Talk:Neo-medievalism

Renovation

I renovated the entire article. In the process I dropped some good material, noted here:

According to those who use this phrase, the forces of globalization and the emergence of international institutions lend weight to this interpretation. Though a conspicuously 'medieval' order does not exist, certain political trends point toward future power fragmentations that are reminiscent of arrangements prior to the rise of the nation state. The European Union for example, has eroded the traditional concept of state sovereignty amongst its member states, which do not have exclusive, sovereign authority within their countries or over their citizens. European law, for example, regulates certain activities of national governments and individuals, but it is not ascendant over the laws of national governments. Power is dispersed between local, national and international institutions, none of which are the sole arbiter of political authority. In a neo-medieval structure the state remains strong, but it is just one of several tiers of governance. It is therefore not the sole arbiter of political authority and no single authority commands the exclusive loyalty of the individual.

The reason is there is no attribution to these views. Since the term is so "slippery" and changes so radically depending on who uses it, the only rational way to approach it is provide a name and work on whose views these are. -- Stbalbach 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Shaneland source

Regarding this text:

Some theorists see the forces of globalization and the emergence of international institutions acting to restore a more "medieval" system of overlapping political authority systems. Though a conspicuously 'medieval' order does not exist, certain political trends point toward future power fragmentations that are reminiscent of arrangements prior to the rise of the nation state. The European Union, for example, has eroded the traditional concept of state sovereignty amongst its member states, which do not have exclusive, sovereign authority within their countries or over their citizens. European law regulates certain activities of national governments and individuals, but it is not ascendant over the laws of national governments. Power is dispersed between local, national and international institutions, none of which are the sole arbiter of political authority. In a neo-medieval structure the state remains strong, but it is just one of several tiers of governance. It is therefore not the sole arbiter of political authority and no single authority commands the exclusive loyalty of the individual.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shaneland.co.uk/academic/ma/globalisationessay1.pdf|title=Globalisation and Governance, Essay One|publisher=Shaneland.co.uk|accessdate=2006-12-17}}</ref>

Couple problems:

1. The source provided isn't really a source about neomedievialsm, more a general source on globalization that mentions neomedievalism.
2. The source has no information on who wrote it. It's difficult to tell if this is an academic paper, a anti-globalization paper, etc.. who wrote this, what is their affiliation? When was it written? Where? Why is this paper notable, is it cited by other people? I couldn't find many references to it as being an important paper in the discourse of neomedievalism.

Basically what is written above sounds like a general description of what neomedievalism is - but its not attributed to anyone. Since neomedievalism is such a "slipper" topic with so many POV's on how to define it, we really need to cite who said it and what their POV and affiliation is, like the other authors and papers mentioned, preferably by well known and notable authors on the subject. -- Stbalbach 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok thanks for citing the name Shane Martin Coughlan, as grad student. Although it is still unclear why a grad student is a notable source - indeed, the source looks self-published - where has it been published? Also, what is his point, how and why is what he says notable? He doesn't really seem to be saying anything different. The other commentators take a new tract on it, which is why they are mentioned. -- Stbalbach 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we cite a masters student in international studies? His essay strikes me as better written, better organized, better argued and better sourced than a lot of the stuff produced by tenured professors. I don't see how the other commentators offer any deeper or more interesting insights. For instance, Holsinger only seems interested in taking a politically motivated swipe at neoconservatives, which is at best tangentially related to the subject of the article. If anybody should get the heave-ho from the article, it would be him. Just because Holsinger has more impressive credentials doesn't make his politicking any more interesting than Coughlan's much more neutral analysis of possible trends towards a more "medieval" system of overlapping authority systems. Casey Abell 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I boldly merged the largely identical material at New Medievalism to this page. Alarichall (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-medievalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819130502/http://oscar.virginia.edu/researchnews/x8476.xml to http://oscar.virginia.edu/researchnews/x8476.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Two articles

"Neo-medievalism (or neomedievalism, new medievalism) is a term with a long history[1] that has acquired specific technical senses in two branches of scholarship." So right off the bat, we're actually talking about two different things. This article was a bit of a difficult read for me since I know nothing of the subject. But it seems that the first definition is about anti-globalization, while the second definiton seems to be a critique of the high fantasy genre. I came to this article looking for a style of fashion based on Medieval clothing. Which is something I found referenced in the Medievalism article. That article also links to this article, for the second definition.

I think that the two definitions discussed within this article need to be separate articles. The anti-globalization with the hopes of creating a more medieval society seems, from what I can tell, closer to neo-feudalism than anything else. If it isn't, please explain it to me. The common ground between the two can be mentioned within those articles, not as a way to combine two different concepts together. I also think this study of the high fantasy/historical genre should be added to Medievalism. I know little about these topics and, like I said, it was a hard read. I'd probably make a big mistake trying to separate the two. Wacape (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Rather than merge the 'high fantasy neo-medievalism' with another article, maybe it would be best to have two articles, named something like 'Neo-medievalism (political theory)' and 'Neo-medievalism (popular culture)'? That said, the two articles would need some cross-references, as the two senses of the term have cross-pollinated in interesting ways in scholarship. How do those titles sound? Alarichall (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The article states "some work sees the two conceptions of neomedievalism as overlapping in illuminating ways" - trying to separate them would create less understanding and more confusion. For example, it was proposed that the new article be called 'Neo-medievalism (popular culture)' but popular culture isn't specially what this article is about. The word neo-medievalism just means "new medievalism" and is often associated with popular culture appropriations of medieval tropes, which is covered in the article medievalism. That article says "medievalism and neomedievalism tend to be used interchangeably". So on Wikipedia Neomedievalism is the more narrow academic and difficult conception, medievalism for the broader sense you were probably looking for. Medievalism leads to Middle Ages in popular culture and Historical_reenactment#Clothing_and_equipment. -- GreenC 21:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, but "some work sees the two conceptions of neomedievalism as overlapping in illuminating ways" sounds biased. Peacock or a weasel phrase? If you break it down "some work" indicates not everyone. Not everyone thinks that these conceptions overlap. Then it confesses itself to be two different topics as "two conceptions". "Illumination" seems to be an opinion. These articles should be separated. I agree with Alarichall's proposal. Wacape (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for multiple POVs it doesn't require that the entire world agree with something, that is why it is correctly framed as "some". The sources support the statement, even if you don't think it sounds right. I have a long list of policy, guideline and common-sense reasons not to split. Would you like to see them? -- GreenC 05:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The article actually starts by explaining that it is about two different topics. That seems sufficient reason to split it (or to remove mention of one of the topics, if it is not in itself notable). Maproom (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. What the article says: "partly separate traditions". As for deleting material see policy WP:PRESERVE. -- GreenC 00:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the lead, it's about two topics, which some see as overlapping. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The concepts are related and separating them creates a host of problems not to mention a POV fork. -- GreenC 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC Split or Keep?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a weak consensus to split the article. Given the policy concerns raised, and the differing opinions offered among those favoring the split there is no conesnsus about how a split should occur. More discussion should be held before any split is performed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Does this article discuss two different things and require a split, or are these two topics relevant enough to stay in one article?Wacape (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Keep. The purpose of this article is to give a historiography of the concept 'neomedievalism' how it has evolved, been studied and defined. It is about the term. It provides multiple POVs on the term, as Wikipedia is designed.

Splitting would create complications:

1. The medieval studies version would overlap with medievalism creating a content split. Medievalism and neomedievalism are often used to mean the same thing, within the sphere of medieval studies.
2. Splitting would be a POV fork, trying to fork off the political stuff so it doesn't interfere with the medieval studies stuff is a kind of bias. As sources show they can't be so easily separated.
3. Where would neomedievalism redirect, which gets priority: political theory or medieval studies and why? How would these separate articles discuss the overlapping history of one another (which are not totally separate) - since they discuss one another, and have the same name, wouldn't someone else then logically propose merging them again.
4. Splitting creates a lot of complications but what does it solve, other than making the history of the term less coherent. We need a single space to discuss the history and meanings of the term. Wikipedia articles contain multiple POVs. -- GreenC 03:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Separate. Two articles would work better. Markewilliams (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Except for the policy and guideline issues raised above. -- GreenC 17:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Separate(Summoned by bot) As written, the article is split into two sections, one on the political term and the other on term as used by medieval studies, which focuses on the revival of interest in medieval aesthetics in 20th/21st century society. As of the current revision, it doesn't appear that the political term really engages with the aesthetics, nor does the aesthetics section imply anything about this contemporary fascination's effect on views of political sovereignty as described in the political section. I agree that it does overlap somewhat with the article for Medievalism, but I think this is an acceptable overlap, as Neo-medievalism covers one specific and clearly-defined aspect of the broader article (namely, its resurgence as an aesthetic in the modern era and afterward). The redirect priority should be determined by the relative prominence of the varying usages in reliable sources, and can be softened by having disambiguating hatnotes connecting the two articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Neomedievalism and medievalism mean the same thing. Sometimes. Sometimes they don't. It depends on context. -- GreenC 17:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case, then it strikes me that the appropriate course of action would be to merge the aesthetic content with Medievalism, have Neo-medievalism be exclusively about the political term, and add disambiguating hatnotes briefly explaining the situation on both articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Separate. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An article should be about a subject, not a term. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It is about the subject. That you don't recognize the subject is telling. This is no fault of your own, if all you know is from what you've read on Wikipedia. The problem is not solved with a split, but proper expert knowledge to explain the subject. I know enough about it to understand the article is not fully accurate and gives a wrong impression of two distinct fields. -- GreenC 17:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That being so, User:GreenC, do you feel in a position to develop the article a bit to make the continguities clearer? I did most of the work on the current version, but feel I've got as far with it as I can without doing a lot more reading around. Alarichall (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.