Talk:Byzantine literature

Untitled
Added some pics to liven it up, as I have with the rest of the topics on the Byzantine Template, done some polishing to Byzantine Medicine as well.

Removing images
It looks like Wetman reverted the addition of several images from the article, but I'm not clear on how the reason corresponds with the removal. Can you let us know? Thanks! Demi T/C 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was just an incidental reversion of all the edits made by a certain anonymous asshole who had been blocked. The images should be alright though. Adam Bishop 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Adam. My edit summary stated "(rv series of anonymous edits from unreliable source: please check whether valuable text has been reverted)". Valuable text could have been inserted even by the known vandal, after whom I had been cleaning up, thus a check from an informed editor was requested. No real need to ring my doorbell... --Wetman 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interupt on your love-in, but that was wetman must justify his removal of text, in the discussion page and consult with other members in concern to whether he can rationalize their removal. He did no such thing. He removed on the basis it was me, and judged me to be an 'unreliable source' based on the fact I vandalized his user page, this alone does not constitute a reason for removal.

If you people want to copy articles from other encyclopedias, say, the catholic encyclopedia, you can at least try to do it right. Copy the text as it is in the original source (and cite the source), do not copy what you like and change what you don't like. user:anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.191.175 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I made some edits in the lead and in the first section of the article (not really a cleanup as stated in my edit-summary), replacing the outdated and badly quoted information of the Catholic encyclopaedia with information from the latest version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. I don't know how credible the catholic encyclopaedia is, but a source which calls the Orthodox Church by the names "Graeco-Judaic christianity" and "Greek schismatic Church" doesn't strike as too neutral in my books. I'm not saying that it's a bad source, but I think it shouldn't be preferred over modern sources. So I'm suggesting that all subsections concerning a Greek, christian, roman and oriental element should be removed and replaced with something more mainstream. I have yet to see such a dubious analysis of Byzantine literature in modern scholarship. Miskin 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Epistolography
There is a stub for this which has a long article in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Should "popular" be in italics?
I speak of this sentence (footnote removed):

"Although popular Byzantine literature and early Modern Greek literature both began in the 11th century, the two are indistinguishable."

Could anyone please tell me if using italics in this way is in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style's rules on the usage of italics for emphasis? I think it is, but I want to be absolutely sure.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)