Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Theodoric to Theoderic

As per my note on the talk page of Theoderic the Great I've started the process of correcting the spelling of Theodoric to Theoderic. This was an error carried over from the 19th century, whereas most reputable modern sources use Theoderic, the internet is filled with older materials that still use Theodoric. Because of this, "Theodoric" is so prevalent in Wikipedia, I thought it best to stop the correcting process and seek counsel here regarding the issue. Any thoughts? Feedback on the Theoderic talk page appreciated. -- spin|^control 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

John Dee, King Arthur, and the Conquest of the Arctic

Thomas Green has written a new article on this subject which looks like an excellent source.[1]. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Norman conquest of southern Italy

Hi all, I started a discussion on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article in regards to the introductory paragraph. If anyone wants to provide input they are more than welcome. Cheers, — - dain- talk    23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

East and West Francia

The articles East Francia and West Francia, long without sources, have been turned into redirects to Kingdom of Germany and Kingdom of France, respectively. Middle Francia still exists. These articles could be resurrected someday, hopefully with citations. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Replace "Middle Ages" with "Post-Classical?"

There's mention of removing "Middle Ages" and replacing it with Postclassical Era. Please chime in. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Limited to Europe

Why is this project solely limited to Europe? Why not include other continents? Asarelah (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As the name implies, this era has been defined by being in the middle between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. That periodization is based on the narratives of mostly isolated European evolution. While there were events on other continents during the same timespan, the periodization moniker doesn't fit as well (though has been used). For instance, the Crusades against the Muslim invaders fits in the Middle Ages. That narrative places Islamic peoples as a character in a story about Europeans. The age of Islamic Caliphates wasn't in the middle of anything, it was a Golden Age (from the Islamic point of view). Meanwhile events in East Asia, Africa, and the Americas continued but those events were not meaningfully identifiable to the timespan of the "Middle Ages." Japan experienced a feudal-like shogunate government from AD 1192 all the way to the Meiji Restoration in 1868. It wouldn't be accurate to call this part of the Middle Ages. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See various discussions above, and longer ones at Talk:Middle Ages. While the term "medieval" is often applied to other areas in sources, covering a similar time period give or take a century or two, the term "Middle Ages" is far more rarely used for them. Which may not be logical, but there it is. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I get where you're all coming from, but this policy sounds like a recipe for historical erasure on Wikipedia. I am concerned that in not making them a part of the project for this time period, we will be neglecting the histories of people of color. It may well be eurocentric to subject these time periods to European classification, but I think it will be far more eurocentric to leave them out entirely from the project. The ancient history wikiproject doesn't take this policy, and ancient history is usually defined as anything before the medieval era, so its just as much a European definition as medieval is. Are there counterpart projects for other parts of the world during this time period to make up for it? Nothing in the discussions in the archives touched on these points. Asarelah (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing folks from creating a Postclassical Period Wikiproject. We can't do OR here folks, historians generally confine use of "Middle Ages" to European topics. Yes, there are topics such as "Medieval China" or "Medieval Japan" but those subjects cover different time periods. It's just a weirdness of periodization - it's easy to define "ancient history" and easy to define "modern history" but ... where the dividing lines on what is "medieval" varies according to the region. I did a majority of the work on the Middle Ages article and all the books I consulted confined it to the Middle Ages. I bought/checked out/read a LOT of books trying to find the best sources for the article ... and none of the scholarly books (or even the high end histories designed for non-historians) covered non-European/non-Middle East topics in their books on the Middle Ages. Until the historians change their periodization (and I doubt they will, instead, I predict we'll see more "post classical" histories covering the whole world) we'd be wrong to impose some non-RS supported view. (From my time in college - most "world history" classes divide into two periods - before the modern and modern. The Age of Discovery is the usual dividing point.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Another point - are we thinking that if some topic isn't covered by this (mostly moribund) project that it's erased from coverage? Doesn't Wikiproject History cover all historical subjects? As long as we're not deleting articles, I dont' see how whether or not some wikiproject banner is on a talk page equates to a "recipe for historical erasure on Wikipedia". Wikiproject banners on a talk page do NOT equate to actual support and work - how much support has this project actually given out in a long time? It's mostly down to a few folks that work on their own topics... it's never been a big project for doing improvement drives or such like that. (For that matter, I wonder how many of it's participants know that the flagship article made featured article status recently... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no erasure or threat of erasure. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on varied historical subjects from Ibn Battuta to Daimyo. These articles need not be part of an exclusive WikiProject in order to collect educational content. Besides, there are already other WikiProjects that address some of these subjects, not to mention WikiProject History as a catch-all wikiproject. Because Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we have to draw upon the English-language scholarship of historians. The wiki will include new styles of periodization as they are created academically. Wikipedia's coverage becomes less Eurocentric as academia becomes less Eurocentric. I hope this settles your concerns about bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere (where was that recent discussion?) that we currently lack a historiographical article on Medieval periods in world history, which would be useful. But merely having a project is not much of a help or stimulus these days, and the different periods called "medieval" around Eurasia and Africa had such different cultures and histories that this is likely to be especially the case here. Johnbod (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns. A Post-Classical Era category and project, along with links in the medieval category pages directing them to their Asian and African counterparts, would be an excellent idea. That way, people will be able to find information about "medieval Asia, etc" without being stymied by the lack of articles in the Medieval category. Great suggestion! Asarelah (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire name

There is a move discussion on the Sassanid Empire talk page. Any interested editors are invited to comment and/or vote. --Constantine ✍ 08:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject France talk page

Please come participate in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Painting used in William of Gellone. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1526)

A proposal for size splitting of the above article has been made. All comments are welcome. Borsoka Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian tribes vs. Magyar tribes

There is an intense debate over a moving request. All comments are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Domain or Kingdom of Soissons

There is a move discussion on the Domain of Soissons talk page. Any input that any willing editors could give there would be greatly appreciated. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

FAR Rus' Khaganate

I have initiated an FA review for the article, the review page is open for discussions on how to improve the article to bring it back to it's FA status, or for it to be reclassified. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Any knowlegeable contributions to the discussion at Talk:Chichevache#Merger proposal would be welcome. Deor (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)