Talk:Feudalism

Needs to be rewritten, terrible article lacks coherence
I came to this article wanting to learn about feudalism so I am a good test case. This article is convoluted, incoherent and repetitive. I stopped reading after several paragraphs due to its low quality of writing. It needs to be entirely scrapped and rewritten. 2600:100F:B106:490B:21A8:1AD9:E18:23F4 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have any actual suggestions? Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The article has been surprisingly stable for at least 15 years with millions of readers. Your view is not a common sentiment. If you stopped reading after only "several paragraphs" it's hard to take the criticism seriously. The "repetition" is how Wikipedia works, the lead section repeats what exists further down, the lead is a summary of the important points made in the body. The writing is fine, at least not "low quality", hard to know what you are talking about. -- Green  C  13:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Huge misplaced paragraph
@Alwaysaspiring30, I will repeat what I said in the edit summary: Remsense 诉  03:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's one huge paragraph that is very hard to read. This is trivial, but it's not clear how to split it.
 * Again, much of its content seems to focus on historiography, not history itself. "The debate about Charles Martel" goes there, not here. I agree he should be mentioned, but not in the context of duelling scholarship.


 * Also, distinct point: like I said before, we do not put bare WP:external links directly in the body of articles for a variety of reasons as discussed on that page. Wikipedia is already an encyclopedia, we don't need to link to Britannica.  Remsense  诉  03:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Remsense, considering that there is no direct written history of the origins of feudalism, to determine its origin is to look at the historiography and that allows others to understand the scholarship and formulate the best consensus on the matter. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then one should do so very briefly: starting with "Charles Martel is often cited..." should be fully adequate for the history section. Shifting views over time can be placed in the historiography section. Remsense  诉  03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Remsense, there is more to be said then a brief sentence on the subject. Please stop deleting it and let the Talk pages determine it credibility. Or better yet, add your own research and interpretation to it and collaborate the information as Wikipedia is designed to do, not limit the knowledge out there because you don't understand it. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am telling you how collaborative editing tends to work on Wikipedia: the WP:ONUS is on the person adding the content to justify why it should be there. My issues with your addition are very minor, I want pretty much everything you wrote to be there somewhere, I just think it is a net negative to the article in its present state because it is misplaced and potentially confusing to a general audience. Please work with me in good faith. We have something called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You've been bold, I've raised some issues, and now we discuss. Hopefully other editors will show up and offer their perspectives as well, a lot of people watch this article.
 * Yes, and it should be said in the historiography section. This is an encyclopedia article: good writing will leave a lot of our fan favorite details and nuances out, especially in an article as broad as this one. I bet Charles Martel and feudalism could even be its own article. To reiterate: my issues are with the tone and balance of the prose in the context of an encyclopedia article, not any of the content itself. Remsense  诉  03:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah that block of text is a big problem. It's out of place with the style and organization of the rest of the article, and seemingly contradicts the section below it about the revolution in France. Brunner is important and many historians have come up with other ideas based on his work, but it contains too WP:WEIGHT and argumentation. Wikipedia is for a general reader, not a Masters or PhD student. People just want to know the mainstream view, not overemphasizing a particular view arguing why it's correct. Some of Brunner's ideas have been discounted by modern historians (great stirrup controversy). Many have revised his ideas. Certainly there is a place for Brunner, but this is not the way to do it. -- Green  C  05:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi GreenC, please feel free to give constructive feedback as to what specific changes you would make, not just feedback on what is wrong. I don't believe it is up to me to determine what the public can or cannot comprehend and I don't think that they are incapable of following citations if they want further reading and clarification (as it was originally cited). These are by the way not my opinions or arguments but it is a very brief synopsis of the work done by scholars on the subject of the origins of feudalism in the age of Charles Martel, by which he has been credited for starting (starting feudalism that is) but this page originally left that out entirely. As I wrote to Remsense, my entry is not complete (and may never be) but the addition of this information should be included somewhere in some form and that is what the collaboration should be on. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Remsense, your view on the content versus the placement is a point you should have iterated more when you outrightly deleted an entry with content that was otherwise not previously incorporated in the page. It was a subject I thought deserved merit in the page and is one I discussed the placement on with my classmates to which we agreed this would be the best spot as there wasn't really a better one in the state of the page as it is. The reworking of a paragraph whether you believe it is out of place or not is something that can be collaborated but though you claim that now, it is not what your actions showed. The complete deletion of the entry entirely would have been an ignorant affair. I believed the public should be able to know about this missing link. Now with saying that, it doesn't mean my entry was complete (or ever will be) and that is where the collaboration should come in. Some bits could be or maybe even should be edited, added to, or worked into a better position on the page but that was the best judgement call I made at the time. I am not the authority of what the public should consume, but it is a duty to add missing information by which you just deleted. If there is a better spot or a better way to break up such a complex subject on the origin of feudalism withing the age of Charles Martel, then by all means please elaborate on that here, since the content itself was not your issue (and the content for the record is not my opinion but a synapsis of scholars in the field by which I originally cited). Or feel free to edit the entry to where it should be placed but not censor out the information for the public to have no knowledge of it. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello—I apologize that my attempts to make my intentions clear did not pan out. That's at least partially on me—it's easy for me to forget how much one may have to acclimate to the rhythms and interface of Wikipedia, as nice as it is.
 * As an aside, there's a little meta-society Wikipedians have. Some people call themselves "deletionists" because they firmly believe that curation is even more about what not to include than what to add—I wouldn't reduce myself to that but I certainly lean that way, so sometimes it's not clear that I only hold the position I do because it's always possible to rework content and utilize the edit history. But yes, it does sting some times when you did a lot of work and it gets reverted, I should be more cognizant of that sometimes, even when I think I'm going out of my way to be non-threatening. Remsense  诉  15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Remsense, I appreciate your further words on this and your understanding to my position and first reactions. Thanks for your contributions on this and helping to make it more cohesive! Best. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Remsense, thank you for the suggestion of where it should be placed - being in the historiography section. I think this does have good merit actually and I missed this brief sentence before - "This section describes the history of the idea of feudalism, how the concept originated among scholars and thinkers, how it changed over time, and modern debates about its use."
 * I think it could be added here as a new section and would fit in better than the history section where I originally posted it. Thank you! Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alwaysaspiring30, we already have a section "The feudal revolution in France" which concerns origins there. Perhaps we need is a new section on origins with sub-sections for Germany and France. Probably also Italy and elsewhere have their own historiographies. Much of what you wrote can be reduced and summarized for a general reader, and they can read sources if they want more details. Brunner is important and the article is missing the great stirrup controversy, even though now discounted. I'm not sure Fouracre is appropriate for such amount of coverage, as a peer of Marc Bloch, Ganshof and Brunner, except maybe a few sentences in the historiography section along with everyone else there. -- Green  C  06:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi GreenC, Those are important distinctions. I added a map to help show the boundaries of Francia during this time. I also currently know very little personally about the stirrup controversy so it may be a good edit for me in the future but if you know more about it and think it should be included here, please feel free to do so! Thanks for your help on this Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I can try and restate our point like this: This is the article Feudalism, the highest-level article where any of this information could plausibly go. We all agree it's important, but is it the second thing your average reader should ever see when they're trying to learn about the subject? Because that's presently where it's positioned. Remsense  诉  15:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Remsense, please refresh your page :) It has been moved to where you suggested, which I agree is more appropriate - under the historiography section. I do think it should be above the "evolution of the concept" bit just to be chronological. Do you think it should go in another order that is more conceptual versus order of time? Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh! I'll provide some feedback ASAP. Thanks for the contributions Remsense  诉  15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph contained repetitions, but also many diversion and asides, it was.. complex. On Wikipedia it's best to simply and briefly state the point, and provided references for readers to follow up and learn more about the topic, if they want. For example, there is no reason to delve into the finer points on why someone would donate land to the church. It's interesting, and edifying, but too much WP:WEIGHT for the article. Furthermore, I'm not even sure the 19th century Brunner thesis is so important it needs a sub-section. I've summarized it to the primary argument and counter-argument, it should be understandable for the general reader. -- Green  C  03:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph contained repetitions, but also many diversion and asides, it was.. complex. On Wikipedia it's best to simply and briefly state the point, and provided references for readers to follow up and learn more about the topic, if they want. For example, there is no reason to delve into the finer points on why someone would donate land to the church. It's interesting, and edifying, but too much WP:WEIGHT for the article. Furthermore, I'm not even sure the 19th century Brunner thesis is so important it needs a sub-section. I've summarized it to the primary argument and counter-argument, it should be understandable for the general reader. -- Green  C  03:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)