Talk:Renaissance/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

An error on the page

This really isn't much of an issue, but I wonder why the picture that was intended to be shown in the subsection "Art" (Michelangelo's grave) is, well, not shown. Is this because no picture corresponding to it has been uploaded? I tried editing it, but couldn't. Knaveknight (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

dear wikipedia person,

i need an access for the scorces on 'the renaissance' page. i need it for my history essay. i could lose my scolarship by this. i need it before monday by tusday because my whole life is depending on it and i need to make a change in my life.

regards, Greenflame123

 Not done {{Edit semi-protected}} is used for requesting changes to a protected article. Access to the references to an article is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

186.1.11.58 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)The renaissance time the people was pervert and only shows their pirulin

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2015

Please replace Vasari’s work Vite de' più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori Italiani with the correct (Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects) Le Vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori. Ignoto (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Article's name

Why is this article named "The Renaissance" instead of "Renaissance"? I'm proposing to move it. --Checco (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Having the The isn't standard practice, consider Middle Ages, Industrial Revolution. - SimonP (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the article was moved from "Renaissance" to "The Renaissance" without any debate (see also here). While we are at it, let me also explain why I disagree with this edit by 115ash: as the article's first image, Michelangelo's David, which by the way is in Florence, is more meaningful than a panorama of Florence, as well as Michelangelo is more notable than Brunelleschi. I'm going to revert the edit. --Checco (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is better to remove the article. Barjimoa (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree too about both issues. Alex2006 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made the change. - SimonP (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Organization of topic

Rather than organize this geographically it would make more sense to organize chronologically or by style. Although Italy and particularly Florence have a special significance, listings for other regions seem unnecessary. See, for example, how Britannica does it: http://www.britannica.com/event/Renaissance Also, History.com has a well-organized treatment of the topic: http://www.history.com/topics/renaissance-art 24.236.70.18 (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Ak843 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Opening image

The article is not about notability not about the outstanding contributions of great artists. I believe that the statue must not be on the top of the article. We could some other paintings. --115ash^→(☏) 13:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that we have enough artworks to put at the top of the article (starting with the ominous Mona Lisa), but why do you dislike David? Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That image is unacceptable. What's wrong with the birthplace of the Renaissance? I don't know why Checco made a comparison between Filippo and Michelangelo. Did I add the Cathedral? No, just the city.--115ash^→(☏) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why unacceptable? Alex2006 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As everyone know that Wikipedia is not censored, still nudity doesn't look nice on the of the article. There are better images that can be replaced. What's wrong with the birthplace of the Renaissance? Again, that was a view of Florence, not only the Cathedral. --115ash^→(☏) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You answered by yourself: Wikipedia is not censored. This means that nudity cannot play any role in the judgement about the opportunity to use a picture in the lead. Alex2006 (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there many better images that we can include. I find it as inappropriate. Again, what's wrong with the image of Florence? There many much finer sculptors that we can include.--115ash^→(☏) 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear ash, you are refusing to get the point. I am asking you since a week: why is it inappropriate? The only reason which you gave until now, is that David is nude, and this for Wikipedia is not a valid reason. "There are better images", "what is wrong with Florence", and so on, is only Smalltalk. You should give valid, compelling reasons to change this image, which represents what is considered one of the most remarkable masterpieces of world art, not nudity. Alex2006 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we include better images. Let's forget about nudity, assume that it I don't like the image. Amongst most remarkable masterpieces of world art, there are even more notable works, such as the dome of Brunelleschi, Gioconda, San Pietro and many other sculptors.--115ash^→(☏) 11:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I just added the biggest church, which is more remarkable.--115ash^→(☏) 11:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I perfectly agree with Alex. I don't understand 115ash's concerns and I think that Michelangelo's David is probably the most appropriate symbol of Renaissance. Only Leonardo's Vitruvian Man would be a good competitor, but I would leave it where it is. --Checco (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Since when that has been considered the most appropriate symbol of Renaissance? San Pietro, Gioconda, Cathedral of Florence and many others are much more suitable. 115ash^→(☏) 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

There seems to be factual inaccuracy in what is said of Michelet in the second and third sentences of the following paragraph from the Wikipedia entry headed Renaissance:

“The word "Renaissance" is borrowed from the French language, where it means "re-birth". It was first used and defined[16] by French historian Jules Michelet (1798–1874), in his 1855 work, Histoire de France (History of France).[79] His work is at the origin of the use of the French word "Renaissance" in other languages.”

That paragraph is also inconsistent with another pair of sentences in the same article:

“The word Renaissance, literally meaning "Rebirth" in French, first appears in English in the 1830s.[15] The word occurs in Jules Michelet's 1855 work, Histoire de France.”

It is certainly true that the word appears in English well before it was used by Michelet, but that is because Michelet was not the originator of the use of the word in French or, for that matter, English.

Section 1 of Michelet's 1855 Introduction to his Histoire de France provides an analysis of the ways in which the word renaissance was used in French at the time but it cannot be the origin of the use of the word.

In 1845 Étienne Jean Delécluze, referred to his book on Roland as a section of “mon ouvrage sur la renaissance”, and in the first sentence of its Preface he defines that as “la renaissance des lumières et de la civilisation en Europe”.

In 1840 T.A. Trollope A Summer in Brittany in his account of the church of St Thégonec suggests that the word was in common use in France at least 15 years before Michelet: he refers there to 'the “renaissance”, as the French choose to term it'.

By 1840 Charles Lenormant in Rabelais et l'architecture de la Renaissance uses the word simply and without further explanation to refer to the relationship between the fictional Abbaye de Thélème in Rabelais and buildings such as the châteaux of Chambord and Fontainebleau which would are now readily referred to as Renaissance buildings.

In 1822 J.A.Coussin in Du génie de l'architectures seems to assume that his readers are familiar with the term renaissance used without any qualifying phrase. He does not define it but from the beginning simply refers to “l'époque appellée la renaissance” or “le temps appelé la Renaissance”.

In 1787 the word renaissance was used, with a qualifying phrase, by Antoine-Nicolas Dezallier d'Argenville in his Vies Des Fameux Sculpteurs Depuis La Renaissance Des Arts. Both his title and the references in his footnotes make clear his debt to Vasari.and the concept of la rinascita, which Vasari generally qualifies with an expression such as l'arti di disegno

In 1772 Alexandre Julien Savérien used the word renaissance, though with a qualifying phrase, in Histoire des philosophes anciens, jusqu'à la renaissance des lettres. That book was reviewed in England in the Critical Review of 1773.

The notion of the “la renaissance des lettres” seems to be derived from d'Alembert's 1751 “Discours préliminaire” to l’Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, edited by d'Alembert and Diderot.

Michelet was important but he was not the originator of the use of the word “renaissance” in its modern sense. 86.160.37.55 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out! The claims in the article (which are also present in the article on Jules Michelet) seem to be based on a misreading of the source. The source actually says "in 1855 we find, for the first time, the word 'Renaissance' used — by the French historian Michelet — as an adjective to describe a whole period of history and not confined to the rebirth of Latin letters or a classically inspired style in the arts." This book clarifies things and confirms the claims you make in your request. It says the word Renaissance was "coined in the eighteenth century and first popularized by Michelet in the nineteenth."

Accordingly, I have changed the paragraph you mention to read The word "Renaissance" is borrowed from the French language, where it means "re-birth". It was first used in the eighteenth century and was later popularized by French historian Jules Michelet (1798–1874), in his 1855 work, Histoire de France (History of France). How does that sound? I also changed another sentence in the article about Michelet, and I'm about to change the Michelet article itself. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did not change the Michelet article; it says he was the first to define the Renaissance "as a period in Europe's cultural history that represented a drastic break from the Middle Ages," which I think is in accord with what the Murray source says. Let me know if you disagree. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

John Milton in the "England" section

It is said that "In England, the sixteenth century marked the beginning of the English Renaissance with the work of writers William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Edmund Spenser, Sir Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Sir Philip Sidney, John Milton".

However, John Milton was born in 1608 and therefore does not belong to the 16th century.

Perhaps it would be a good idea either to rephrase by mentioning the 17th century or remove altogether the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.25.78.124 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it -- not sure if we want to extend the Renaissance all the way to the middle 17th century -- would have to include a lot of other names as well, and rewrite the English Renaissance article to match. Antandrus (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Add a key photo on Spanish Renaissance

I think it's important for the topic to put on the "spanish section" the next photo with the description:

Santa Cruz Palace (1486-1491) in Valladolid is considered to be the earliest extant building of the Spanish Renaissance.

--81.172.0.207 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And thems the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.79.137 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

End of the Renaissance

The current article doesn't really address this issue, which should be expected in an encyclopedic entry on a period of time, even if the legitimacy of creating such periods is debatable (as the article does address). The article includes substantial discussion about the debated beginnings and origins of the Renaissance, but virtually nothing about the conclusion. This confusion is seen in part in the discussion about whether to include Milton above, despite the statement at the beginning of the article that it goes into the 17th century. Various scholars have proposed a range of dates for which the Renaissance can be said to end, with the mid-16th century looming large due to major political developments that altered the cultural and religious landscape. For the British Isles, this includes the execution of absolute monarch Charles I, setting up a period of Puritanical ascendancy that would collapse after about a decade. Around the same time on the continent, the Protestant forces prevail in the 30 Years War thanks to the intervention of Catholic France on their side. These changes seem to bridge the way from the preoccupations of the Renaissance to those of the Enlightenment Era. Also, the colonization of North America precedes at a rapid and diverse pace from this time on, representing an important shift toward imperialism in the national outlook of the major European powers. This is just one example of a probable date for the end of the Renaissance of 1648, but other dates can also be proposed. Some discussion of these various options, as well as the causal mechanisms that led to an end of the Renaissance and the distinctive cultural changes that signaled an end to what was the Renaissance, ought to be included in a major section of this article. Without that, the article is severely lacking. Ftjrwrites (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good points but you need a good RS that makes them explicit. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

174.44.64.225 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC) This page has no the period of years of renaissance 174.44.64.225 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done the article starts "The Renaissance ... is a period in Europe, from the 14th to the 17th century" - Arjayay (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

{Mitrain was renaissance establisher.}

Mayank mv (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

humanism

This article did not elaborate fully on the actual mind-set of humanism. It was helpful that it outlined a couple of key components, but for people who are not very knowledgeable on the topic of the Renaissance, it could lead to confusion of the overall theme and way of thinking. Teacho12 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to drift away from the main theme of humanism. Teacho12 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

sources

This article is consistently referencing the terms “many people” and “commonly” instead of referring us to a source which actually proves this information. Teacho12 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Hei og Hade 77.106.165.126 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fashion

Somewhere in this article there should be links to the following; perhaps just a section header with bulleted list?

• 1400–1500 in European fashion
• 1500–1550 in Western European fashion
• 1550–1600 in Western European fashion

...Others, perhaps — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C9A:4B44:2E28:1611 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

182.186.29.188 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Try these alternatives:

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

add something about how this and the harlem renaissance are different 185.138.38.98 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done - there is already a hatnote at the top of this article linking to Renaissance (disambiguation), as well as a link directly to Harlem Renaissance in the Other Renaissances section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018 delete

96.33.73.33 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hhkohh (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk lol

Come and talk w me lol Linnea.Ekman (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

This period is when their was a rediscovery in classical learning which lead to achievement is arts,education. 172.58.201.204 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

The library is the greatest of the 15th century so that qualification should be closure to when it was the greatest instead of being mentioned after all the types of works in the collections because some works predate the 15th century and it certainly is not considerdd the greatest accummalation after the Vatican. 2605:E000:9149:8300:85AC:1E61:6D2A:99D (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 06:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

The part on Bengal Renaissance should be removed from this Renaissance page. It is stated at the begining of the article that it only treats European Renaissance. Having Bengal Renaissance is misleading. 166.48.199.106 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The specific spot in the text is about the spread of the renaissance from Europe to other places. This is a flat not-done. Izno (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bengal renaissance thing

Ok, it appears that we have a very slow add/delete edit war on the Bengal Renaissance, said one who has no previous history in this.

There are grounds for leaving it in *IF* it can be shown that it is was a result of the European Renaissance of the 14th to 16th centuries. Was the Bengal 'renaissance' based on European values and ideas? What were the mechanisms by which those ideas and values were transmitted to India, and how/ why did they catch on? If it can be shown that it was the European-derived movement, then it should stay BUT the text needs improving: at the moment it's a list of Bengali Indian thinkers and artists without any explicit indication of which strands of this article's subject (the return to classical Greek and Roman roots in European culture in Italy from the 14th century) were transferred, were relevant. Scarabocchio (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

From reading the Bengali Renaissance article, there seems to be no real connection between the bengali movment and the actual european renaissance, either in history, ideological origins, or stylistic similarities in artistic movements. The bengali article has no place in this article or any reference to the actual renaissance; it is merely a shared use of a term and superficial similarities at best. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely with all that you have written here. I also support your removal of the entry from the {{Renaissance}} template on the same grounds. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

203.192.225.190 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MrClog (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

Change "thechnology" to "technology" in the Overview section. 2600:1700:EDB0:161F:C8C3:464D:913C:5C11 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Name of the article

Can someone please explain to me why the name of this article is simply "Renaissance"? From face value, this is very Euro-centric as there are many other periods before and after this with the name "Renaissance" but all classify what they are referring to e.g. Timurid Renaissance. I'd like to know why this article is simply "Renaissance". Thanks KhakePakeVatan (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

−

66.68.14.216 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 07:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Long Renaissance

There is probably a general consensus that the high medieval period precedes the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment follows it. So the Renaissance can arguably be defined as a historical period somewhere between the limits 1250 and 1650 (with a "core period" in the High Renaissance between 1500/1517 and 1520/1527). "The Renaissance" – as opposed to medieval renaissances, especially the 12th-century one – certainly isn't to be sought prior to 1200 nor after 1687. However, at least in Italy and the rest of Southern Europe, the late medieval period certainly overlaps the Renaissance to some extent – in the period between 1453 and 1500 at the very least. Ending the late medieval period already around 1450, which could potentially get rid of the overlap, appears to be unpopular nowadays.

For this reason, if the historical periods are defined like this, the Renaissance can only be conceived as a transition from the medieval to the early modern period. The Early Renaissance from 1453 (at the latest) to about 1500 is still more or less medieval, while the High Renaissance from about 1500 to at least 1527 is already early modern. Petrarch still considered his own time part of a "dark" age, and we consider it a time of crisis that only ended around 1500, while modernity (expressed by the "light" metaphor) only appears fully blown sometime in the 17th century. However, it can be argued that the period 1250–1500 showed enough innovation that it should be considered its own period, the Early Renaissance, rather than part of the Middle Ages. Certainly the 15th century is not fully medieval anymore. The 14th century has a greater claim to being considered medieval, at least in Western Europe, but perhaps it should not be considered either medieval nor (early) modern really.

I think the real lesson is that "the Renaissance" is essentially impossible to nail down and is more like a fuzzy category: there's a prototypical core around 1517–1520 that everyone agrees on, and then it extends towards either side and peters out in the 13th century on one side and in the 17th century on the other. And "medieval", which is similarly fuzzy, with a core in the 12th century, or even in the late 11th century (before or around the First Crusade), depending on what you think is most characteristic of the period, and arguably revolves around (largely Germanic-derived) "feudal" structures and the overwhelming influence of the Catholic Church, strongly overlaps with "the Renaissance". Historiographic tradition (Petrarch vs. Bruni and Biondo) and the striking caesura of the 14th-century crisis definitely favour a break around 1400 rather than around 1500 (or around 1300), however. It just seems odd to place Botticelli and the whole Early Renaissance of Italy in the medieval period, and contradictory to imply that somehow the Early Renaissance isn't really part of "the Renaissance", whose prime feature is a reaction against medieval Christian scholasticism and the re-establishment of pagan Greco-Roman values over medieval Christian ones. Therefore it seems that the debate is also influenced by personal bias: Those who prefer to think of the Middle Ages as a backward time tend to have it end earlier, while those who want to portray it as a progressive era (or alternatively the early modern period as regressive), especially medievalists, push its end forward – up to the extreme of Le Goff, who wanted to end the "long Middle Ages" only in the 18th century, effectively eliminating the "early modern" label. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the current first sentence (C15th & 16th) - too emphatic and limiting. In late 2019 it said "covering the span between the 14th and 17th centuries and marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity", which is equally bad as a flat statement. The range over which the term is useful varies considerably between countries and topical areas. There was a similar discussion pretty recently on another page - can anyone remember where? Middle Ages may be a better model for defining the indefinable. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You gave me an idea. How about a vague phrasing like "in the middle of the second millennium AD", "centered on the 15th and 16th centuries" or even "centered on the early 16th century"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more of something like (from MA): "The most commonly given starting point for the Middle Ages is around 500,[12] with the date of 476 first used by Bruni.[11][A] Later starting dates are sometimes used in the outer parts of Europe.[14] For Europe as a whole, 1500 is often considered to be the end of the Middle Ages,[15] but there is no universally agreed upon end date. Depending on the context, events such as the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the Americas in 1492, or the Protestant Reformation in 1517 are sometimes used.[16] English historians often use the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to mark the end of the period.[17] For Spain, dates commonly used are the death of King Ferdinand II in 1516, the death of Queen Isabella I of Castile in 1504, or the conquest of Granada in 1492." I think one has to get more precise, and be clear there is no single answer. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Both can be easily combined. Maybe "centered on the Italian High Renaissance of the early 16th century" or even "centered on the time of the Italian Wars (1494–1559)" as a concise definition for the lead sentence, plus a paragraph or section on dating and sub-periodisation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

About Traditional views on the historical character of the Renaissance

"The traditional view focuses more on the early modern aspects of the Renaissance and argues that it was a break from the past, but many historians today focus more on its medieval aspects and argue that it was an extension of the Middle Ages."

The Renaissance was clearly a departure from the past in every possible way, it bears it on its name! contradicting this is contradicting the very nature of the event and seems arguably confusing to the first reader. 
  Yes, the Renaissance is a very long period of time, most of which developed during the Middle Ages, but the nature of the event itself battles core medieval values. **I do not think anyone argues whether or not the Renaissance was a departure from the past** I think whoever wrote this paragraph fails to deliver a coherent message to the reader on the historical character of the Renaissance. The Renaissance responds to a medieval world, it originates in a medieval world, it only makes sense in a medieval world, no one argues that. 
  My point is, regardless of the historical period in which the Renaissance occurred, no one argues the revolutionary nature of the event, and the fact that it may be an extension of the middle ages does not argue this (Actually, the Renaissance as I've studied it, has always been a divider event, like the French Revolution or the Fall of Rome, these kind of events change the world and are both part of the period they leave behind and the one they preceded). If the Renaissance was indeed an extension to the Middle Ages, it is so because of how long it took to dismantle it, not because of it being in absolute harmony with it and with the characteristics it held. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

History

You should be more informative 2409:4064:E99:C9C:50CF:34ED:7164:2BCA (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Revisions dealing with women's and gender history, institutional history, social history, and-in general--bringing this article in line with contemporary Renaissance scholarship

This article presents a very conservative understanding of the Renaissance--the scope of content is very similar to what I studied as an undergraduate in the mid-1980's. Indeed, I notice that the most recent peer-reviewed work discussed and cited in the "Historiography" section is from 1980. Women's history, queer history, gender history, Jewish studies, institutional history, and colonialism are mainstream elements of contemporary scholarship on the Renaissance, but they are virtually absent here. Examine, for example, the contents of the latest issues of _Renaissance Quarterly_ and _Sixteenth Century Journal_ These are the academic journals of the Renaissance Society of America and the Sixteenth Century Century Society--the most influential scholarly societies in the US that focus mostly on the Renaissance. As of right now (February 2, 2022) RQ lists the "most read" article of the last 30 days as Cloe Ireton's "Black Africans' Freedom Litigation Suits to Define Just War and Just Slavery in the Early Spanish Empire," and that two of the eight research articles in the most recent issue are focused on the Jewish political thought in the Ottoman Empire and the impact of Japanese religious politics on a Jesuit college in the Netherlands. We no longer The lastest issue of the _Sixteenth Century Journal_ is locked, but the one right before that has six research articles, one of them about how Beatriz of Portugal articulated her own political agenda and another about queer readings of a work by Edmund Spencer's. I am teaching teaching a a class on the Renaissance as part of Wiki Edu (HI 320 Women of the Renaissance) and I anticipate my students will want to make edits on this page and on a number of related articles. At a minimum, I expect they will want to add more recent bibliography that includes womens, gender, queer, and colonial subjects. We will probably also want to make some changes to the "see also's." Finally, I'm not persuaded that scholars use the word "Renaissance" to mean "marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity and covering the 15th and 16th centuries, characterized by an effort to revive and surpass ideas and achievements of classical antiquity." We use the word "humanist" to describe the movement to discover and adapt classical models. I am not sure how many would agree that the Renaissance is a transition to modernity--I am accustomed to seeing scholars use "modernity" to describe the period starting with the second industrial revolution. I may be wrong: my area of expertise ends roughly with Napoleon. I am an inexperienced wikipedia editor, so I apologize for problems in formatting in this talk page.Pamela McVay (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela McVay (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Pamela McVay (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Marxist Historians

Concerning the following section, is there a compelling reason this should be included? Marxist historiography seems about as pertinent to the Renaissance as it does to the history of the Babylonian Empire.

"Some Marxist historians prefer to describe the Renaissance in material terms, holding the view that the changes in art, literature, and philosophy were part of a general economic trend from feudalism towards capitalism, resulting in a bourgeois class with leisure time to devote to the arts." 98.229.202.43 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

mobile app - image of a bee on feces

Im on mobile app, there is an image of bee sitting on a pile of feces, also the subtitle is "consumption of feces". Please, anyone who can, change this, i dont know how. Thanks 2A00:102A:400E:714C:1:0:3190:F33A (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing like that on pc. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I also have thus problem on PC with a few random articles having the same issue. Some weird vandalism project? 86.5.107.216 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:102A:400E:714C:1:0:3190:F33A I'm having the same issue. Oscar Quintero Huerta (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Latin in the Renaissance

The article focuses on 'recovery' of latin texts, but this was just one aspect of Latin in the period. For contemporaries, just as important was the shift in what was studied in schools and Universities - moving back to pagan Classical literary texts, learning more about rhetoric (which is mentioned) and Classical linguistic styles, and using a more Classical linguistic idiom. Just as importantly, the "new learning" was transmitted through Latin in new Latin texts in this new style. There was, in other words, a "Renaissance" of Latin in standards, style and content.

The relation between Renaissance vernaculars and Latin also needs some nuance in the body (it's stated better in some parts than others) as at the time, both Latin and vernacular uses were often promoted by the same people, for differing reasons; in other words, it could be seen as more a question of domains and audiences than a kind of simple "displacement" story; while that clearly happened in the longer run, such a perspective would risk obscuring the parallel and intertwined development of both Latin and vernaculars. There's more on this at Neo-Latin, and plenty of discussion on these points in sources. Jim Killock (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments that need to be fixed

So, there are problems with this article

• The lead is way too long, it should be four paragraphs
• Then there looks to be uncited material such as
  • This ideology was referred to as the uomo universale, an ancient Greco-Roman ideal. Education during the Renaissance was mainly composed of ancient literature and history as it was thought that the classics provided moral instruction and an intensive understanding of human behavior.
  • Humanism and libraries section
  • Music section
  • In October 1517 Luther published the Ninety-five Theses, challenging papal authority and criticizing its perceived corruption, particularly with regard to instances of sold indulgences. The 95 Theses led to the Reformation, a break with the Roman Catholic Church that previously claimed hegemony in Western Europe. Humanism and the Renaissance therefore played a direct role in sparking the Reformation, as well as in many other contemporaneous religious debates and conflicts. Pope Paul III came to the papal throne (1534–1549) after the sack of Rome in 1527, with uncertainties prevalent in the Catholic Church following the Protestant Reformation. Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) to Paul III, who became the grandfather of Alessandro Farnese, who had paintings by Titian, Michelangelo, and Raphael, as well as an important collection of drawings, and who commissioned the masterpiece of Giulio Clovio, arguably the last major illuminated manuscript, the Farnese Hours.
• A lot of the spread section

and many more. Though, if these are supported by general references then do tell me. If this receives no comments by monday I will open a GAR on this and possibly have it delisted from GA status. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave it a bit longer than that. I can't see anything above is actually wrong. You, or anyone could pretty easily reference it. There are 142 refs as it is. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the church door needs a citation? XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually the problem with this article is that 90% of it reads like it was written by either art history students or amateurs who don't understand why historians find this whole concept of "Renaissance" deeply problematic, extremely misleading, and part of that genre of whiggish pseudohistory circa 19th Century. You write that "humanism and Renaissance therefore played a direct role in sparking the Reformation", essentially parroting the Whig myth to the letter. What actually "sparked" the Reformation was the economic boom in Western Europe that occurred after new trade networks were established in the Americas, which began a process of centralization and secularization in European states. By the first two decades of the 16th Century, states like France, and the city-states in Northern/Central Italy, managed to marginalize the Church and secularize their governments. Countries like England, on the other hand, still had a powerful state Church and so backing the reformers was a way to wrest power from the clergy. This is why the Reformation succeeded in states that backed the reformers, and failed in states that didn't. It had nothing to do with this mythical Renaissance which was supposedly happening all over Western Europe.

Art history students wouldn't understand this but economic historians do. This article makes it seem like there's a big debate over this periodization when it's been good and settled for a while now. Virtually every characteristic that's been attributed to "the Renaissance" -the rediscovery of classical learning, the dabbling in classical art forms, the exploration and discovery of new lands etc -are all things Europeans had been doing for the entirety of the Middle Ages. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article, which by the way is on Renaissance not Reformation? While it's certainly not perfect, the sort of thing you are talking about is certainly addressed "...but many historians today focus more on its medieval aspects and argue that it was an extension of the Middle Ages" is in para 2 of the lead. The section on art is pathetically small and several screens down, itself one of the article's problems. Like many other dubious concepts dreamed up by historians in the past, "Renaissance" is still very widely used in scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Like many other dubious concepts dreamed up by historians in the past, "Renaissance" is still very widely used in scholarship."

This is the problem with the rules on here, or how some editors interpret the rules: historical arguments are evaluated on their merits, not by merely repeating something that's been repeated by scholars who are not even seriously analyzing whether the term or concept is historical or not. The historians who have actually critically scrutinized this concept find it incoherent, with the exception of art historians. And there are real problems when your whole basis for periodization relies on such a narrow and subjective focus on 'new' art forms, or what is presumed to have been a new style of art (wasn't Romanesque architecture a 'rebirth' of classical art? -there was nothing new here either).

"Have you actually read the article, which by the way is on Renaissance not Reformation?"

The Reformation remark was in response to another editor who is trying to improve this article with suggestions that will only make it worse. I read the whole article and my opinion is that it's light on criticism and heavy on conferring credibility to this idea. Just read the first sentence in the lead, where they've emphatically declared "Renaissance" to have been "a period in European history". How about we start by rewording this to say "a period in European art history" since it is primarily art historians defending this concept? Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Renaissance, so I will try to tread lightly; but from my recent readings on Neo-Latin I don't think you can argue there is no intellectual link between the Renaissance and the Reformation; after all, Erasmus and others were engaging in textual criticism of Bible translations which led to the idea that people needed to engage directly in the texts. That is foundational for the Reformation, surely. For sure the success of the Reformation is a political matter, not an intellectual one, but that is a matter of explaining the difference and relationships between ideologies, social change and political power. That's not wholly straightforward either, it took significant political (and military) efforts to dismantle religious movements where they threatened political power.

While I am sure the Renaissance is easy to overstate as a decisive break from "medieval" backwardness, it is hard dismiss the idea that there were significant changes in education, writing, ideas and intellectual frameworks with what's generally called Humanism. Likewise linguistic standardisation of Latin and vernaculars does undergo a qualitative and generalised change, even if there were plenty of antecedents. These changes seem to be linked with urbanism in Italy, essentially improving professional education, in law and medicine, for instance. In northern Europe, there is a bigger jolt, as educational change had lagged, which may have added to the view of a break.

It's worth noting that the ideas of a decisive break come from the period's own commentaries and understanding, in order to boost the new thinking's importance no doubt, rather than being a purely nineteenth century view.

In terms of approaches to a page like this, I would venture that it is important to explain the range of views, whether they are seen as "traditional", "revisionist", or owe their background to economic or other perspectives. I wouldn't be surprised if the thinking presented on the page isn't rather outdated tho, it does seem to be a feature of many WP articles that they parrott half remembered thinking and emphasise cliches fairly uncritically. That's why we have to go ad fontes, natch. Jim Killock (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)