Talk:Early Middle Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article nominee Early Middle Ages was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

No armor?[edit]

There is a sentence concerning the equipment of the Romans in Adrianople which asserts that most of the legionnaires "wore little if any armor."

Though it is cited, the sentence seems to be in direct conflict with historical written and artistic sources. These point to the existence of fabricae, state-run factories, in the 4th century, which mass-produced metal armor for the Roman armed forces. The legions in the Battle of Strasbourg (357), which took place only twenty years before Adrianople, under Emperor Julian are described - here in Wikipedia - as "[wearing] metal body armour (mainly chain mail)." The article for the Battle of Adrianople itself describes the Romans as encumbered by the burden of their armor.

May we be rid of this sentence, which misrepresents the strength of the Romans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's cited it can stay in, unless there's a problem with the source or you find something else that directly contradicts it.--Cúchullain t/c 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Directly from Wikipedia's article on the Battle of Adrianople: "The Romans retreated to the base of the hill where they were unable to maneuver, encumbered by their heavy armor and long shields..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic learning, Science, etc. This terminology is misleading. Many, if not most, of the knowledge came from non-Muslims under Islamic rule (the given example of Khwarizmi, arguably a Mazdaist). Furthermore, it is not evident to what extent science in Baghdad has to do with Islam. This should be changed. (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Start in AD 300?[edit]

Cantor defines "Medieval history" as 300 to 1500. He doesn't say anything specifically about EMA. I interpret this not as a general definition, but rather as an explanation of what period he covers in his book. Numerous references define the Middle Ages as beginning with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 (or possibly 410). So I think Cantor is an outliner on this. Kauffner (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See the main Middle Ages#Age division labels Article. --J. D. Redding 18:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There's also the problem of the addition of the unsourced East Asian sections in an article on the Early Middle Ages. Since they were added without discussion, I plan on removing at least the unsourced material and restoring the previous version of the introduction.Cúchullain t/c 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove material, Cúchullain. If there is a issue, please list a 'citation needed'. --J. D. Redding 18:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd do that would if that were the only issue with the material. However, there's also the issue of why material on east Asia is appropriate for an article on the Middle Ages.Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
{{globalize}}. --J. D. Redding 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., the Asian Middle Ages (ie., "Asia during the Middle Ages") should be included.)

July 2011[edit]

In the spirit of BRD, I've reverted part of the material added and altered by Reddi over the past several weeks. Specifically, I reverted the addition of unsourced material on Eastern Asia and the changes to the introduction that fundamentally alter the scope of the article. I've left in other cited material added by Reddi as well as the expansion of material on the Middle East and Islamic Empire.
Regarding East Asia, basically, most treatments of the Early Middle Ages do not include discussion of East Asia (except where it relates to Western history). Increasingly, they do include the Middle East and Islamic Empires, but still, the periodization is a Western construct. The article isn't titled "World History 500-1000".
Additionally, as indicated by another user, the change in the scope of the dating of the EMA to the 3rd century is not common. Different historians use different dates, but 5th century dates are far and away the most common. This issue can potentially be brought up in the text, but it doesn't need to be in the intro.
As such I believe that these changes, introduced in dozens of minor edits largely without edit summaries and with no prior discussion, are not a net benefit to the article. I've reverted them pending discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuchullain' Edit in question removed entire section ... --J. D. Redding 20:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the material. Your actions verge on vandalism (removal and change of content in a _deliberate_ attempt to compromise the _integrity_ of Wikipedia.), IMHO.
The 300s is the most inclusive (earliest) date. It was cited
Read up on Asian Middle Ages (ie., "Asia during the Middle Ages").
If you cannot _show_ how this is not a net benefit to the article, I will restore to the more abundant and redundant version.
As a side note, I do think an editor that would do such an edit wouldn't have any historical training. I am not a PhD, but I do have a degree in it. This material should be here. And it's in reference books by scholars! --J. D. Redding 20:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
This is about the Middle Ages) ... a period of time (Periodization of time.
Other books that can be accessed via google books.
China "Middle Ages"
"early medieval Japan"
Example books ...
medieval Japan, Daily Life in Medieval Times By Barbara Brooks Simons
Medieval Japan: essays in institutional history By John Whitney Hall, Jeffrey P. Mass
The mikado's empire By William Elliot Griffis
The only point that could be made is that the Japanese material is dubious ... but it should be here in the early middle ages; it's the _'classical'_ medieval japan (Imperial). The high middle ages and the Late middle ages cover more of 'Medieval Japan' (Feudal).
--J. D. Redding 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (slightly irratated by this whole thing ... )

(edit conflict)Sorry, the burden of evidence is on you to defend your challenged material. My revert was done in the spirit of BRD, please don't take it personally. Additionally, don't imply that edits are vandalism when they're not, such things don't make for a very collegial editing environment. And I shouldn't have to tell you that appeals to authority don't count a whit here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructively, Britannica defines the "Middle Ages" specifically as a period of European history.[1][2] On High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages, I see that you're the one who added the East Asia material, again without any discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I did because that is where the material belongs. (facepalm).
PLEASE answer ... have you even tried to look at any of the links I provided in this discussion to external books? --J. D. Redding 22:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., Encyclopædia Britannica has errors)

(edit conflict)
The burden of evidence for the material has been shown. Read "appeals to authority" is the reliable sources ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources again.
You removed material with a reliable source that directly supports it (eg., the 300s thing)
You _did not_ challenge anything. You just deleted it. I asked you to {{cite}} the particular points. ... such actions do not fit a collegial editing environment. (... the WP:BURDEN even states "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." =-| ...) [you only remove unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article _if_ it might damage the reputation of _living people_]
And vandalism has occurred IF it fits the description. (Do note, I am not calling you a vandal ... ) ... as I believe that good-faith is involved here to some extent, I stated that it _verges on_ ...
Also, ... maybe you should also read Try to fix problems (which includes 'requesting a citation by adding the {{cn}} tag'!)
--J. D. Redding 22:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are some definitions:
Britannica: "Middle Ages: the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in the 5th century AD to the period of the Renaissance"
Merriam-Webster: Middle Ages n pl (1616) : the period of European history from about a.d. 500 to about 1500
Columbia Encyclopedia: Middle Ages, period in Western European history that followed the disintegration of the West Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th cent. and lasted into the 15th cent., i.e., into the period of the Renaissance.
More important than the formal definitions is the practical one: If you look at a book with a title that refers to "Middle Ages", "Medieval history" or "Early Middle Ages", but is not qualified geographically, what area does it cover? The Middle Ages (2001) by Morris Bishop has seven mentions of China, but only in the context of Marco Polo and such other interactions with Europe. Japan is mentioned only once. If book-length treatments barely mention these areas, you can't justify having entire sections on them in an article-length treatment. Kauffner (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the page before the removal ... the length of the sections fits books that can be accessed via google books. (specific book-length treatments cover this topic ... see China "Middle Ages" and "early medieval Japan") ...
And, is wikipedia suppose to ignore {{globalize}}? --J. D. Redding 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the few sources you did add, Cantor's The Civalization of the Middle Ages, does not have sections for East Asia. China is mentioned on a total of 4 pages, exclusively in ways that refer back to the West.[3] I also seriously doubt the scope of your "globalization" here. Why add Japan and China, but not Australia, Oceanea, and the Americas? Again, this isn't titled "World History 500-1000".--Cúchullain t/c 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reddi, don't you have some topic where you can contribute usefully? Because you are certainly unable to in articles about history. This has gone on for years. I do not feel editors are compelled to be held up with "contributions" of the kind of "And, is wikipedia suppose to ignore {{globalize}}". People have been more than patient, but at some point we will all need to face the fact that you simply do not have the first idea about the topics you insist on editing. Do we need an article or section on medieval Asia? Perhaps, but one thing is certain, Reddi isn't the person we have been waiting for to write it. Do we need an article on "early medieval Asia"? No. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I just noted Reddi has also butchered the entire, long-standing, well-developed Middle Ages article. I simply don't have the patience for this kind of prancing around these days. Reddi, you like timelines, yes? Then go and edit "timeline" articles instead of creating havoc in articles that have been written by grown-up editors who knew their stuff. Nobody will give you grief if you just insert your "Far Eastern timeline" of the Middle Ages in Timeline of the Middle Ages. Also note the huge gap in Timeline of Japanese history (no entries between 794 and 1560). You can work on that and everyone will win. You won't get frustrated by being reverted, and everyone else will be saved from exasperation. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So, destroy the information. This is incredibly screwed up. After your personal comments (direct and indirect) about me, you can go screw yourself. --J. D. Redding 13:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., if the articles were written by editors who knew their stuff then the articles would not be in such a poor conditions)
Thanks dab. I support reverting Reddi's similar changes to the other medieval articles as well.--Cúchullain t/c 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

well, discuss the edits not the editors, I suppose. If someone's edits are crap, they will need to put up with being told that they are crap. I am not sure about niceties like "go screw yourself", I think these have a tendency on falling back on those throwing them around. But of course Reddi is going to be frustrated over being reverted. But, for the love of god, what is it going to take? It has literally been years, and this user keeps butchering history articles with what appears to be complete innocence, and complete imperviousness to advice or criticism. It has become very clear, over numerous years, that Reddi isn't going to be capable of doing anything useful on Wikipedia, while being very capable of annoying people and creating janitorial work. If other people want to babysit him, have fun, but any time you want to submit a community ban proposal for this guy, just let me know where to sign. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I support Cúchullain's removal of this material. While there are various possible definitions of the term "Early Middle Ages" as regards both time and place, what our article covers should reflect what has been determined by consensus, and preferably reflect the most common definition in the largest number of good RSs. The old (pre-Reddi) version I believe did both, and his version neither. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • frankly, I have stopped even giving Reddi's contributions any close consideration. This character has been busy with his childish interpretation of {{globalize}} for years. He is like king Midas, except that every article he touches turns into crap. Good editors like Cuchullain or Johnbod, or any editor with some basic grasp of historiography and encyclopedic writing, could indeed improve the "Middle Ages" or "Early Modern period" articles by adding WP:DUE consideration of these terms outside the European sphere. There are a number of possible ways to approach this, but all of them would require that you understand the issues involved. Cuchullain after all these years still has the kindness to give pointers to Reddi on how he could make intelligent use of his own sources ("China is mentioned on a total of 4 pages, exclusively in ways that refer back to the West"). This is the kind, WP:BITE way to treat bad editors, of course. But while I always take care to take this approach with new editors who clearly edit in good faith but with blatant lack of expertise, I do believe that Wikipedians are not required to put up with long-term editors who simply Refuse To Get It. Reddi has for years made painfully clear that he does not get it, or want to get it, and keeps insisting that shouting "globalize" is all he needs to do to bulldoze a perfectly good article with his random worldwide timelines. I have nothing against timelines. Let him create timelines to his heart's content. But please not on pages that were edited by grown-up editors who actually knew about the complexities of the topic under discussion. Let him compile his "early medieval" timelines on pages that are actually intended as timelines, such as 7th_century#Events. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I've missed all this. I wish Reddi would avoid all history articles, he doesn't improve them. He messed up Roman roads for instance - to quote what I say on the talk page there, " Far too much reliance on an 1890 dictionary (cited 50 times) a Cyclopedia of American Horticulture dating 1900, etc - about references dating no later than 1902, about 8 modern ones". Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd support an RfCU by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was more than a little surprised to learn that these changes were made by someone who had been editing Wikipedia for eight years. I was even more surprised by that fact after seeing the way he's comported himself on the talk pages. I too would support an RfCU.--Cúchullain t/c 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup link on front page[edit]

I've rearranged the photos on the page, and I think the removal of the cleanup logo can be taken off. The only one that is troubling are the photos of Charlemagne. I was to remove one of the two photos, but I think the page looks better now. I apologize in advance if I made any mistakes. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Freeman[edit]

Citation 30 quotes the publicist blurb on the back of Freeman's book. This is sloppy. A direct quote from within the text is more appropriate. I don't know Freeman's book well-enough to do this. Perhaps someone here does. The claim itself is rather contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcungur (talkcontribs) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Late antiquity[edit]

This article does not seem to address in the lead or elsewhere the idea of Late antiquity which that article says lasts until the 8th C according to some scholars? Philafrenzy (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The start of that article was misleading, which I've just edited. Perhaps Brown's rather minority view is still not the thing to start the article with. Nobody thinks Sutton Hoo (620s) is "Late Antique", nor even Italy in the 8th century. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)