This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The whole section on the periodization is undue weight. We need to discuss the actual middle ages - not devote this much verbiage to the various start and end dates often used - and this statement "For Europe as a whole, Christopher Columbus's voyage to America (1492) is often considered to be the end of the Middle Ages. Depending on the context, other events, such as the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), the invention of the moveable type printing press by Johann Gutenberg (1455) or the Protestant Reformation (1517) can be used." is totally and utterly unsourced. General tendency in most recent history writing is to be all over the place - there is no "generally considered end date". The best method is to just avoid the whole subject and give a simple date from some recent books. If someone wants to write a whole article on various start and end dates used by historians over the years - that's fine, but it should not take up this much space in an overview article. And unsourced statements need to be taken out or sourced. Also .. you've got broken references. Ealdgyth - Talk22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree overall. Run the too-short sub-sections together & it ain't so long. What it lacks it a link & a reference to the uneven start of the Renaissance, which is really the driver here. When that starts the MA is over, sort of. Take out Columbus by all means, but Bosworth is worth keeping. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Bosworth was there in the previous section - the thing is ... no one recent is using 1492 or 1453 as an end date for their books - most are using 1500, at least for the large scale "european" works. (Not that there are many works on the later middle ages being written lately). In addition to the two books that were sourcing 1500 - there are others - The Oxford History of Medieval Europe uses 1500 as its end date. Ealdgyth - Talk22:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
But nobody places the Italian Renaissance as starting in 1500! Do some fields run the Middle Ages right into the Early Modern? Obviously others don't. I don't know if you know the endless controversies at Talk:Dark Ages, but while "In the 19th century, the entire Middle Ages were often referred to as the "Dark Ages"" may just about be literally true, it is misleading. That usage is more typical of earlier periods. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
History generally ... anything outside of Italy - Middle Ages is considered to go through the 1400s, easy. I know that in Italy, the Renaissance is considered to start with 1300 or so, but that's not really the case north of the Alps - end date is later by a good bit. No one would ever consider the Hundred Years' War as anything but medieval, but if you cut off at 1300 - you'd put it in the Renaissance! This is why I'd rather not even get started on this sort of discussion - if you get started with a little bit - you must cover all of it. It's also why the article covers everything from about 250 AD to 1500 AD - better to be inclusive than exclusive. I couldn't find any recent medieval history work that used Gutenburg or Columbus or the fall of Constantinople as the end date of the Middle Ages. I could find ones for Bosworth and 1500 (several for 1500 in fact). All this discussion of who uses what dates would be better off in the Periodization article or in a newly created subarticle. As for the dark ages - when I rewrote - I tried to accommodate as much as possible of the earlier work - this was a remnant left over. Given the widespread use of Dark Ages amongst the general population .. we need to mention the fact that it's fallen out of use. I would support a phrasing of "Historians prior to the 20th century often used the term "Dark Ages" to refer to either the entire Middle Ages or just to the Early Middle Ages, but this usage has fallen out of favor at least among historians." Ealdgyth - Talk01:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I said "uneven start". Early Netherlandish painting from van Eyck (1420s) on is very often called "Northern Renaissance", although I don't myself approve of this before about 1500. I think using "Dark Ages" for the whole MA was unusual (in English anyway) even in the early C19. They were mad keen on the period after all. Did anyone in 1800 really think Richard II lived in the "Dark Ages"? Surely not. One of those clever google searches by date might help. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have several books at home about the Middle Ages and all of them indicate 1492 or 1453 as the date of the ending of the Middle Ages. 1492 and 1453 are indicated as the date of the ending of the Middle Ages in Italian, French, Spanish and German Wikipedia. None of them indicates 1500 as the date of the ending of the Middle Ages, i think it's an original research. --Frog Splash22:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It's quite obviously not original research. cf. John Riddle's A history of the Middle Ages, 300–1500, Caroline Barron's London in the later Middle Ages : government and people, 1200-1500, Henrietta Leyser's Medieval women : a social history of women in England, 450-1500, John Raymond Shinner's Medieval popular religion, 1000-1500 : a reader, or a myriad of books here. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying 1485, 1492, 1517, or any other date is "wrong", but claiming that 1500 is not accepted is obviously false. As Ealdgyth pointed out, there is no "generally considered end date". When you look at the titles of books on the Middle Ages (rather than say the reign of a particular monarch or dynasty) you will often find the start and end dates rounded to say the nearest decade, half century, or century. They're arbitrary dates chosen for simplicity; because they're round it's expected that readers will know not they're not to be taken as gospel. These books don't then spend an inordinate amount of time explaining why the dates were chosen and why 1492 is accepted in some places or 1485 in others because that's not the point. I realise this is a different situation, but I don't think it's helpful to get bogged down on the issue of precise start end dates before getting to the meat of the article. If we make it clear to the reader the dates are rough and ready it shouldn't be a problem. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
But it's an important question! Think about 476. It's globally considered the starting date of the Middle Ages because in the 476 the Roman Empire collapsed. We have to say that the Middle Ages started in 500 only because this will create less problems? I think that's wrong. --Frog Splash23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Most medievalists would consider the question of "Start" or "end" dates as inconsequential, honestly. Books will start the middle ages at all sorts of dates - 476 is common but not the only date. We need to follow the sources which quite honestly don't devote much time to this question. Look at The Oxford History of Medieval Europe - there is nothing in there about deciding on start or end dates or on the history of which dates are chosen when. They start in 400, not 476. And they end their coverage in 1500. Personally, I'd rather just drop all the first section and concentrate on the actual history/culture/arts/technology of the time frame from about 250 to 1500, which makes it as inclusive as possible. Ealdgyth - Talk23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As a complete historical drongo I'd have to say that the idea of giving precise years to the start and end of the Middle Ages seems completely wild. What year did the Stone Age begin? When did the Bronze Age end? MalleusFatuorum00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd go for a variant of Ealdgyth's. I think the section as it stands is unduly long, and doesn't reflect most historians' intros to the period - it probably only needs a couple of lines explaining what the rough period we're considering is, and noting that there are no firmly defined start-end dates; this could probably be supported by an endnote giving some of these variations. What might then be useful towards the end of the article, though, is a short historiography section, in which the importance of the various start-end dates to historical interpretation of the period could be drawn out, and explaining why the choice of 476 or 400, 1453 or 1500 etc. is significant for particular interpretative approaches to the Middle Ages. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is still in development as far as I'm concerned - I think it's GA level as it stands but there are definitely some places I need to rework/add to/etc before we're looking at FAC .. and yes, that's the end goal. I just need to do some reading before adding a historiography section - I've got a few books on that I have been meaning to read for a while. So, no, it's not "finished" even in the wikipedia sense yet ...Ealdgyth - Talk12:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Byzantium
By the end of Middle Ages, Byzantium had disappeared and Western Europe had emerged as the top world civilization. So a lede that focuses on the greatness of Byzantium is missing a major theme. Byzantium might have been the center of civilization in Justinian's time, but it collapsed in the 7th century and became another Dark Age state. Kauffner (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm failing to see how the current lead "focuses on the greatness of Byzantium".... I did take out the mention of the eastern empire from the lede so now there is no mention of it in the lead at all. Ealdgyth - Talk14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Me too; and the Byzantine Empire remained a very major state and cultural model until at least the late 11th century, despite the loss of the southern Mediterranean littoral to Islam. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm really keen to review this article, but given its length and scope the review might take a few goes over the weekend, so unless you have any objections I'll start now, leave initial comments and then come back later if need be. Let me start by saying how impressed I am by this detailed and fescinating article on an immensely complex and potentially controversial subject - congratulations on taking it on, and congratualtions on doing such a good job.
I have listed below problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"to make the 3rd century politically unstable, with a number of emperors coming to the throne only to be replaced by new usurpers" - I think this sentence needs an addition such as "only to be rapidly replaced".done
"decline in the number the curial landowning class" - missing "of"?done
"however, the empire was not considered divided," - an odd formulation, considered by whom?
Clarified ... neither the inhabitants nor the rulers really considered it "divided" as we would think of it. They just broke it into zones of responsibility, basically. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"After a period of civil war, in 330 Constantine the Great" - reads awkwardly, perhaps "In 330, after a period of civil war, Constantine the Great"done
"In the 430s the Huns were added to the mix" - "added to the mix" is a little unencyclopedic, can you rephrase?done
Consistently capitalise Eastern and Western Empire.done
"the break was not as extensive as historians have claimed in the past." - which historians and which period of the past?
This is ... something that explaining and documenting would be WAAAYYY more detail than we really can go into in an overview article. Most historians from the Renaissance to the early 20th century would have felt there was a sharp break between Roman and medieval civilizations and political structures. It's almost as "common knowledge" among medievalists as "the sky is blue" is among most people. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I take your point, and won't hold up the review for it, but I think you should seriously consider rewording this in some way - at the moment it looks like weasel wording (although I believe you when you say it isn't).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"but the conquest of North Africa sundered the connections" - is this the correct tense?
Oh I see. I think what I meant there (but explained badly) was to check whether "imperial" as in "of the Empire" should be capitalised when referring to a proper noun (i.e. Holy Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire). I always thought it should be capitalised, but perhaps I am wrong (and I'm not that bothered either way). Consider this done.
"in the history of the Western state as we know it" - Unencyclopedic phrasing, can this be revised?removed "as we know it"
"from the Moslems." - is this spelling of Muslims deliberate?
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
In the "Etymology and periodization" section, perhaps there should be something discussing the grographical scope of the Middle Ages - you mention that it is a European period, but it also seems to apply to parts of the Middle East and North Africa too - can you add a few sentences claifying this and perhaps linking it chronologically with the same period in other parts of the world for comparative purposes?
I'd really rather leave all that sort of stuff for the periodization article itself. There is no standard definition of what is covered and what isn't covered under the term "middle ages" - the boundaries are a bit diffuse. Generally, in the early middle ages - it covers the area that had been under the control of the Roman Empire as well as the lands just outside its borders that was under Roman influence - but as you go into the high and late middle ages - most historians drop North Africa from coverage and only cover the Middle East as it pertains to the Crusades or Byzantium. It's probably best to leave things a bit amorphous here - the sources aren't specific so we shouldn't be either nor should we get dogmatic. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
That article doesn't seem to split historical periods by geography and isn't in great shape, so I wouldn't rely on it too much. I won't let this point hold up what is in all other respects an excellent article, but a non-medievalist like me might expect this article cover, for example, Medieval Japan. I can see having read the article why it doesn't, but mentioning that Middle Ages is a term that only applies to Europe and its environs would be a worthwhile addition. I notice that the navboxes at the bottom both use "European Middle Ages", which implies that other ones perhaps exist.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If I can find the sources for this information, I plan on adding this sort of section to the article before pushing on for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"when Roman officials mishandled the situation," without getting too specific, is there a simple way to make it clearer in what way the situation was mishandled?
Heh. Not really without getting into two or three sentences of explanation - basically the officials did not give the barbarians the food they were supposed to or the tools or other equipment, and then the officials sold the food/tools to the Goths on credit, forcing the Goths to go into debt and then when they were unable to repay, seizing the Goths for slaves. Among other ways of abusing their official power. I'm trying to avoid going into great detail here - the officials screwed up badly and the empire paid the price. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"when western emperors fell, many of the kings who replaced them were from the same background as those military strongmen" - this isn't clear, by what mechanism did the kings replace the emperors?
"including the popular assemblies that led to a direct influence of more of the free male tribal members in political society" - I don't understand exactly what this sentence is trying to say - can you clarify it?
Rephrased to "...including the popular assemblies which allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters." Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"but the conquest of North Africa sundered the connections" - I'd say Islamic conquest here for clarity, and also, I don't understand why the conquest of North Africa would sever communication between Eastern and Western Europe - can you explain?
It's probably more detail than we can get into here - much of the communications between the east and west were done on the sea, rather than on land, so the seizure of North Africa exposed sea travelers to piracy and other increased dangers, thus cutting into trade and communications. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"when the world did not end with the millennium" - was it expected to? Can you add a sentence or two on this somewhere (perhaps in the earlier section on philosophy and theology)?
It's not agreed that folks did think the world would end in 1000 - I've read many historians who think that medieval folks did NOT think that. I've removed the bit about the millenium - it was correctly sourced but was really one art historian's view - not necessairly shared by all historians. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"Theatre also began . . ." Theatre as a concept is obviously much older than the 14th century and also is not an exclusively European concept. Perhaps developed might be a better term?
There is no mention of European exploration (i.e. Marco Polo) - I realise that the great age of European exploration came later, but is this not a topic worthy of mention?
I've added a paragraph - there is now a lot of controversy over Marco Polo and his influence - I've not added him in because it's not clear that his trips had much influence on later exploration, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the article does an OK job of seguing into the next period of European History (is that the Renaissance?), but perhaps a summary section that draws clearer links between the Middle Ages and what came afterwards would be helpful. Again, however, I won't allow the absence of such a section (which is just my opinion anyway) to hold up the review.
I plan to work on such a section before nominating this article for FA - which is the plan. I just need to get a hold of a few more books... Ealdgyth - Talk12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
In what context is the word "barbarians" used - is this a technical term here (if so, link it)?
It's not a technical term, but it's in common use among historians - it's not strictly speaking correct to call all of the various tribes "Germanic tribes" since we do not know if all of them were Germanic. See Migration Period where the time frame is often called the Barbarian invasions. It's quite correct and not POV to use this term in the time period. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, its just the anthropologist in me that balks at what I think of as nineteenth century terminology. If its not controversial then its no problem, although a link to barbarian (or perhaps the wikitionary entry for the word) might be appropriate.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Its by no means essential, but whenever I use images of objects or paintings in a Museum collection in a Wikipedia article I name and link the museum in the caption - its how things are done in professional articles/books and I've always considered it polite. Up to you though, I know there is no requirement for it.
Comment: WP:VAMOS rather discourages this (giving the museum), & in fact it is very often, even usually, not done on the page in books, but in a separate list of image credits, or here on the image file. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Its a moot question with regards this GA, which I have already passed, but I have to politely take issue with you there on both points. Firstly, the page you linked to states "It can be helpful to add the owner of works to texts or captions of works referred to, but is not necessary, except for articles about the specific work", which I think encourages rather than discourages this type of addition (although as we both note, it is not essential). Secondly, although general histories do sometimes exclude this type of detail, I know a great many historical texts that do give the provenance of an artwork in their captions, and all modern texts list the provenance of the image somewhere in the publication (would you prefer we put it in footnotes?). I also consider it polite - museums and art galleries do not have to allow photography of their public domain artworks and often expend considerable resources in making them available themselves. If we give them credit, thus placing the images in their proper context and directing more people back to their collections then they will be more likely to continue making this type of material available. If we just use "their" images without giving credit then where is the incentive for them to keep making these images available?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well maybe I need to rewrite it a bit :) The important thing, as VAMOS says, is that the museum credit is fully given, ideally with a link, on the image file, when it will be visible to anyone looking at the image at proper size. You are talking about the location - provenance is something different. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the provenance of our digital images rather than the artworks they represent. If you want to get technical, in a museum/gallery context "location" is the physical location of an object (i.e. the wall its hanging on or the box it is in) and "provenance" is the history of an artwork or object prior to entering the museum/gallery's collection (which in our case is anything prior to the taking of the digital image). I agree that it is essential that the image file contains the point of origin of the image, but I also feel it is both polite and professional to list them in captions and I will continue to both do so myself and advise (although never insist) others to do so too. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In my experience people who give the museum tend to think their captioning job is then done, and indeed there is often not then room to say anything useful about the object & its relevance. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, a good editor will always find room. Indeed, a well placed picture may need no explanation at all. Shall we agree to disagree on this one?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
Quick reply
Just a quick note to let you know I'm seeing these and hope to get to them asap - hopefully today but I've got a pile of things to work on with William the Conqueror that really need to be dealt with also. Ealdgyth - Talk15:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - Don't rush, this can all wait. I'll continue the review in the meantime, but don't feel pressured to work on it until you are ready - consider the time limit on the review to be indefinite. Good luck with the Conqueror.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added some replies and a couple of new comments. If I haven't replied consider the comment dealt with (for some reason the strikethrough button is missing from my toolbar, otherwise I'd have crossed them out).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Added the strikethroughs manually and am formally placing the article on hold, although don't feel that there is a strict time limit. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it! Congratulations on a most excellent article on such an enormously important topic - millions of school children will soon be printing this out and handing it in all over the world! (No, seriously its a massive achievement).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Lead picture
Althought the first picture is great, good pic of a well-preserved mask, it is by no means a good example for this period and especially as a first picture for this article. It should be changed, preferably with a drawing from the middle ages showing castles, battles or farmers.there are pics in the article that would be preferable.--Pedro (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is a single picture isn't going to encompass everything. The Middle Ages wasn't all battles and castles. Once you accept the limitations of any image it makes sense to go for something visually striking, one that grabs the attention and makes the reader want to learn more. I think the current image manages that. Nev1 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the lead image for this sort of huge subject is never going to encompass everything - so its better to go with an image that will grab the reader's attention. Ealdgyth - Talk11:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I like it that it is early for a change, not a 15th century miniature as typically used for book-covers. And it's certainly arresting. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it has a mustache. it looks like something from antiquity, Doesnt fit the article pretty well. these two are the best IMO: this and this. Castles and farms are a far better example than this mask... certainly the middle ages is far more of that than this mask. don't forget this is an encyclopedia... -Pedro (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The Sutton Hoo helmet has the advantage of being iconic, it must be better known than most castles and much as I like castles, I couldn't support using a photo of one as the only lead image. In the popular imagination, castles represent tumult, endless warfare, and chaos; introducing the image problems of castles into this article would exacerbate things. And while farming was a common occupation in the medieval period, it doesn't stand out as particularly unique to the Middle Ages. Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
never eared or read about this helmet until I started this topic in the talk page. And it also seems related to warfare like castles. maybe that's because of different perspectives, I guess. although interesting object and photography, that's for sure, but not comparable to castles. a farmer in a medieval miniature, especially in front of a castle, that's iconic or some monk or knight or something like that. --Pedro (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You may not have heard of it, but it's "one of the most important Anglo Saxon finds of all time" and a curator of the British Museum has commented that "I think it's fair to say that the Sutton Hoo helmet is the face of the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps even all of the early middle ages in Europe". While the helmet has a martial air about it, it is also impressively decorated which is obvious even at a passing glance ("The Sutton Hoo helmet is more than a face-guard – it is a poem, a political manifesto in silver and iron), an aspect that wouldn't come across with a 300px photo of a castle. Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe part of the problem is an "Anglo-Saxon" bias of sorts - English speakers are naturally more interested in England and the Anglo-Saxons, while they're not really all that important for the rest of medieval European history. What Pedro is probably thinking of is something like this image from the Très Riches Heures du Duc du berry, which we've used for the WikiProject Middle Ages template. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to stay away from late medieval miniatures - they are not really representative. Let's not stick with the "commonly used" images and try to expose the readers to different aspects of the middle ages - they did last a LOT longer than the period that produced the often reproduced miniatures. Ealdgyth - Talk14:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but an AS helmet isn't representative of the entire Middle Ages either. I was going to suggest using a generic castle, but of course, there are no generic castles, ha. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
And so we come back to the first reply to Pedro's point: no single image perfectly represents the Middle Ages, so what the article needs is something visually striking. The photo of the Sutton Hoo helmet satisfies that. Nev1 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The current image is very nice. I agree that we should stay away from the commonly used type of image, such as late medieval miniatures. In fact, I think we should stick with a photograph of an artefact and not go with a two-dimensional image. The only problem I have with the current image is that it is a replica and not the real deal. I support changing it on that ground alone. I also think that there is a point, if we are trying to be "striking" and different, to confronting the anglophone reading public with a distinctly non-British image in the lead. Of course, we shouldn't change anything unless we actually find a comparably good image (of a non-replica). Srnec (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to the current image but I do like the idea of an earlier three-dimensional artifact that will grab attention. Suggestions are always welcome - I'd like to have something good for when we push this on to FAC.. Ealdgyth - Talk21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Heh. A chunk of those are mine... and are "late".. I'd prefer to go with something before 1000 AD, if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk22:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
... and the pic is from a fake? Why not a Robin Hood film screenshot? Why before 1000AD? All this doesnt make any sense. --Pedro (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OR to say that because you have RS showing that some people converted to Judaism that the religion was a missionary religion in this period. No academic would say that 21st century Judaism is a missionary religion, yet we could cite from RS dozens and dozens of notable people who have recently converted. The question is, did these people seek out Judaism or were they badgered by missionaries. Without RS to say it was the latter, it's OR just to use a shopping list of converts as "proof". --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Collins p. 144 "As has been mentioned, the Arab King Dhu Nuwas converted to Judaism in Arabia in the course of the sixth century and the first appearance of the Jewish Falashas in Ethiopia should probably be dated to this period. As with the later conversion of the Khazars in Central Asia these pieces of evidence relate to active proselytising and conversion to Judaism on the part of individuals and groups who were not Jews by descent. Although this is a process that the subsequent history of Judaism and the implications of some modern political arguments require to be denied and the phenomenon explained by reference to 'lost tribes' and other historically untenable claims, the evidence of a considerable expansion in the numbers of adherents of Judaism in Arabia and the horn of Africa at this time cannot be ignored." I think that's pretty clear that there were active conversion efforts ... now, if "missionary" is too charged, we can go with something like "proselytising" .. but it is clear that Collins (and he's not the only one making this point in the sources I've read... this is a reasonably well attested phenomenon in the period) is making the point that Judaism was expanding in this period and not just from a few random people chosing to convert. Ealdgyth - Talk13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Further, from the Cambridge History of Islam volume 1A - pp. 13-14 where Irfan Shahid discusses the spread of Judaism into the Arabian peninsula and the competition between the Christianity and Judaism in Arabia for converts. "The struggle came to a head in the first quarter of the sixth century when the judaising king of Himyar tried systematically to spread Judaism in the south." ... a further point, although from before this period, is from Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians pp. 479-480, where the author is discussing the writings of Pionius, from the mid-3rd century. Pionius railed against the efforts of Jews to convert Christians he knew, and Fox states about his writings that "we are being treated to one of our rare glimpses of Jews' continuging missionary interest"... I think it's clear that there were sections of Judaism in the ancient and medieval world that did have missionary aspects. I don't have anything specificallly on the Khazars (it's a bit outside my field of interest) but from my memory of reading about them... they actively sought to choose a religion that was NOT one of their neighbors and they did receive instruction from Jews about their newly chosen religion. While Judaism may not be a missionary religion now, this should not be assumed to have been the case in the past. Ealdgyth - Talk14:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, while I dislike his leap of logic analysis, that seems pretty solid for Wikipedia. However, if there are other reliable sources in dispute with him, as he implies there are, we can't include this unbalanced. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I suspect the "implications of some modern political arguments require to be denied and the phenomenon explained by reference to 'lost tribes' and other historically untenable claims" means that these are not other historians of the period but rather they are political commentators, perhaps especially modern ones that are politically tied into the "Jews as a race" idea. I have not found any historians that dispute that there were conversions in Arabia (see the bit I just aduced about the Cambridge History of Islam) and that some Jews of the period were proselytising. Ealdgyth - Talk14:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm no great expert on medieval Jewish history in Eurasia, Arabia and the Horn of Africa. I'll see if any of the experts at the WikiProject can help with this. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
remember this is an overview article - we should not go into great detail here (although I did check the various articles on Jewish history and they do mention the Khazars becoming Jews as well as the fact that Judaism was prominent in Arabian before Mohamed. Ealdgyth - Talk14:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
A different period, but in the ancient world it was taken as a matter of course that domestic slaves adopted their master's religion - so much handier for cooking and holidays. See Peter Brown. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I could have added some from Brown also but he mainly treated proselytising as a household matter, rather than a conversion effort outside the household... Ealdgyth - Talk14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Most sources state the opposite. Saying the opposite of everybody else, based only on your interpretation of the fact, and claiming that everybody else has a political agenda for saying what they are saying, is hardly a solid academic approach. I therefore added a tag to this statement of Collins in the text of the article. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
A minor point - but I'm a she. And my username is from a female also - Ealdgyth. I said I was comfortable with "proselytising" but in order to say that this information isn't correct, you need to show reliable sources from historians that refute Collins', Fox's, and Shahid's points... you can't just say "I don't see it" but you need sources to refute things. I've shown three sources - one from Cambridge University Press, one from St Martin's Press, and one from a mainstream publisher ... Ealdgyth - Talk14:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe I've demonstrated that "verify" isn't valid... and there are two OTHER sources that show missionary/proselytising activity during the time period. You have not shown a single source against the information in this period, which is the point. The fact that Judaism isn't a missionary/proselytising religion in modern times has no bearing on what it did in the early Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the tags as they seemed rather pointy since the issue is being discussed here. In any case, sweeping statements along the lines of "Most sources state the opposite" without bothering to back it up don't hold much water. And you can add Bernard Bachrach in Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe to the list of source which mention Jewish missionaries; on page 132 he talks about legislation protecting Christians from Jewish missionaries for instance. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Note - I've changed "missionary" to "proselytising" in hopes that this will make folks happy. I would like to point out that I did a complete rewrite of this article, sourcing everything and cleaning up insane amounts of undue weight. And my thanks for that is... what? Do I get a "hey, great work but I have this small issue"... no... I get nothing of appreciation for the hard work and just assaults on my editing abilities. Ealdgyth - Talk14:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe I have dropped you a congratulatory line some weeks ago... and I haven't made any insinuations about your editing abilities. You're a great editor. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If it helps, Ealdgyth, I'd seen that this article was a real dog's dinner and wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole. When I saw that you'd started work on it I thought thank @#&! for that, someone who knows what they're doing! I haven't looked at what you've done with it, partly because I'm having a bit of a break, but also because I'm confident you'll have done a grand job. BTW, now you mention it, has no-one ever called you out on your obvious username COI? ;o) Nortonius (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This is excessively PC, and projective. The type of discourse you refer to is that with flatters the sensibilities of the modern reader, rather than examine attitudes and facts as they were at the time. Ceoil (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm aside, it's true that there doesn't seem to be a single word that can adequately replace barbarian in English, as Wikipedia's own article on the word points out. Ah well. John Cran (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
It was a withering dismissal rather sarcasm, but whatever. Re your, eh, sunstanve pont; I suppose we'll have to stuggle on best we can with the reailty that it was just bollicks ;) He he and take care. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sunstanve means, but in keeping with the YouTube links and cultural references on your profile, I'm pronouncing it like [4] in my head. John Cran (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Lead pic ...
Guys - it's Bold, REvert, DISCUSS. NOt Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold .. nothing. The reasons I prefer the restoration pic is that the original pic included has entirely too much distracting junk in the background. The restoration pic is clear and focused on the actual item. If there is a original pic without all the extraneous displays in the background, that's great and I'm all for it, but for the lead picture on such a well viewed topic, we want something that doesn't look like someone took it with their camera phone. Now, let's discuss.... and could someone kindly return their reverts to the original picture? Ealdgyth - Talk18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Another possibility for a lead pic is: File:Hôtel de Cluny - crowns.JPG which are Visigothic votive crowns. The pic is arresting and without the distracting background. I also like that it's an early medieval artifact not often shown in books - helps show that the Middle Ages wasn't all knights in plate armor jousting. Ealdgyth - Talk18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
For preference, I'd go for something anthropomorphic; I think they draw the viewers in more than a purely artistic object. The Sutton Hoo helmet worked for me for that reason, but I quite also like the Chess king image you've linked to above as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree about "something anthropomorphic". If an image of the Sutton Hoo helmet is used to illustrate this article about the Middle Ages, I honestly don't see how a few, mostly indiscernible fragments arranged in some brown medium helps, however wonderful the fragments are individually; the reproduction is itself of the highest quality and provenance, and allows one an impression of how the original looked at the time it was in use. By contrast, I think the photograph of the fragments is rightly in the lead at Sutton Hoo, illustrating an article which is principally concerned with the archaeology. Other than that I'm not terribly fussed – my 2p. Nortonius (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we can make it more representative via arranged images of various medieval stuff, including knights and the Sutton Hoo helmet (whichever would be preferred). This could be one of the selections:
Generally, I prefer one image in the lead, not a collage, and I'd prefer to avoid an illuminated manuscript image - most of those are late medieval and don't convey the flavor of the age as well. By using a 14th century image, you imply that the whole period used those types of illustrations. Of the six things you've included above - all of them are past 1000. Three of them are past 1300. That's way undue weight on the later part of the period. The goal of a lead image is to capture the reader's attention and draw them into the article - which collages do not do. A striking image of an early artifact will capture the readers interest better than a small collage of a bunch of different images. I've tried to avoid using images of battles in the lead because that gives the appearance of bias towards that battle or it's participants. I'd prefer to use an image of something not often displayed also - many medieval books and textbooks use manuscript illustrations as covers - avoiding that will expose readers to some new aspects of medieval craftsmanship. Ealdgyth - Talk11:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude. But this is not the Anglo-saxons article. That helmet is irrelevant to Medieval Europe, and again seen better examples from much ancient historical periods. But importance varies, as that is closer to the hearts of the British, but the case is much worse because it is just a replica. And we are going around in circles... Ealdgyth's statements can be used to justify the removal of that pic from the lead, no need to add anything else. It can be used elsewhere in the article, but use the real thing instead!--Pedro (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude either, truly, but that helmet, "irrelevant to Medieval Europe"?! Its cultural milieu, as I understand it, is as much Scandinavian and Germanic as Anglo-Saxon, and its design has its roots in that of a parade helmet from the Roman Empire – i.e. about as European as it can get! As for the "real thing", there isn't one, just bits, while the repro is very eye-catching I think – just what's needed for a lead. (I don't understand "no need to add anything else") But I'm not stuck on it. For example, a decent image of the Carolingian statuette believed to represent Charlemagne on his horse would do for me, but I don't see one on Commons; or, though I note Ealdgyth's preference for something less seen, and not a manuscript illumination, something like this 9th-century image of Charlemagne. Just suggestions, I'm not sticking my neck out for them; but obviously Ealdgyth's right about the need to give due balance to the whole period, in seeking something early. I also agree with her about the collage: I think it's a dainty piece and might find a home somewhere, but is it too "busy" for the lead? And I think having an image from the Bayeux Tapestry as the earliest carries a hint of the old idea of the "Dark Ages". Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Pedro,, you've made your views very clear, as have the many editors who disagree. I also don't like composite images - mini-galleries are better. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind simple composite images and mini-galleries, although my personal taste is for 2 * 2 panels, rather than larger. There are practical problems with more complex galleries, particularly on mobile devices (you just can't see the detail). Single images or composites/galleries, the key for me has to be drawing the readership in through that/those initial images. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Pedro and Johnbod. Furthermore, although the replica is good, we don't know how much historically accurate it is, but in any case the original is much more preferable, particularly in the lead. Wikipedia is not some kind of advertising agency, that picks and promotes modern polished stuff over historical one. The replica would suit to Sutton Hoo in my view (where it's not currently used). If we are using a single image here, let it show a genuine object apart from being eye-catching. Brandmeistertalk18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: sorry, but I only noticed the first few and spent most of today distracted. Of the ones you've suggested, I like a) the Visigothic votive crowns for their unexpected beauty, as you say it wasn't all jousting knights; b) the Sutton Hoo shoulder clasp for its perfect workmanship and opulence; c) (obviously by now) the replica Sutton Hoo Helmet, which actually does win it for me. I suppose that means I'm arguing to maintain the status quo.
@Brandmeister: about the historical accuracy of the replica Sutton Hoo helmet, it was made by the Royal Armouries, it is on display in the British Museum, and you'll see there that it has been considered worthy of display outside the UK; also compare this for use of the replica in illustrating the contents of the Staffordshire Hoard, on a website for which the British Museum and the relevant UK government department are responsible. Impeccable, I would say. Nortonius (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No objections, if the helmet should fall; though I think the caption should include the (approximate?) date of the hoard, and the background might be trimmed for balance – especially on the left, lots of empty space...? Easily done. Nortonius (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Added a bit on the dates - any objections? If I don't hear any, I'll go ahead and replace in the next few days. Ealdgyth - Talk14:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Erm... I'm not trying to stir things up, but does that not mean that there is as yet no consensus for change? Is the following a fair summary of the present position?
Change: Pedro; Brandmeister; Johnbod (if this edit is counted – Johnbod's single comment above is unclear to me, no offence intended either way)
Keep: Johnbod; Nortonius; Hchc2009; Ealdgyth (if this edit is counted, though I note that Ealdgyth has been quite even-handed since – I don't intend to co-opt anybody)
If that is a fair summary, and if no-one changes their mind or adds a new, dissenting voice, should the replica helmet not stay? Correct me if I'm wrong by all means, and I'm happy to go with the votive crowns if that's the consensus: I have no intention to prolong this discussion unnecessarily, but if there's no consensus why change? Nortonius (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Johnbod I didn't see and can't find for the moment what you "said at some length" about the helmet, so I've missed something, perhaps you'd be kind to a duffer and point me to it, for future reference? I was somewhat confused by the edit to which I refer in my summary of consensus, where you undid my restoration of the replica helmet! Anyway I've re-added you to my summary under Keep – the present consensus then is to keep the replica helmet. Nortonius (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Withdrawing (i.e. striking) offered humility in apparent failure to spot something: I still can't find it, I'm still confused, Johnbod hasn't responded, and it hardly matters now but for the record...
Jeeez, of course I can – I was trusting your judgement and looking for something "said at some length"! Thanks for that explanation, anyway. Nortonius (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
More peasants please
The peasants preparing the fields for the winter with a harrow and sowing for the winter grain. The background contains the Louvre, ca 1410.
Tobby, I'm always sympathetic to getting agriculture into Medieval articles, but I'd have to admit that the proposed change creates a solid wall of images on the righthand of the screen when viewed on my system. I'd also query the historical reliability of the image "Costumes of Slaves or Serfs from the Sixth to the Twelfth Centuries". Were there particular individual images in there you felt strongly about? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Very little of that is "agricultural" though - you've crammed four pictures into the lead, including one of a Byzantine emperor which has little relevance to the entire period of the middle ages. A single lead picture is prefered to four smaller pictures. The "costume of serfs" picture is from a book originally published in 1874 - the history of costume has changed quite a bit since then. The "Greek fire may have been an early version of the flamethrower" needs a citation - it's an assertion of opinion, and should be backed up. As for the four images replacing the lead - I've already explained above, and most folks agreed, that we should avoid using late medieval illuminated manuscripts to illustrate the lead image - this gives a misleading impression that those sorts of illuminated manuscripts (such as the Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry were the norm for the whole period - which is not the case. I'd rather see an Early medieval artifact in the lead... which others agreed with above. Ealdgyth - Talk16:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did you erase this paragraph? If you believe this information is better addressed in a different part of the article, please suggest how. However, your justification "unrelated to this article - which is specifically on the European period" does not seem to hold water at all. European history is a part of world history, just as, say, French history is a part of European history. Noting that the European Middle Ages are a part of larger trends in the Old World in the article about European Middle Ages is not just related information, but IMO absolutely required.
(moved from my talk) The issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page of the article - the article deals with European history, so the first part is not needed. The rest of it was pretty much redundant - "In world history the Middle Ages coincide with the Postclassical Era and refer specifically to the history of Europe and the Mediterranean during this period." is already covered by the first paragraph of the same section. "As in other parts of the Old World, the postclassical period is marked by the expansion of complex society and urban life ("civilization") into new areas, such as Central and Eastern Europe;" is actually wrong - as the spread of those things only happened late in the Middle Ages - it's a gross oversimplification as "complex society" actually contracted until about 1000 AD or so. And "by the spread of world religions, such as Christianity and Islam; and by expanding communication and trade across all of Afro-Eurasia." is covered elsewhere in the body of the article - the sections on "Rise of Islam" and "new kingdoms" especially. Basically, that the information you added was already IN the article - and it was not needed where it was. It read much like the lede section of an article but was duplication of the lede that already exists. Ealdgyth - Talk20:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the reply.
It still IMO very much makes sense to include references to world history and the corresponding Postclassical Era (even though these articles are currently underdeveloped), noting that developments in Europe (religions, trade, and eventual spread of state societies and urbanization to new areas) follow parallel developments elsewhere in the Old World. The spread of states & cities in Europe indeed takes place only later in the period, although the beginnings of the process in Central and Eastern Europe can be traced back as early as the 800s (Great Moravia, Kievan Rus, foundations of Liubice, Warsaw, Novgorod, Kiev etc.) while Western Europe was hard pressed by Viking raids. The acknowledgment of the broader perspective seems especially relevant because later in the period, according to some researchers, connections across the Old World grew into something approaching a world-system spanning the three continents (see e.g. the somewhat unfortunately titled Before European Hegemony). Finally, the period following the Middle Ages, Early Modern, is a period that applies to the entire world, so it makes sense to at least refer to the period in world history that corresponds to the Middle Ages, even though research about this period globally is more recent and hence not as mature as that of the history of specific areas.
Which brings me to your criticism of simplicity, generality, and redundancy. I agree that world history is pretty broad & general, but this is somewhat inevitable because its point is to note wide trends. It seems very appropriate to acknowledge explicitly the trends which form the world historic context for the Middle Ages, in other words to say, yes, this article is about European history, and yes, it's also part of a wider context, here's how and here's where you can find out more about it. If this is to be done in a minimal way -- i.e. without adding an entire section about "Middle Ages as part of world history" or arguing for broadening the scope of article (as was done in the discussions you referred to), neither of which I am trying to do -- this will necessarily be simple, general, and somewhat redundant. I do, however, agree that it shouldn't be inaccurate, so your point about noting that urbanization and state societies spread in Europe only later in the period is well taken.
Suggestion: insert these couple of sentences, or equivalent, at the appropriate spot(s) in the lead section. Alternatively, include just the first sentence; I'd argue against this, as the second gives the gist of how the Middle Ages exhibit broader trends of world history, and the reader can find out more if they follow the appropriate links and references.
Finally, for completeness, this is a part of the source material I'm working from; more here, pp. 33-36:
The Postclassical Period, 500–1450
World historians increasingly use the neutral term postclassical for this
crucial period; the European term Middle Ages or medieval makes little
sense for the world at large. At first glance, this period can seem
particularly confusing. Both the number and geographical range of
civilizations increased, leaving us without the convenience of three or
four focal points, as in the classical period. On reflection, however, we
can focus on two or three larger themes. First, the period saw the
spread of the three world religions—Buddhism, Christianity, and
Islam—with the latter the most dynamic during this millennium.
Hundreds of thousands of people, from Ireland to Japan, from Sweden
to the Swahili coast, changed their basic beliefs. Second, the pace and
impact of international trade accelerated. The Indian Ocean became the
key artery for world trade, but it was supplemented by north-south
routes from Africa and Europe, by increased activity along Asia’s
Pacific coast, and of course by contacts through the Mediterranean.
Dramatic innovations in religion and trade, then, set the tone for the
period. Every society in Afro-Eurasia had to react to these new forces,
though their reactions varied. In the process, world history gradually
changed from an emphasis on the separate development of key
societies (divergence) to the interaction and frequent deliberate
imitation among key societies (convergence). The year 1000 CE can be
taken as the basic dividing line. Developments later in the period,
particularly the brief but decisive establishment of the Mongol empires,
enhanced the pattern of convergence. The postclassical period thus not
only offers coherent focus but constitutes one of the crucial transitions
in the human past.
Good sourcing Miranche. The idea of the "Middle Ages" only really ever made sense in the western context, for which it was meant. It is incorrect to apply it elsewhere.Provocateur (talk)
"Medieval Islam" (essentially before the fully-extended Ottoman Empire) and, less comfortably, "medieval India/China" are still widely used, but "Middle Ages" is only really used for Europe. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"Medieval" is simply an adjective for things of the "Middle Ages" (of Europe). Thus, if we speak of "medieval society" we are talking about a specific culture that existed in Europe in s certain period. Provocateur (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This article frequently uses the term medieval with no explanation as to which period this term refers to. In fact, the term is used in the lead without explanation or link.
Medieval redirects here but this article fails to explain what period it refers to.
Are 'middle ages' and 'medieval' synonyms? Either way, the article needs to explain this
We have guidance for a reason; we prefer to let logged-in users set their own thumbnail sizes. What looks good on one system might not look too hot on a different one. I think the lead image (while beautiful and well-chosen) is on the big side at the moment. --John (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Most of our readers are not logged in, however. We, as editors, tend to forget that. We are also allowed to set image sizes if it's felt warranted. I didn't go through and reput in the forced sizes on anything else you changed, but the big image not only is needed to show the detail, but also to grab attention. I've checked it on a number of systems, it works better (imho) at a bigger size. Ealdgyth - Talk21:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
With a 300px default set (as everybody with a modern screen should have) it measures 8 inches high on my screen (including caption). I very rarely complain about over-large images, but this is too much. Our image size policy has been in complete disarray since the range of screen sizes exploded a few years back, & seems generally ignored, at FAC for example. There are no perfect answers, but it's clear that having both a range of default sizes and being able to set multiples of the default doesn't make any sense - it's also clear which method is more widely used. There is also space underneath for other images next to the enormous TOC. Other image points:
The nasty 19th century illustrator's rendering of the 2 Jews is yukky. There aren't that many alternatives on Commons, but there are better choices.
"A medieval manuscript showing a meeting of doctors at the University of Paris" - I doubt that. The decorated woodwork is clearly Renaissance, & I'd guess the image is 1510-1540s. If kept, it & Guy of Boulogne should swop sides, so both face into the page.
I welcome other choices on jewish dress... I couldn't find one that was better with a good license. I've removed the doctors image and fixed the "colours". I'll try to find something else to replace the doctors in a few days. Malleus has graciously agreed to copyedit, so any other yankeeisms should be caught there... I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk02:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, one reason for the large photo in the lead is to beat off the infoboxes.... if we fill that space with image we can hopefully avoid an infobox here (which would be just a bad bad bad idea) 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk
Possible pics of Jews added here. Very many images of contemporary Jews show them looking pretty much like everyone else in fact. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up the Petrus alphonsi image and put it in. Going to get GermanJoe to check it over for licensing ... The others were either facing the wrong way or really very fuzzy/blurry. Ealdgyth - Talk17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and it's listed as that in the full references - all the short references drop "The" if it's the first word - so it needs to be Medieval Spains to be consistent with all the other short titles. Ealdgyth - Talk22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining; I wasn't familiar with that convention and assumed it was a typo the first time through. --John (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Correct publishing year for Should the Middle Ages Be Abolished?
After digging around a bit, I am now pretty sure that the correct publishing year for Murray's article in Essays in Medieval Studies is 2004. There appears to be a typo on the Project MUSE-website where all articles from volume 21, is also erroneously listed as having been published in 2005. This is most likely incorrect, since volume 21 was published in 2004, and the article is listed in the table of contents for volume 21 and not in the table of contents for volume 22 which was published in 2005. (Sorry for the nitpicking). P. S. Burton (talk)23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The source being used states several times that it's "the Empire". Including part of the source for this: "The Empire, first of all, was engaged in a significant process of restructuring. ... Electors began to act on their own inititative as collective rulers of the Empire (though that did not prevent further schims, in 1314 and1346). ... A third effect was to strengthen the idea of the Empire as a legal entity, distinct from the Emperor and his family, but capable of bestowing legitimacy on the holders of formal office and on those who could claim to be direct vassals." (Watts The Making of Polities pp. 169-171 in a section titled "France's other neighbors: the Empire and Spain") Ealdgyth - Talk22:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure which bit we are talking about here, oh ok this. That it is called in secondary mentions just "the Empire" doesn't mean there isn't a fuller name, whatever empire one is talking about, Roman, Byzantine .... etc. Our article says: "Before 1157, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire.[11] The term sacrum ("holy," in the sense of "consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157, under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire") -- the term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy;[12] the form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[13]" In the 14th centry I would call it the full HRE, and that is the proper proper name. See google books search on "Holy Roman Empire in the 14th century". Personally I'm not too fussed about just calling any empire "the Empire", and sources doing this abound for all examples. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congratulations on the promotion of such an important article to Featured Article status! Keep up the good work, all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Since we ultimately remained with replica, I offer to swap that current image to an image of an actual knight armour (which is rather a matter of EV and expectation, not aesthetic preference). While I like the replica, it shows only a particular piece of armour and seems to be more appropriate for Sutton Hoo. Aside from general long-standing association of knights with the Middle Ages, a genuine artifact, as I noted in the previous thread on that, naturally confers more EV here than replica, especially since we have a decent amount of genuine medieval stuff to choose from. A knight may be a particularly representative delegate since he mirrors not only the military, but several other medieval aspects - chivalry, chivalric romance, courtly love or heraldry. The knight may not necessarily be exactly this, but after some Commons browsing I picked this pic, given that the horse armour is also shown. Brandmeistertalk18:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
but an image from the 1400s is still late and unrepresentative. Plate armour was not used until very very late in the period and was never common on the battlefield. It's also a pretty poor image for a lead image - dark and cluttered. Ealdgyth - Talk12:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The current image is likewise very early and unrepresentative. It's a fantastic photograph, but it's a bad illustration for this topic. The Manual of Style for lead images states "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page." The principle of least astonishment suggests we should use something popularly associated with the Middle Ages, and an obscure helmet from the fringes of the area in question is hardly that. I agree that the photo of the knight armor is not as good a photograph (it's actually less dark than the current one, but has awkward lighting and framing), but the subject itself is better. And, since lead photos tend to emphasize the highest achievements of a topic, they tend to be late examples in any event. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The principal of least astonishment shouldn't lead us to choose something that readers might expect but which is not truly representative of the topic; I think the knight picture falls into that category. I like the Sutton Hoo helmet for several reasons: it's a beautiful piece of artwork; it comes from one of the most important medieval archaeological sites and is one of the most famous medieval artefacts; and it represents both kingship and death rituals, two important topics. I don't think readers would be astonished by this photo; they might not know what it is till they read the caption, but it would look like a plausible medieval artefact to someone who knew little of the period. Overall, I support the current photo -- I'd be willing to support a better choice if one is suggested, but I don't think it needs improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the current photo is beautiful and I agree that the Sutton Hoo site is important from a specialist's perspective, but it is not a well known helmet, let alone representative of the Middle Ages as a whole. A knight is much more representative of the Middle Ages as a whole, although the proposed photograph is poor. To be clear, I don't support using the proposed photo in place of the current one, but I don't think the current photo is a fitting lead image for this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a very well-known helmet in the UK, & I think the rest of the English-speaking world, at least among those interested in the MA. What single helmet is better known? I take it you've seen the other discussion on this higher up? Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Since the original helmet survived, it would be certainly better to place the original rather than replica. Btw, the caption for the current lead pic is buried and appears only after scroll-down (at least in my Mozilla browser), so as it is the pic may be confusing for some readers, who may think that the helmet is original. Brandmeistertalk22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that any single helmet is better known, but certainly most other types of helmets from the Middle Ages are better known. I have now re-read the two earlier discussions above. One of the points made in favor of the Sutton Hoo helmet was that showing it prominently will "expose readers to some new aspects of medieval craftsmanship", unlike pictures of knights, castles, and manuscript illuminations. I sympathize with this argument (seeing the same sorts of images over and over can be very boring for enthusiasts), but it contradicts the Manual of Style for lead images, which says Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. It may be that no single image is very representative of this entire very dynamic period (and I note that the lead images chosen for the Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages articles are all maps), but I think we can do better. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added another image for consideration (caption according to plate at the feet). Actually knights existed throughout almost all Middle Ages, roughly from 1000s to 1500s, which is yet another reason of their representativeness. It's also possible to have a set of different armour types in the lead. Brandmeistertalk00:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
knights existed throughout the period, yes, but plate armour of the type you are depicting here is a very late development. Really really late. Like 1400's late and so is NOT representative of knighthood. It would be misleading. Ealdgyth - Talk12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are you apparently suggesting that a montage of armour types would in some way summarise the Middle Ages? One aspect of the present image is that it gives an insight into the workmanship of the period. EricCorbett01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I looked through the "Featured Images" on Commons and some of the "Quality Images" and selected some possible lead images for this article from that group. I'm sure this is just scratching the surface of what is available in Commons, but I find it frustrating to browse there when you don't already know what you are looking for. Unless we are going to have a collage of some kind, I think our best bet for a stand alone image is going to be architecture because of its longevity and prominence:
The question was extensively discussed not long ago and raised again at the FAC, where more supported this image. Looking at the covers coming up in Amazon search for books on "Medieval Europe", I see no armour, very few castles or churches, and lots of (very different) miniatures from manuscripts. I don't think we are going to change the image for a while. However there is room for a second image below it. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I won't be changing the image without a consensus to do so. I looked at Amazon and, yes, manuscript illustration and paintings appear to be the most popular choice on those book covers. I think my earlier point about the current image not being very representative still stands. But if we use more than one image, perhaps one each from the Early, High, and Late periods would be best? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
all those gothic cathedral images are again late for the period. The Gothic is not really fully developed until 1300. And what other reference works do for their covers isn't really that important here ... We want something that is relevant, covers as much of the subject as possible - this image covers death rituals, shows a common style of helmet used through much of the period ( it remained in use pretty muh throughout the period), shows a common embellishment style that also remained in use for a long period, exposes the reader to something new so they learn something and realize that the period isn't really about a bunch of folks wearing plate armour and jousting (which is a totally wrong view of the period but which is just reinforced if we use something from the late period). Stone castles, gothic cathedrals and late illustrations from manuscripts ARE misleading the reader - they give the idea that those things were typical of the entire period ... They were not. This style of helmet was used for a heck of a lot longer in the middle ages than we're any of the above. I oppose illuminations of manuscript pages because that would give the idea that most of the people in the middle ages would have seen one - they wouldnt have. Can we please leave the unrepresentative images behind? It would be nice if people would a tally address my points rather than just keep banging on about it needing to conform to what other works do. That's only a small part of choosing an image ... After you eliminate the ones that aren't representative of the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I want to make four points here:
1) Do we agree that we are supposed to be following Wikipedia's Manual of Style here? Because it explicitly contradicts your rationale of exposing "the reader to something new so they learn something". That is the role of images in the body of the article, not for the lead image. It also directly contradicts your rejection of the importance of "what other reference works do for their covers". It says that the lead image "should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." (Most of the Amazon book results were not actually "high quality reference works", but that's beside the point right now.) I take your point about plate armor being misleading. Please note that I did not include a plate armor image in any of my suggestions above.
2) In choosing a "representative" image, we are choosing an image which is commonly identified with the concept of the Middle Ages, not something which necessarily existed throughout the entire period or that was typical or used by the common people. Being "representative" in this sense means being iconic or symbolic, not being common or wide-ranging. The Sutton Hoo helmet would be a great choice to illustrate an article about the "Early Middle Ages in England" because it apparently revolutionized our understanding of that time in that place, but it is not a great example to illustrate the Middle Ages as a whole (and note that it is not even used to illustrate the lead for the article on the Middle Ages as a whole in England.
3) The Sutton Hoo helmet is not at all representative of the Middle Ages as a whole because it is at best representative of the dark ages/late antiquity in England. It is not an ordinary or typical helmet even for its time, but an extra-ordinary example which has shed light on an obscure period for which there was very little else known. According to the British Museum, it is one of four helmets found in England from the Early Middle Ages period (the others are significantly different and can be seen here, here, and here). It relates to the type of helmet found from the Vendel period in Sweden, from 600 to 800, and so is most definitely not a type in use "pretty much throughout the period" of the Middle Ages as you claimed. It is unique.
4) This idea that an image from the early period is better than late period is mystifying to me. The middle to late period of a time span is the most appropriate choice because it tends to be the culminating point. Using a lead image from the Early Middle Ages for an article on the whole Middle Ages is like using a childhood photograph in a biographical article. Clearly, this is only appropriate if that was the most notable period in the person's life. Otherwise, an image from the mid- to late period is best. For example, the Featured article Scotland in the High Middle Ages uses a lead image from the end of that period. An image of Gothic architecture would fit the bill very nicely for this article, but it is far from the only possibility. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to respond to point 1, the (unrestored) helmet is used as the cover photograph of Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, which covers the period from 400 to 1066, and is a book targeted at an non-scholarly audience. I don't think the image contradicts the manual of style. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The 1400s and 1300s are still Middle Ages, as our article shows and there's no reason to reject images of that period. Castles, knights, courtly love or battles are recognizable medieval features whereas the Sutton Hoo helmet is pinned to a relatively narrow period and limited group of people (although I wouldn't object placing the original helmet). Brandmeistertalk08:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a representative image of the Middle Ages. The Sutton Hoo helmet is not representative. Nor is plate armour. Nor castles, Gothic cathedrals and illuminated manuscripts. The current image has plenty going for it stylistically: it is striking, high-resolution and simple (uncluttered). It has a few knocks against it: it is a picture of a replica, it is looking out of the page and it is a British object (which, to me, negates its teaching value, since the average English reader probably expects a Britain-associated lead image). I have no better suggestion than the current image and I have looked at our options on Commons. The very fact that people don't like it as the lead image proves that it is jarring, which is something we need at the beginning of this article. (If the MOS says otherwise, screw it.) Srnec (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It's one thing to consciously ignore the MOS, and if that's the consensus here, so be it. An illuminated manuscript or a Gothic building seem to me to be iconic of the Middle Ages in a way that a Dark Ages helmet is not. Wouldn't the Mont St Michel picture or this illuminated manuscript work? But if there is no such thing as a representative image for the Middle Ages, then isn't the solution to either use multiple images in the lead (as the England in the Middle Ages article does) or to use none and avoid giving a distorting impression? It's a very striking picture, but isn't it the subject of the image that matters here? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe we're wasting so many words on this. A montage would just look silly. My very strong belief is that the current image is appropriate because it demonstrates that the skill of even early Middle Age craftsmen was far beyond what one might expect, that the period wasn't in any real sense a "dark age". EricCorbett01:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
b (MoS): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
.jpg){kind=link}
