Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

July 2011

As a note, I fully support Dbachmann's reversion here. The new material was not relevant to the topic, poorly cited, and not well written; basically, it's not a net benefit to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Global timeline

Main article: Timeline of the Middle Ages

This article does not represent a worldwide view of the subject of the Middle Ages.

The Middle Ages are one of three ages in History, not just European History.

As seen from the above ... the previous version before Dbachmann's edit @ 04:44, 15 July 2011 was the most complete of the subject. It can be seen here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_Ages&oldid=439126366

--J. D. Redding 12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That is one ugly chart. From the time of its creation until you started to edit it May 1st this article has been about a period in European history and there was no discussion about making radical changes in it. There is, so far as I know, no commonly accepted use of the phrase on a global basis although it may be used to discuss other specific countries or geographic areas, but that's irrelevant to the fact that this was always an article about European history. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. There's clearly no consensus for Reddi's radical changes to the scope of the article. "Middle Ages" is a Western construct. This article has always been about European (or at least Western) history. To paraphrase what I said regarding the related changes at Early Middle Ages, the title of the article isn't "World History 500-1500," it's "Middle Ages".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The Middle Ages are one of 3 major time periods in the world.

The article is the Middle Ages ... it's about a historical period. Not a specific location.

This article is about history (must this be said again?) ... it's not about Europe alone. (History which includes topics such as the Mongols, Chinese, SE Asian muslims, Levant inhabitants, etc ...). I do agree that many uninformed people [and many general books] focus on Europe, but the subject is about history. Sad to see that the article has languished in it's state as long as it did.

As stated in the article, the "tripartite periodization became standard after the German historian Christoph Cellarius published Universal History Divided into an Ancient, Medieval, and New Period (1683)'.

Example of one of a good book (Public Domain) The world in the Middle Ages ...

--J. D. Redding 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend people read "Historiography: ancient, medieval, & modern" By Ernst Breisach ... --J. D. Redding 15:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters for this article, but I just looked at the link you just added and it seems to use the phrase to talk about European history. That's irrelevant because this article has always been about a period of European history, the first sentence of the first version was "Period in European History (see also History of Europe) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance." That's a specific location. If it had said "Middle Ages describes a period in a nation or region's history after the Iron Age" then you'd have a point, but it didn't and you dont'. When created and up until now there there was no suggestion (I believe) that it needed to be disambiguated. It's not a matter of being uninformed, it's a matter of being focussed. 17th and 19th century books don't change that. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No. You are wrong.

Quote "Ernst Breisach presents an effective, well-organized, and concise account of the development of historiography in Western culture".

It's a matter of being uninformed about history, and should not be a matter of being "focused" (on a POV ... see again Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). --J. D. Redding 15:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm always reluctant to quote Britannica in support of material here on Wikipedia—sourcing from "the opposition" can seem a bit of a lazy way to reference—but in this case it's apt, simple and direct: "...the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in the 5th century to the period of the Renaissance..."

--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with those asserting that mere chronology should not be confused with "history". No informative purpose is served by mushing together things that simply happened at the same time but had little or no cultural relation to each other. It's useful (some would argue vital) to include Islamic civilization, because European and Islamic cultures were engaged in active exchange during this period. But nothing is gained by looking at what Japan and China happen to be doing at the same time; readers are better served by being pointed to articles that deal with contemporaneous historical periods. "Medieval" is a cultural label that has a long history of connotation in English usage; to apply it outside the European sphere is to eurocentrically distort cultures that are distinct. It makes no more sense than to insist on including Meiji period in the article Victorian era. This article is not a segment of a timeline of world history. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There are "Medieval China" and "Medieval Japan" Books by scholars, though.--J. D. Redding 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., funny to think that the history reader/audience comes to the Middle Ages [a time in the world] and only find European history ... )

Which is irrelevant to this article, although not to articles about China and Japan. As I said, this article was always about European history (except for the blip).

@Old Moonraker - I agree, I don't like using encyclopedias except where absolutely necessary, but this is a clear succinct definition. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article ... but lets not let facts get in the way of truth. --J. D. Redding 02:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line is, this article is about the Western world. To insist on inserting information on (select areas of) the rest of the world would be to insert unnecessary Eurocentric periodization into world history. Reddi is literally the only editor supporting his idiosyncratic changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The point in contention is about universal history ... and historiography in Western culture. And since the tag to allow other to discuss this is removed, no one will be discussing this [though, might doesn't make right ... sorry] ... there is a Eurocentric bias here. In the long run, hope some will address this more ... I'll post some more sources later.

The addition of information about other areas in the time-period should, and will eventually, be included ... maybe after the guardians of 'European history' go elsewhere ... --J. D. Redding 02:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is guarding European history. No one is saying you can't create an article about something that this article is not about. We are saying that this particular article was created as an article about a specific geographical area - maybe it should have been called 'Middle Ages (European), but it is only because the need wasn't seen that that didn't happen. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are people guarding European history, here. Denial of what occurred here doesn't change what happened ...

The article was created as an article about a specific geographical area? Not really, it was created about the Middle Ages, a historical period which mainly is about European events but should also cover the rest of the event that took place in this time (ala, {{globalize}}). Though poorly written to begin with ... it could be improved, maybe a {{Cleanup-rewrite}} needs to be stuck on it ...

"Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved" ... this article was, and (due to the revert) is, in a poor state. This evolution cannot proceed if there are guardians reverting any change to improve the article.

'Middle Ages (European)'? Probably better European Middle Ages ... this article's content should be moved to that article point. And let general history be in the article here. But there is a lot of overlap in such concepts (which shouldn't be a problem if people accepted 'abundance and redundancy'). But I don't want to edit war with the guardians of 'European history' nor do I have the time ...

And, I don't have a lot of time right now, so back later ...--J. D. Redding 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the article can be improved, but Reddi's changes were not an improvement, regardless of his good intentions. They didn't reduce Eurocentric bias, they increased it by trying to force world history into Western periodization. And there were additional problems with them beyond just the issues of scope. --Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You make these generalizations ... but few specifics; add that with mass deletions ... and there is a cluster-f*ck ...

Better historians than are here have done the periodization, such as the writer of "The world in the Middle Ages" mentioned above ... I'll look up such writers, as those sources are much better than the ones here now, and add them to 'further reading' or 'external links'.

The issues of scope? Yea ... there is an issue of scope ... the Middle Ages is not about Europe alone! --J. D. Redding 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Medieval castle

Medieval castle

Just a Medieval castle I drew, based on the description in Pheby, J. A. (1995). What's that: The Oxford visual dictionary of nearly everything. New York: Tess Press. ... may be useful somewhere ... --J. D. Redding 02:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of photos of castles without the particular need for a computer generated image (unless it's a recreation of a particular castle that no longer exists or is now in ruins, that would be pretty cool. Have a look at the article on the Tower of London, or Bodiam Castle, how about Château Gaillard, or Alcázar of Segovia. How about any of the castles linked from Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd. Malbork Castle is quite impressive, there are some beautiful photos of Krak des Chevaliers, and I quite like aerial photographs. If you're going to illustrate an article with a castle you may as well use a real one. The image you uploaded isn't really the quintessential presentation of a castle; sure, you found moderately fortified buildings such as those but that's not what most people will think of when they hear the word "castle". That's more of a fortified manor house. Also the description is faulty: merlons are pictured (they're the solid bits of the battlements; the gaps are called crenels) and asserting that there was a dungeon under every keep is faulty. Generally the bottom floor of a keep was used for storage and other rooms used to hold prisoners on an ad hoc basis. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info ... and this is just the inner part of a castle (or the inner fortified manor house with keep tower). It's missing the outer wall and several other elements ... and I see about the merlons; I took the indication in the picture of the book as that, and it's really a embrasures. I'll be drawing on it and reupload. --J. D. Redding 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's supposed to be the inner ward, it really does need to say so. But to be honest, I'm not sure if it's worth the effort of redrawing. It's very difficult to present something that can represent castles in general as they had such varied forms. The examples I already listed are masonry structures that have survived to the present day, but in the 11th and 12th centuries most castles were earth and timber affairs. I think there are enough photos of differnt castles, with a range of periods and places, and their constituent parts that this kind of generic drawing isn't necessary. Nev1 (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add to it, I find it relaxing and fun ...

I do appreciate the feedback, though. And yes there are alot of media ... --J. D. Redding 15:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

European development

The maps "Europe in the 1430s" and "Europe in the 1470s" are wrong. Wallachia was vassal to the Ottoman Empire since 1415. The above maps should indicate their source or they should be deleted. My impression is that they were made-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

poo

there where no toilets so people had to poo in a bucket and throw it out of windows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.217.0 (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Science and rationality and the Church

The last paragraph under "Science and rationality" gives the impression that the Church was really an enlighter during this period and that the widespread concept of the dark ages didn't really exist. It sounds almost like a defensive speech and is not very encyclopedic. It is also a claim that should be sourced better than with one source from the "Faraday Institute for Science and Religion", especially since the subject has been extensively studied. I have added a dubious tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.154.152 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Iranian cultural sphere

There should be a specific section on the Iranian cultural sphere here: Iran: Samanids Bavand Dynasty Buyid Dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.113 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why mention Medieval only with Europe?

There is Medieval Japan, Korea, China... Medieval isn't *only* for Europe, as the previous post showed. There should be hints about the global world as well, and acknowledgment of that fact.--76.169.133.154 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the "Middle Ages outside Europe" section? It's quite long; did you notice it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please edit: 'slavish states'

Please edit the first sentence under the sub-heading 'The fall of East and central Europe'. In the final phrase, ' ... on the slavish states of the Balkans' please replace 'slavish' with 'slavic'.

Thanks.

202.124.75.126 (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, and well spotted. Actually the whole paragraph needs a copy-edit, but because the original addition (thanks, Wikiblame) was from an editor who seems to have specialist knowledge in this area I'm hanging back for a while, in the hope that someone better qualified will step forward. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Medieval Castles

The palace of Heidelberg, shown in the article, is not medieval, but after the Middle Ages (Heidelberg Castle). In German has "castle" two meanings: Burg (medieval) or Schloss (late Middle Ages and Modern History). The Schloss offers more comfort and representation, often without fortification, what was the main purpose of a Burg. Most of the castles on River Rhine are Schlösser and not Burgen, renovated in the 19. century. A better example would be: Medieval Castle (Burg) of Nuremberg. Ulrich Waack, historian M.A., Berlin --Ulrich Waack (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's true, Heidelber Castle was chosen because it was founded in the medieval period but it seems that the remains date largely from the after the Middle Ages. I opted to swap the image for one of Krak des Chevaliers because it retains its medieval character, it has a well-developed article, it is well-known and important, and the article gets plenty of traffic. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this article about the European Middle Ages or some universal history period?

Reddi has several times tried to change the focus of this article. If the focus is wrong, then presumably Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages shouldn't exist either or should change its focus. I've asked him to raise the issue here but he keeps posting about periodization to my talk page, which isn't helpful. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to Dougweller's last version, with the edit summary "Periodization gives excellent parallels for how "Middle Ages" is "European" - it's not WP:RS though..." – i.e., why point to Periodization? This article is clearly about Europe, just as Zhou Dynasty etc. are about other places. I don't see why the Middle Ages article can't make reference to "universal history", just not in the form in which Reddi has edited it – but, it seems almost too obvious to mention, so maybe just an inline citation, footnote or whatever? Nortonius (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Middle Ages" refers to Europe in everything I've ever read. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It refers to Europe but also some nearby places (North Africa and the Middle East). Sometimes you see "Medieval India" or "Medieval China" or "Medieval Japan" or something, but that usually just means those places at the same time period as medieval Europe. "Medieval" obviously has to refer to the middle period of the ancient-medieval-modern periodization scheme of European history. It's not a very good scheme, even for Europe, but oh well. Trying to use the term in a "universal" sense may seem like the inclusive, politically correct thing to do, but it's actually quite arrogant, as if we are denying other parts of the world had their own history. Does the Zhou Dynasty include whatever was going on in Europe at the time? Of course it is interesting to note what was happening in the rest of the world during any given time period, but let's not pretend there was actually a "medieval" period for the whole world. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Adam hits the nail on the head. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, that gets an "aye" from me. Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party, but Adam is correct. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To suppliment what Adam has said, I'd like to point out that "Medieval" does not always have an identical connotation to "Middle Ages". That is, while one can speak of "Medieval India" or "Medieval Japan" or "Medieval Ethiopia", to speak of "Ethiopia in the Middle Ages" only makes sense if one thinks of Ethiopian history at the same period of the European Middle Ages, from circa 450 to circa 1300. When someone uses the adjective "Medieval" to qualify a non-European culture, I understand the writer is contrasting the historical period or culture that existed before the modern one, when that country was subjected to European cultural & technological influence. For example, "Medieval Japan" refers to the period of the Shoganate, known for the samurai ethos, which began no earlier than the 8th century AD, & most likely closer to the 13th cnetury, while lasting well into the 19th century -- thus arguably not identical with "Japan in the Middle Ages". There is the same disharmony between "Medieval Ethiopia" -- which can be plausibly argued to have only come to an end with the Ethiopian Revolution which began in 1974 -- & "Ethiopia in the Middle Ages". (Incidentally, historians of Ethiopia do speak of a "Dark Ages" of Ethiopian history, which runs from circa 600 to 1270; this is a period when there are fewer than usual historical documents, just as in the case of the European Dark Ages.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Adam here. Medieval is a term of periodization that can be applied to any location, Middle Ages is almost exclusively an European periodization in history. I'd need to see overwhelming sources for a suddenly changed meaning to see much information added to this article on areas outside Europe and it's contiguous areas. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I'll probably be working on this article (and some sub-articles) some in the next few weeks as part of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. Mainly adding footnotes and general cleanup once the contest starts. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, when you get to this article ping me for some ideas. I'm a little surprised that the section on the "end of the Roman Empire" doesn't go into further detail (e.g., J.B. Bury wrote a well-known criticism over the assumption AD 476 marked the decisive moment of the "end" of the Roman Empire), though it might be best to rewrite that section as a summary with a pointer to a more appropriate article which discusses that construct. -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading (and re-reading) some of my more generalized sources in preparation - but I'd be glad to have some help with this. It's really a shame that this article is in such... interesting ... shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good news. Thanks everyone, I hope this is settled once and for all. It's not the first time we've had this problem and I'm hoping the editor will accept his change isn't appropriate.. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reddi is definitely wrong here, as he was last time he tried to alter the scope of these articles. "Universal history" is far too broad; simply put the "Middle Ages" is a Western construct, not a generic term for all of world history between 500 and 1500. I might suggest that "Western history" might be a better phrase than just "European history", for as Adam and others have said, other areas besides just Europe are included in discussions of the Middle Ages (especially the Islamic regions, and the Byzantine Empire was obviously not confined to "Europe" for most of its history). But at any rate, this is not the article for a complete discussion of world history.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)