposal, before his/her drive-by edit. Should it be changed back, or isn't it worth bothering about too much?--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I'm on the case.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks User:R'n'B. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sections

The sections Terminology and Periodization repeat each other and are too long. They need cutting and merging. Xandar (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)