Talk:List of Byzantine scholars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose[edit]

Comment: I think the purpose of this article is unclear (which begs the question of whether it should exist). If it is nothing but an arbitrary list of names then it should be removed. If it is intended to be a list of the greatest contributors to Byzantine science then each name should be accompanied by a short description of who they were and why their contribution mattered. In other words, each article should attempt to concretely educate on a specific topic. A list of names by itself does not really fit the bill.

Frankly a lot of these names are people whom it is stretch to call "scientists". That is, although they may have been schooled in scientific concepts not all of these people actually did anything scientific (i.e. did not invent, did not educate, did not theorize; if all they did was read a couple of books then that does not make them scientists).

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you referring to someone in particular? i agree though that we need to add some info for each one of them. As for them being or not scientists we are talking about medieval ages.. you shouldnt expect a scientific breakthrough; none of them has discovered unfortunately the theory of relativity. that doesnot make them though less important Ipodamos (talk)

Perhaps it would be better to rename the list to "List of Byzantine scholars", since "scientist" implies use of a scientific method, which few of them (if any) applied in their work. As pointed out, most of the persons listed created compilations of knowledge, and were, as such, excellent scholars, but did not actually discover anything new. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to delete it[edit]

Although I tried hard to improve the article by removing some obviously irrelevant inclusions (eg Theodore Prodromos, Manuel Philes), the myriads of spelling errors and the dubious purpose of this article suggest that we should delete it. Is there someone able to start with the deletion review process ? (I am not familiar with it) --Dipa1965 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also tried to improve it by sorting it chronologically, but when despair grips our throats, the most logical way out of it is not to delete it. It's usable, just not complete, but it will become better in time. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources[edit]

The article should partake in filling some holes in the history of science: the time span from the antiquity (<400AD) to the islamic golden age (>700AD), and the translations from greek in the renaissance of the 12th century.

The original source link went stale. Some inferior sources support the general image of the article, f.ex.:

New sources are needed. I'll see what I can find. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dump of unsourced scholars[edit]

Dumping the red and ambiguous links here:

Other[edit]

AMBIGUOUS:

NO INFO ON:

Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]