Talk:Middle Ages

One side "caricatured" but the other "argued?" -- POV.

In Section "Modern perceptions" it is written: "The medieval period is frequently caricatured as a "time of ignorance and superstition..."" by "both the Renaissance and Enlightenment" scholars. The tone and unarticulated, unsupported POV there is: "See how comical the "Renaissance and Enlightenment" (the Age of Reason) (and heretical "humanistic") scholars were!" However the next (opposing, theocracy-leaning side) paragraph opens with: "Others argue that reason was generally held in high regard during the Middle Ages." ..."Argue," as in to suggest logical argument, overtly implying the unsupported POV: "In contrast; see how rational the medieval theocrats were in comparison?"

One might not gather from the text of the article that this section (and some of the main article) is really about religious polemics until one glances at the references, —and more so if tries to find a guiding line or theme among them. (What else have they written?)

Caricature is defined as: to represent something deliberately exaggerating to produce a comic, or grotesque effect. —Most other definitions include the word; "silly." However the text does not back that POV up, nor the controversial unsupported POV that the medieval period was NOT a relative "time of ignorance and superstition." I'll replace with more neutral terms.

The usage of "caricature" is again used similarly in a later section. Why? Because the hidden agenda is an impolite taboo: Religion. Should there be any doubt that the argument from the controversial theocratic-leaning debaters and POV (as seen for example in Talk, Dark Ages) is getting a free (one-sided) lunch here, consider the titles of these polemics, tracts, books, and lectures used extensively in the entire article and this section as references:

"Grant: God and Reason," " Encyclopedia of Religion,"

'Lindberg and Numbers "Beyond War and Peace" Church History,'

'Numbers: "Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective" Lecture archive."

Yet they argue that both Renaissance and modern "pagan" historians are spewing lies:

"Other misconceptions such as ...."the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", or "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy",

...are all cited by Numbers et al as examples of "widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research." Is that so? So the great Christian theocrat Justinian the Great did not ban science and philosophy as paganism in the year 529, "a date often cited as the end of Antiquity," and start of the Dark Ages? In fact this string of arguments is rather boiler plate among religious fundamentalists that feel insulted when their Age of Religion, their venerable 1000-year theocratic institution is called the Dark Ages by those today they call "Neo-Paganism." [1] An other (more overt, or out-of-the-closet) sample from a similar/same list of boiler plate arguments that are used here as wiki references; quote:

In their desire to convince the uninformed of the alleged persecutions of the Gentiles by the Christians, the Neo-Paganists have been propagating the HISTORICALLY FALSE information that Justinian had shut down the Athens Academy ....Furthermore, the accusations that are being utilized by Neo-Paganists in their attempt to slander Christianity....

Again, "some historians" with a controversial and polemic POV are being passed off as "most historians" with results that are not up to Wiki standards. It needs further cleanup and deletion of questionable POV references and their off-the-wall arguments. Just a general impression here, but it seems to me that those who are arguing to forget everything we always knew about the Dark Ages, have more than burden of proof to overcome.
"Faith is the effort to believe what your common sense tells you is not true." Elbert Hubbard
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Good heavens. No, it truly is most historians that avoid the use of "Dark Ages" - as it really wasn't. Witness the Irish monasteries, Bede, Isidore of Sevile, Alcuin, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"charicatured" could probably be "presented", though. Furius (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

One small error - kingdom or empire?

In "Collapse of Byzantium" is said: The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria and the city-state of Venice. The medieval Bulgarian state is Еmpire, not a kingdom. "Kingdom of Bulgaria" is the name of the Bulgarian state in 1908-1946 - Kingdom of Bulgaria. Here we talking about the medieval Bulgarian state - in this case for the Second Bulgarian Empire - Second Bulgarian Empire. The correct it must be: The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdom of Serbia, the Second Bulgarian Empire and the city-state of Venice.--Zheko Sousa (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Start of Middle Ages

In England, especially, the Middle Ages is sometimes (traditionally perhaps often) considered to start in 1000, or 1066, or even a bit later. Preceding the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages. Major dictionaries acknowledge this usage, some presenting it as an alternative narrower definition, and others as the main definition: [2], [3], [4],[5].

There are numerous instances of this use of the term Middle Ages or Medi(a)eval easily locatable on the Web. This is just a ragbag of the first few that came up: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] [12].

The Wikipedia article 1066 also agrees "In England this is the traditional end of the Dark Ages and the start of the Early Middle Ages".

Despite it being incontrovertibly true that this usage is well-known in England, my attempts to note it in the article are repeatedly reverted in a knee-jerk manner by people who obviously cannot even be bothered to check what they are doing. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't incontrovertibly true. The "Middle Ages" means different things in different places at different times, and the "start times" are fuzzy at best. The start date of any historical period is not an incontrovertible truth, it's a fuzzy definition about which there is a VERY broad and general sense of approximateness. Not the precision you want it to be. You will note that the Wikipedia entry on the Dark Ages (historiography) notes ". Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century)". The 11th century (i.e. Norman Conquest) is generally considered part of the High Middle Ages, which is noted well in here. So yes, the Dark Ages did end at the conquest, but the Dark Ages is an archaic term for the Early Middle Ages anyways, and this article and elsewhere already notes the distinctions between Early, High, and Late Middle Age periods. But you're going to lose your argument 100% of the time when you demand that your perspective is an incontrovertible truth. --Jayron32 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have totally misunderstood what I wrote. I said "incontrovertibly true that this usage is well-known in England", which it is. I did not say that this is an incontrovertibly correct definition to the exclusion of others, which it isn't. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't even incontrovertibly true for England. As noted, the phrase "dark ages" is an archaic term. It refers to what modern historians call the "early middle ages" which is, historiographically, the time between when the Roman Empire left an area and the Great Migrations of Germanic and Norse people started, and ended around the time when an area was first organized as a centralized nation state. So, for England the Early Middle Ages lasts from 409-1066 (if you want to be falsely precise) or from the 5th to the early 11th century. Which is when this article says the "early middle ages" (which is a synonym for "Dark Ages") lasted. The "High Middle Ages" is the time period between organization into a centralized nation-state until when the Black Death hits. So, it's even worse than saying you're wrong here. You aren't even wrong. This Wikipedia article already agrees with you, and you have nothing at all to complain about. --Jayron32 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered arguing with you when you obviously cannot understand something explained twice to you in plain English. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your web sites aren't showing that they don't see the middle ages as before that - I could show you lots and lots of book titles that start the middle ages in Britain before 1000 - what you're showing is that these sites chose to start their work on 1066. The architecture one starts with 1066 most likely because little pre-Norman architecture exists - yes, there is some, but the majority of medieval architecture in England dates from after 1066. The archives also - there aren't a lot of archival records dating from before 1066 (they exist, but not so much in the national archives). The BBC history site is breaking down history into periods - by that site, Middle Ages starts in 1154! (This is because they are breaking down the Middle Ages into the Vikings and Anglo-Saxon period, the Norman Period, a section they can't find a name for so they call it Middle Ages (1154-1485) and then Tudor - this doesn't mean that they don't think that the whole period from 500 or so on to 1485 isn't medieval). Nor is "lordsandladies.com" a really high quality source. No actual historian would argue that the term middle ages doesn't apply to anything in England before 1066 - its only non-historians who don't understand that the Anglo-Saxon period is a sub-period. Nor do any of your sources directly state that in England medieval period is considered to start in 1066 - you just are citing a 1938 non-historian, a dictionary, and a 96 page book designed for children. For every site like the above, there are plenty of historians who use the term for the whole period. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add a note that the narrower definition is not technically preferred by historians, that is absolutely fine. Denying that the usage exists and is moreover reasonably common is not. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's astonishing what stuff reputable publishers will put up on the web - Cambridge should be ashamed of themselves. I'm glad to see Oxford do rather better. But dictionaries and tv websites are not the sources we should be using. I will accept that that is a scary bunch of references (much better as to modern usage than what you tried to insert into the article), and maybe we should at least add a note on this now vulgar (in the strict sense) definition. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that even that much is undue weight here - we're not covering England in the Middle Ages, but the entire period throughout Europe. The only reason we discuss the 1485 end date for England is that we're discussing other terminal dates in other countries - there is more "play" in terminal dates than there is in beginning dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One sentence in a huge article explaining a well-known (even if lay) definition cannot possibly be seen as undue weight. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In which parallel universe did the Early Middle Ages in England begin in 1066? The rule of thumb is that the Early Middle Ages in England began with the departure of the Romans and ended in 1066: I was so gobsmacked to see such piffle on the 1066 page I felt moved to fix it. You're welcome. Nortonius (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(OP; Internet crashed so new IP.) I confess I did not really notice that it specifically said "Early Middle Ages". Even so, none of this alters that fact that, in England, and perhaps more in popular writing rather than (modern) academic writing, "the Middle Ages" is sometimes understood as beginning in 1000, or 1066, or thereabouts. All I want to do is put one freaking sentence in the article noting this correct fact, and I get nothing but a ton of grief, aggravation and wasted time. 86.160.216.243 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Popular writing" is also not known for it's academic rigor. We hope for a bit more. Among modern historians (people who actually matter), no one thinks the Middle Ages started in the 11th century. The term doesn't mean that. If other people misunderstand that and sometimes put that misunderstanding in writing, that isn't worthwhile to mention in Wikipedia, which strives to be a scholarly endeavour. --Jayron32 03:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that a note on the (once common) distinction between the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages is due. A good source would be Fred Robinson's paper "Medieval, the Middle Ages" in Speculum (1984). I've cited this paper before at Wikipedia, but I can't find where. Perhaps it was removed. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Note the last section of the article - Modern perceptions, along with a note to the Dark Ages article on the historiography of the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding about the IP's intentions: this isn't about what the Dark Ages were. There is a tradition—moribund today, but in any case not limited to English historiography—that treats the Middle Ages or the Medieval Period as beginning around 1000 (more on account of the "Feudal Revolution" than Hastings) and treats the period immediately preceding as the Dark Ages. Robinsons says, in the paper I cited, "[i]f we could rehabilitate [the term "Dark Ages"] ... then the Dark Age–Middle Age distinction might be worth reviving or retaining." The note that the IP proposes would exist solely to clarify that there was a tradition that restricted the term "Middle Ages" to the high and late periods and regarded the "Early Middle Ages" as not medieval at all. I think it's worth a note in the place the IP inserted it: within a discussion about when the Middle Ages begin. (Robinson's paper is online here.) Srnec (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See, now I think you're getting somewhere. A little equivocation can be a good thing, and noting the difference in terminology here among respected historians (even outdated ones) is probably OK. Still, we should not give the impression that the terminology is widespread among modern scholarship, but I can see how noting the change, over time, of what the term "Middle Ages" has meant (especially in light of the modern historiography being deliberate in avoiding normative terms like "dark" ages) to be a good idea. --Jayron32 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of section 1, including note B, needs to be expanded to explain more clearly the successive ideas of: a) all MA = DA; b) DA followed by MA from about 1000; c) EMA, HMA, LMA. At the moment b) is only in the note. At that point the now un-academic popular persistence in England of MA beginning c 1000, following DA or A-S, can be mentioned (and criticised, I'd say). While in this area, but now at the end, is "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science" really such a myth, talking about the Greek world? Something certainly did. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about this. The narrative in which Galen, Aristotle, Euclid and all were preserved only in the Islamic world is obviously incorrect. Medieval Byzantine and Armenian texts on scientific and mathematics aren't rare - they tend to mostly compile and make incremental advances, but then so do ancient scientists. Furius (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Bulgarian bias

Before some days I added a short information about the arcitecture of the Tarnovo Artistic School, because, according to many leading experts the architecture and painting of the Second Bulgarian Empire play a important role in the history of European art. But my contributions was deleted, because of "18:23, 31 March 2014‎ Hchc2009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (161,823 bytes) (-1,485)‎ . . (As previously, see the (long) talk page discussion on the weighting of this issue)" I see that in this Talk page is existing a dispute by ignoring of the history of Medieval Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire). Obviously the problem is that Tarnovo school is related to Bulgaria and the Second Bulgarian Empire. Why there is information about the Gothic and Romanesque style, but has no details about the Tarnovo style and architecture of the Balkans? The frescoes in Boyana Church is the starting point of Renaissance - it's the first realistic images in European art. I think that here exist a some form of Anti-Bulgarian bias. I think that some of the editors here are related to the anti-immigrant campaigns in the British medias and British politicians - populists, as Nigel Farage. They used a hatred against immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe (Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles, etc.) by their political goals - [13] . Ignoring the history of Bulgaria here is part of this sordid political campaign, especially now when forthcoming elections for European Parliament. --Ludogoro (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to say "The frescoes in Boyana Church is the starting point of Renaissance - it's the first realistic images in European art." is just nonsense, and I don't think even Bulgarian specialists don't actually make such claims. Actually looking at the 1259 images is the best way to disprove this. They show a movement towards realism in the sense of the representation of volume and everyday detail, but so do other works from various parts of Europe. That they or other Tarnovo School works had any influence on developments in Italy and further West has not been demonstrated. The work of the Tarnovo school is probably under-rated in western-European sources, where it is essentially seen as part of a classicising movement in late Byzantine art, but hyperbolic claims don't help. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "Western-European sources", which you say are biased, because of Anti-Bulgarian campaigns (about the British sources) or because they still don't understand that the Cold War ended before 25 years. The frescoes in the Boyana Church are the starting point of the Renaissance - say it many Bulgarian and foreign experts, some of which I quoted in the text. Read what the sources says! Even the British sources, although many of them are infected by anti-Bulgarian bias, recognize it. Look at this documentary film about Sofia - on 14:27 is the part by Boyana church, where is saying that the Renaissance became from Sofia - [14]--Ludogoro (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

He is no art historian, and appears to be commentating a film on behalf of the Bulgarian tourist authories, so is hardly a WP:RS. Google books searches on various phrases show this sort of talk is common in guide-books on Bulgaria, but almost entirely absent in art history books about the Renaissance, Medieval art or even Byzantine art. For example, the over 600 pages in Evans, Helen C. (ed.), Byzantium, Faith and Power (1261–1557), 2004, Metropolitan Museum of Art/Yale University Press, ISBN 1588391140 don't seem to mention Bulgarian painting at all, to judge by the index. White, John. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250 to 1400, London, Penguin Books, 1966, 2nd edn 1987 (now Yale History of Art series). ISBN 0140561285 is 680-odd pages, & has no index entry for Bulgaria. There are certainly nationalist factors in this disparity, but we need to ask ourselves on which side they are. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ludogoro, I'd urge you to read and consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks when making some of the statements above. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone. It is real, that these problems exist in British society, historiography and media. Read the sources, before to comment, please! Many experts says that Boyana frescoes have a big role in European Renaissance. It is not my opinion! I just say what this sources says. --Ludogoro (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm content to accept that you didn't mean to, Ludogoro, not least because I suspect that English is not your first language. When you write comments such as "I think that some of the editors here are related to the anti-immigrant campaigns in the British medias and British politicians - populists, as Nigel Farage. They used a hatred against immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe (Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles, etc.) by their political goals", however, then many, including myself, will feel that is an attack on the editors concerned. Please don't do so again - comment on the content of the article, not your opinion of the editors. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And in all honesty, most of the article was developed by myself, and I'm not British at all. Nor are my parents, grandparents or great-grandparents, so I could hardly be associated with a British nationalist party. So... you're a bit off base with those comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If this were an art history article I might possibly be inclined to agree with the inclusion of this, but in a general article about the "Middle Ages" it would be a totally UNDUE inclusion, even if every art historian in the world were agreed on it, which I strongly doubt that they are. You are conflating "the renaissance ... in art" with "the renaissance", which is understandable, and art played an important role, but it's such a minor detail it's not worth including in such a massive overview article. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Why in this case in the article is included this minor detail In Italy the innovations of Cimabue and Duccio, followed by the Trecento master Giotto (d. 1337), greatly increased the sophistication and status of panel painting and fresco.. The Boyana frescoes was created in 1259, when Giotto is still unborn. It must be added in the article. --Ludogoro (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ludogoro, in this case you are only partly right. It is true that the frescoes in the Boyana Church are the first realistic images in European art, but it belong to the proto- Renaissance. In Bulgarian art history has only Proto-Renaissance (or Early Renaissance), because the Renaissance development of the Balkan countries was terminated by the Ottoman conquest in 14-15 century (1396 about Bulgaria). Here User:Johnbod must to know that the theory about "Giotto - The First" is just a legend. Actually this theory is very old - it was founded in 1550 by Giorgio Vasari in Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. In some countries it is accepted as canonical and therefore some historians (especially British and American historians and experts, who do not know this kind of art, because they have no direct connection with it - in England has no proto -renaissance; the U.S. exist as a state from 1776) is not mention anything about the Tarnovo artistic School. Moreover Boyana murals are completely different and are not directly affected by Byzantine art. In fact, in 1259 when the images was created Byzantium does not exist (in the period from 1204 to 1261 Constantinople was under the rule of the Latin Empire). Boyana master is the first painter, who violate the canon and depicts his contemporaries - Kaloyan and Desislava who are rulers of Sofia (Sredets) and just like the Medicis were patrons of many artists and writers. Some experts like Ivan Duychev ("Medieval European art", 1979) believe that the Tarnovo artists are the creators of the Italian Renaissance, because many Bulgarian artists leave Bulgaria in 1285, because of Mongolo - Tatar invasions after the death of Emperor Georgi Terter. Moreover, after the establishment of the Latin Empire, Bulgarian culture comes into direct contact with the Catholic Europe and the ideas of Tarnovo Artists was spreading in Western Europe (Mavrodinov, "Medieval art"). In the 14th century many Italians from various city-states was studied in Tarnovo. Other experts say that the Bulgarian and Italian proto- Renaissance were developed independently.

P.S. This is my first comment in Wikipedia. If something in formatting is not correct, please to be excused. :)--Magnus Agripa (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, when you talking about nationalism, first look at this article. The main problem here is called pan-Germanism (in this case it included German, British and Dutch nationalism, as Germanic states). See the title that you have placed on the article for the Frankish Empire - "Carolingian Europe". It is the most used cliche by pan-Germanists. Because even in the time of Charlemagne, when the Frankish state stretching from Brittany to Poland, Europe is not Carolingian - at the beginning of the 9th century in Europe there are still three other great powers - Byzantium, Bulgaria and the Arabs in Spain. Moreover, the impact of the Franks was confined to the territories between Poland and Brittany and is very small compared to the Byzantine or Bulgarian influence, by the historian Peter Konstantinov in his "History of Bulgaria". The term "Carolingian Renaissance" is typical pan-Germanistic hyperbole according to Pancheva in her book "Theory of the literature" (ISBN:9545293497), which is cited above in the previous dispute. What Renaissance in the 9th century? According to the same book, the Franks not create literature in their own language - they use Latin, while in Byzantium and Bulgaria was making literature of own language (Greek and Bulgarian).

Other example: "Western society". What Western society in Middle ages? It is nonsense. The separation West-East is created during the time of Cold War. In Middle Ages has no communism, democracy, NATO or Warsaw Pact. Absolutely nonsenses!

At the same time the history of the Slavic countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Kievan Rus, Serbia) are completely ignored, and according to the article these states does not exist or exist in a some peripheral area (Typical about pan-Germanistic nationalism is the hatred against Slavic Europe). This is the main problem in this article. Cold War only exacerbated this problem. Can you explain what is the logic to have articles about Frankish State and Byzantine Empire, but to lack article about Bulgarian Empire? What is the logic to have articles about Gothic and Romanesque styles, but to lack the Byzantine, Preslav and Tarnovo style? Why in the article is detail proposed the history of France and England (100-years war, Joan of Arc and others), but lacking Serbia, Kievan Rus, Russian principalities or Hungary. Why is mentoined Joan of Arc, but is lacking the Uprising of Ivaylo

What is common between all allegations: All article (history, art, architecture) proposed only the history of Western Europe. There are two explanations - or the editors here believe that Europe is only the area between Atlantic Ocean and Germany, and to the east of Germany is located some other continent, or the article is affected by Western-European nationalism.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I just scanned through the article and while parts focus on Western Europe, in particular Francia, it contains extensive discussion of the Byzantine Empire. The Magyar invasion is mentioned, the Baltic crusades, the Seljuk Turks, developments in Poland.

While there seems to be some Western European bias in the parts discussing cultural and art history, your conclusion is strongly overdrawn and not very constructive. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If be mentoined also First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire, The Golden Age, Preslav and Tarnovo style, the Boyana frescoes (as is mentoined about Giotto), Kievan Rus, Serbia in 14th century and the creation of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts everything will be OK. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' is mentioned under Middle Ages#New kingdoms and a revived Byzantium, as is the first Bulgarian empire, although it's not specifically named as such. The section needs expansion and copyediting. I'm not in a position to judge art history. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire is the second Empire in medieval Europe after the Byzantine Empire and is one of the most powerful states in Medieval Europe. This empire is founded by Asparukh in 681 - 119 years before the coronation of Charlemagne. But in this article is mentoined only in two sentences. About Byzantium has 2 articles, about the Frankish state - 3. Pan-Germanism in Action! --Magnus Agripa (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If this article is so incredibly biased towards Britain, France & Germany, why are there no complaints from the Spanish, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Georgians, or the Armenians? Why is it just Bulgarians over and over again with different names, but identical arguments? Furius (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the whole discussion "Section about Bulgarian Empire" above in the talk page. The main problem of this article is that the sources you use are very local - only British and American experts, causing imbalance of the events. This is the main reason for the dominance of pan-Germanism and pro- British nationalism in this article. I see that some of the editors, which are defined by their opponents as Bulgarophobes show a willingness to change tis status quo, for example User:Hchc2009 said "I'd also be keen to see an Eastern European academic overview of the Middle Ages to compare the weighting against.". OK. Now these users have a chance to show that they are not a Bulgarophobes, as their opponents to blame them (perhaps unfairly or may be fairly), and respect all points of view, even those outside their home countries. See this one impartial history, describing events from the Paleolithic to the present day. The book is a work of Bulgarian and French historians, but it presents viewpoints of historians from 29 European countries, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and others. I see that above in the dispute "Section about Bulgarian Empire" User:Amandajm is posted the contents of the second book of the Middle Ages and 7th book of all encyclopedia. According to criticians this encyclopedia is unbiased overview of the most important events in world history and the most influential countries. There are Maya and Mesoamerican civilizations, Khmer Empire and Angkor, China, Japan, Mongol Empire, Central Asia. Look at the weight, which is given to Bulgarian Empire.

This is the book about the period 5 - 10 century "World History, part 6, Invaders and Empires", ISBN:9789548517515. On the cover is Bulgarian Emperor Simeon I The Great. - [15]. Here you even can see 4 pages of the book [16]. First Bulgarian Empire was identified as the most influential country in medieval Europe because it creates its own alphabet - Cyrillic and the ideas of Preslav school in literature, architecture and philosophy became standard for the cultures in Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans. For "the Carolingian Empire," as you call the state of the Franks, is said very small (pages 109-115). The history of the Bulgarian Empire was presented to 38 pages (221-259).

The 7th book "World history. The Awakening of Europe 1000-1250" is proposed in the previous dispute by User:Amandajm. Here is listing the contents of the book, - [17] , translated into English above, in "Section about Bulgarian Empire" by User:Amandajm. If you really want one unbiased overview about Middle Ages, let's see what you do now!--Magnus Agripa (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

10 days silence! Wow! Why nobody of Anti-Bulgarian editors comment the book, quoted by Magnus Agripa? This is a wonderful encyclopedia of the history of the world. Hchc2009, you are one, who wanted to see a other overview from "Eastern Europe". Well, now there is a book and it presents the facts in a different way. Let's see if what you say is honestly!

About the proto-renaissance in the Boyana Church, Magnus Agrippa is presented the facts excellent. Johnbod, look at this sources, which confirm that the Renaissance began from Sofia - http://www.europost.bg/article?id=535 (Renaissance began with the Boyana Church The realistic frescos were painted almost a decade before the birth of Giotto), http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g294452-d319548-r201351637-Boyana_Church-Sofia_Sofia_Region.html (The Boyana church hosts the paintings of the "Boyana master" - an unknown artisan who painted the saints on the church walls in a style much resembling the Renaissance style but several centuries earlier.), http://www.novinite.com/articles/110882/Bulgaria+to+Celebrate+750+Years+since+Painting+of+Boyana+Church+Frescoes (The Boyana Church frescoes date back to 1259 AD, and are known for their pre-Renaissance features.), http://trakia-tours.com/the-madara-rider-route-40.html (Murals from that period are the most impressing - more than 240 figures, made by an unknown artist and all of them are vivid, individual, with their own style and look, the first realistic paintings in Europe preceding the European Renaissance.), http://en.vvtours.com/bulgaria_places_of_interest_en/bg_boyana_church/index.html (The Boyana Church is situated near Sofia and is one of the cultural symbols of Bulgaria for it represents the significant contribution of the Bulgarian Fine arts to the European cultural tradition. It has preserved valuable frescoes dating from 1259 with high artistic value who are considered to be the predecessors of the European Renaissance.)--Ludogoro (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't commented this time around, Ludogoro, because I did previously when it was first mentioned - see the discussion in the archives. Please stop with the "anti-Bulgarian editor" line, however; I've explained before that that sort of language is unpleasant. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Referencing tripadvisor won't convince anyone. I realize a number of more specialist works by Bulgarian authors make such claims, but despite requests no English-language ones doing so have yet been produced. Is it just bulgarian art historians who believe this? Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Find this book - http://biblio.bg/Bulgaria-History-and-Culture/%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80/9789548747196-34270?type=2#. This is encyclopedia of UNESCO and is British. And confirm this theory.--Ludogoro (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not in World Cat or Amazon by that name or by it's ISBN - and using Google Translate on that page doesn't give a publisher or even an author - just that it's catagorized as a "photography album" - and it sure looks like a tourist guidebook to me. THis isn't a high quality source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the problem here to mention on 2 - 3 lines about the Boyana Painter, as about Giotto. The sources are the academic books, proposed by me above. As I said the theory "Giotto - the first" is too old (Vazari, 1550) and is not seriously to be considered reliable in 2014. Obviously the English historiography is too conservative or just you can not find the necessary sources. I don't understand what User:Johnbod want to say with him last comment. What does the nationality of the experts here? If someone didn't know the Boyana Church is located in Bulgaria and it is normal the most studies to be work of Bulgarian experts. I guess that most studies of the Wars of the Roses are English or the sources about Géza I of Hungary are mostly Hungarian. To paraphrase Umberto Eco, I would say that I do not have to wait for an English genius to find something, which in Bulgaria even the kids knows. I agree that there are different theories and I respect the other POVs. You can to proposed the two theories, as about the periodisation: Quote: "English historians often use the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to mark the end of the period. For Spain, dates commonly used are the death of King Ferdinand II in 1516, the death of Queen Isabella I of Castile in 1504, or the conquest of Granada in 1492.". For example: "Other experts believe that the first realistic images are created in 1259 by the painters of Tarnovo Artistic School in Boyana Church" or something similar. Let see the 2 different POVs. It is fair for all.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Giotto claim isn't sourced to Vasari - it's sourced to a 2002 work. It's still undue weight to give this sort of claim in this very broad overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A Bulgarian source on Bulgarian material is great in general, but when the source is making claims which are claimed to have pan-European significance, it is reasonable to expect corroboration in English, French, Italian, or German scholarship. Surely if Bulgaria was heavily influencing these countries, at least some of their scholars will have noticed the impacts? Furius (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

German source, which confirm that - Gerhard Ecker: Bulgarien. Kunstdenkmäler aus vier Jahrtausenden von den Thrakern bis zur Gegenwart. DuMont Buchverlag, Köln, 1984, S. 22-23. Other German source - [18] with film - [19]. As a whole in the Western-European historiography has little evidence for this theory, probably because of the Cold War. There was a book from the 1990s of Japanese art expert - type of overview of European art, but it is difficult to find. Eventually the next week I will search it. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Furius, your last comment provoked me to ask you why in this article are cited only sources from English-speaking countries? In world history that I quoted above (and other editors before me in old disputes) is not given such a weight on the Carolingian Empire and England as here. In this article has a whole novel about Charlemagne, but Bulgarian Empire, Serbia, Kievan Rus and some other countries from Eastern and Central Europe are missing?--Magnus Agripa (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of the Bulgarian Empire, Serbia, the Kievan Rus, and other Central European countries. The claim that they are "missing" here is quite simply false. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Magnus, I'm not convinced by the TV programme as a RS, but I'm interested in the book on the monuments. What sort of background does Gerhard Ecker have, and what does he actually say? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is not what one or two non-Bulgarian sources of any repectability may say (though precious little has been produced), but the complete absence of this line in the standard large specialist books, several referred to above (here's another: Frederick Hartt's hefty Italian Renaissance Art, whose index has nothing on Bulgaria). Paul Johnson's History of Painting (I think it's called) has half a sentence on Boyana etc, but makes nothing like these large claims. Johnbod (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Mind you, it is worth collecting such references, as there are other articles where they could usefully be used - eg Boyana Church, which has rather weak refs currently, though UNESCO is included. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The article indeed concentrates on the western borderlands of Europe such as France, England, Ireland, etc. Systemic bias is impossible to deny. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, can you explain me why you always proposed a sources, when the word "Bulgaria" is lacking? This is not very helpful for the discussion. I do not support the extreme reactions of User:Ludogoro here, but I begin to think that you have a more specific opinion about Bulgaria.

In the book of Eckert - [20], one of the few "Western sources", as you say, which write impartially about the Boyana Church during the Cold War time, on page 22-23 is saying that the images of Boyana master in the church "St. Panteleimon and Nicholas" near Sofia, are the first realistic images in European art. The Boyana Painter is the first, who violate the canon and depicts his contemporaries - Sebastocrator Kaloyan and his wife Desislava, the rulers of Sofia during the middle of 13th century, the Bulgarian Emperor Konstantin Tikh and Empress Irina. The frescoes have a unique individuality and psychological insight and are the best preserved images of the Bulgarian Proto-Renaissance. German expert.

About the lacks in English language large specialist books, in one previous dispute - about the Bulgarian Empire (Hchc2009, I see the discussion in the archives!) is proposed article of the historian Petar Konstantinov, obviously published in the scientific journal "Istoriya" of BAS in 2006: "The truth is that specialists in Western Europe and the United States know very small about the Balkans and Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, when the East and the West was competed to conquer space , the battle was not only the field of technology and innovation. After 1950 the history of Eastern Europe was completely hidden from the history books and encyclopedias in Western Europe and the USA. For Bulgarian readers this seems inexplicable. Why? While the communist regimes impose a ideological censorship, to the west the major censorship principle was "Damnatio memorie". This method is used by the pharaohs in ancient Egypt - the new Pharaoh destroyed all images and works of the previous Pharaoh. So by the hate predecessor has not a trace of his reign, as if he never existed. Even before the rise of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe and the Balkans were little known by Western Europeans and Americans. Under normal circumstances, today these gaps would be filled. But the tension of the Cold War changed the expectations." Interesting theory, which is giving the answer to your wonderment.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What does Eckert actually say, Magnus, in the original German? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the text about Boyana Church in German language, as is in the original. Pages: 22-23

Gerhard Ecker: Bulgarien. Kunstdenkmäler aus vier Jahrtausenden von den Thrakern bis zur Gegenwart. DuMont Buchverlag, Köln, 1984

Page 22:

Die Bojana-Kirche verdankt ihren Weltruhm vor allem den Wandmalereien von 1259, die eine außerordentliche Leistung der mittelalterlichen Kultur Bulgariens sind. Der regionale Feudalherrscher Sebastokrator Kalojan ließ im 13. Jh. die alte Kapelle vergrößern, indem er eine zweistöckige Kirche anfügen ließ. Geschickt wurden beide Gotteshäuser miteinander verbunden, Zeugnis für den Respekt des Stifters für die vorhergehenden Traditionen. Wie eine Inschrift belegt, wurde das Gotteshaus vollständig ausgemalt und geweiht. Und vor allem diese Wandmalereien sind es, die die außerordentliche kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Kirche von Bojana begründen. Sie entstand im Jahr 1259. Der Meister, der die prachtvollen Fresken gestaltete, ist leider Unbekannt, war aber vermutlich von der Tanover Schule. Seine Fresken, die Zar Ivan Konstantin Tich-Assen und dessen Ehefrau, sowie auch den Auftraggeber, Sebastokrator Kalojan und dessen Frau Desislava abbilden, wie auch viele andere Motive, weisen zum ersten Mal einzelne Stilelemente der Renaissance auf, 200 Jahre bevor dies in Westeuropa der Fall war.

Page 23:

Doch den Meistern von Bojana war es gelungen, die vorherrschenden traditionellen Formen aufzubrechen und ihre Figuren mit einem Maß an Individualität und Gegenwärtigkeit auszustatten, wie es erst sehr viel später in der Renaissance entwickelt wurde. Die biblischen Gestalten und Heiligen, die das Gros der dargestellten Personen bilden, bringen in ihren Gesten und individualisierten Gesichtszügen ein Maß an Bewegung und Bewegtheit jenseits des traditionellen Kanons zum Ausdruck, das auf eine Periode des Umbruchs hindeutet. Die dargestellten Szenen aus dem Leben Jesu und der Heiligen, unter ihnen zahlreiche „Kriegerheilige“, wurden genutzt, um allgemeine menschliche Regungen sowie die damalige Zeit betreffende Gefühle und Gedanken zu formulieren.

Man kann guten Gewissens behaupten, dass der unbekannte Ikonograph, der sein Talent an den Wänden der Kirche von Bojana verewigt hat, ein Vorläufer der Renaissance in Europa war.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magnus. I'm not seeing in this where it supports the claim about realist art, though, just that the art contains "a degree of individuality and presence". My German's not great, though. What's Ecker's background? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On page 23 is saying: "18 Szenen im Narthex stellen das Leben des heiligen Nikolaus dar. Andere zeigen Alltagsszenen der damaligen Zeit. Auf den Wänden finden sich Darstellungen von 240 Menschen in 89 verschiedenen Szenen. Die Wandmalereien besitzen außerordentliche künstlerische Qualitäten, die Technik ist vollkommen, kompliziert und realistisch." Actually my German is like your German. And like my English :) Is there an English-language source to criticize or to refute this theory? For now, I see only sources in which this information is missing--Magnus Agripa (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your German has to be better than mine...! ;) That does note that the painting technique is realistic (I'm assuming that the adjective realistisch equates easily to the German art term Realist), but that's not quite the same as stating that these are the first realist images in Europe/the world. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Realistisch" like realistic. I do not mean the Realist movement, which began in the mid-19th century as a reaction to Romanticism.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)