Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 2

Middle-ages in the "Middle-east"
I find the article to be overly "European". The middle-ages can also be dated in the parallel Islamic world and in portions of the African, far-eastern and Euroasian territories. In fact, most of the important events, political, military and financial influence can be traced to those regions of the world, rather than medival Europe. Surely the article should refrain from the modern name "Middle-east" as it used in a modern political content. Instead, the Arabic muslim term "Mashrik" and "Magghrib" should be used. Gratius Pannonius (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps the less Euro-centric "Western Asia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to change change from European history to history of Old World in leading sentence. --  Bojan   Talk   04:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is overly "European" because the concept of the "Middle Ages" is related, and was always related from its inception in the Renaissance to those areas of Western Christianity - that is, those areas religiously loyal to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Popular historians in the 20th century started to loosely use the term for merely chronological purposes in other places, or sometimes even as an analogy, but strictly speaking it is not merely about chronology but about specific closesly interconnected societies with certain shared characteristics and developments, most notably, Western Christianity. That is why you'll find so many historians discussing which areas and times the term is applicable. Even some areas of Europe, such as the areas of Orthodox Christianity, are usually excluded, as are those areas which were still pagan. For this reason the "Middle Ages" proper starts and ends at differnt times in different parts of Europe but the exact timings are much argued over by historians. The expression "Old World", is much too broad. Provocateur (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Article published as a book The Middle Ages for Know-It-Alls
As far as I can ascertain, this work was published in January 2008. Some of the material complained of, for example the paragraph on the Hundred Years' War, predates the publication. Furthermore, I think the work is issued under GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. The publisher, Filiquarian, specializes in out-of-copyright material. This may not be a straightforward case of copyright violation.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to stop anyway. We can put it back, or else restore a pre possibly copyvio version. But whatever, it doesn't look good. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the editor's talk page explaining what I did, saying I may owe him an apology and asking if the stuff in the book is in fact his own work. Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just replaced a very small piece of text lost in a previous edit (not the copyvio reversions described above). I noticed its absence because I was the original contributor. The addition included a footnote. Interestingly, the text of The Middle Ages for Know-It-Alls includes my own now-lost edit, with the footnote numbering as in the sequence existing at the time. My conclusion is that the work is a copy of Wikipedia and not the other way around. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it. Look at -- they are publishing Wikipedia stuff, no question about it. We need to raise this somewhere. Doug Weller (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2008 (UT)


 * Oops, I thought I could restore your edit, now I can't figure out how, sorry about that. Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not important: I think it's covered in the restored material.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. The help desk people say that the publishers should have given some form of acknowledgement to the editors, but if they haven't, it's up to the editors to complain themselves. A bit of a mess I think, and very naughty of them not to acknowledge Wikipedia. I think the best thing is for editors to comment on the books' Amazon pages and make it clear that what people are buying or downloading is from Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Started an article on Filiquarian. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Should have added a link to a discussion on this at the help desk. Doug Weller (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug and Old Moonraker, thanks for keeping the record and for clearing my good name. The changes I made were definitely my own. I'll have to check out that book sometime and find out if I really do sound like a know-it-all. brandon cohen (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncivil and defamatory statement by IP poster with seeming conflict of interest deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Christ Church: irrelevant
Christ Church, one of the colleges at the University of Oxford, has been used as an image in the article. Given that the college was founded in Tudor times, might it be better to use a more representative college? Merton, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.7 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle ages ends too soon in the article
The middle ages (medieval age) started in 476AD due to Rome's fall and ended in 1640AD due to the break-out of english revolution. Luther, Calvin or the invading ottoman turks could not end the medieval ages, since they themselves were totally occupied by reasons of religion and exclusive religious rightness, which is the most important recurring theme of the medieval.

The english revolution was what ended the medieval ages, because it was a "civil" revolution, whose reasons were effectively socio-economical under a very thin biblical cover and its result became the first truly secularized, sciento-industrial based society. In the era of textile-making, cast iron and steam, religion became all talk and had little effect on people's life any more. The general shallowness of english church, being a mere power-holding ritual re-using catholic decorations illustrates this very well. 91.83.21.86 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the thrust, i.e., basing the definition on something widespread & noteworthy about the period. However, how about some citations to back it up?  WP isn't the proper forum to create an academic consensus about the "proper" (or even most useful) definition. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A 1640 end date makes the Renaissance part of the Middle Ages, which makes no sense. The traditional dates are 476 (fall of Rome) to 1453 (fall of Constantinople). These dates are often rounded off to avoid putting undue emphasis on particular years. Kauffner (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have some sources to back this up, 91.83.21.86, it could surely be added as one of the possible theories in the periodization sub-section. Although it's a theory that I haven't heard untill now. Then again, I don't claim to have heard it all. :) --Thaum1el (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Italian Renaissance fits nicely in the Middle Ages - it follows the Twelfth-Century and Carolingian Renaissances. College level textbooks (Bennett-Hollister, Rosenwein, etc) take the Middle Ages to the 16th century. At which point the Reformation irrecoverably divides the Latin Church, plus we have the the large-scale overseas expansion of Europe, and the rise of the nation state (note no exact date, as periodization is arbitrary and based on general trends). As for the beginning, the 5th century carving-up of the Western Empire serves as well as anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.115.209 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Middle Ages ends at different times in different places, but if we're using 'religion' and 'religious right' as a marker, what of the Glorious Bloodless Revolution in Britain? In England the middle ages probably ended with the reformation of the church and was consolidated by Elizabeth's Church of England. (circa 1530-1559). But that isn't necessarily true for every other country in Europe...or even the world. Etherella (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The exact date itself is not much important, since the core transition between the two eras was not something that happened in an exact day or year, this is merely a convention. People didn't suddenly realize in 1453 or 1640 that they were on a very different period of history than a couple of years prior. Some historians prefer to use different dates for marking the beginning/ending of the Middle Ages (i.e 392-official adoption of christianism by the Roman Empire/1517-Birth of protestantism), 476/1453 however are the most commonly used ones and as such they should remain there in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.60.132 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that Black Death is even known?
Recent edit replaces "bacterial [disease]" with "viral hemorrhagic" as the characterization of the Black Death, without citation. It seems that experts do not even agree that the type of disease is even known, much less that it was viral. The previous prime candidate, plague, is bacterial -- and that may still be the best guess.

This change should be either cited or reverted. And at a minimum, the uncertainty about its identity should be explicit. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Secular church
The article says: "Monastic reform inspired change in the secular church, as well." Um? What?! Doesn't "secular" mean "unrelated to religion"? How can you have a church unrelated to religion?? -- 82.130.22.210 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it means more people were taking up religious lives instead of being a regular member of the church (secular). 70.137.11.118 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)anonymous


 * I realise this trail is cold but just for the record, in this context 'secular' simply means non-monastic - i.e. those cathedrals, parish churches and other institutions which were governed by cannons or clerics rather than monks. The significance is that in theory the monastic world was closed (claustral) and cut-off from the outside world. whereas the 'secular church' was more involved in the lives of the laity.StuartLondon (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone please include a section regarding the proper pronunciation of the word? I'm sick of hearing people say 'mahDEEVAL' when it should be 'MEDI-eeval'. I don't know how to denote dictionary pronunciations. thnx --137.186.201.81 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the first pronunciation? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The mahDEEVAL you speak of is American English, it is how it is pronounced. You are thinking about British English, which emphasizes the "stress" (or something) between i and e. Listen to the pronunciation at the top of this page for a demonstration. –Holt T•C 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation best called proper is invariably not the American one. We need to show real English; the Queen's English; English! Not "Amurikun,' please.--137.186.209.218 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the sounds of axes grinding. One, it is not 'invariably', the variation of opinion is the entire point of what you're talking about. Two, a text article (where people can internally "pronounce" words in whatever manner seems appropriate to them) is not a place for a digression or prescription of the proper pronunciation of a related term. If it were to be discussed, it would be an appropriate subject of American and British English differences. And if it were important to this article note that Wikipedia does not prefer either version. --Rindis (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not really relevant to this discussion, but since you mention WP:ENGVAR I'd like to quote: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." And now back to our scheduled program[me]. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, why do we have 'periodization' and not 'periodisation'? English does not use 'z' in words of that nature. As for 'Medieval' - I'll refrain from a long rant about that spelling and the fact it bears zero resemblance to the actual origin of the word its meant to represent. I'm not a fan of the way various simplified American spellings are invading English. Etherella (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, the capitalization of medieval seems to be inconsistent. How does the capitalization of medieval work? 128.151.20.222 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Patricians/Patricianship: Your input requested
Under a proposal made by me, the pages Patrician and Patricianship will be renamed as follows:


 * Patrician → Patricians (Ancient Rome)
 * Patricianship → Patricians (Middle Ages)

(I dropped an earlier proposal for merging the two pages.)

For the rationale for renaming the pages and a couple of associated other changes, as well as the opinions of user:Johnbod, please see the discussion page at Talk:Patricianship.

My question is, do people here support my renaming proposal, or if not support it, at least would not oppose it.

Thanks in advance for all replies--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire Collapse
I have removed the footnote that apologized to the Early Middle Ages for hurting their feelings by calling them "Dark".

More seriously: It stated, "When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is generally intended to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times." This point is not relevant to the article (which deals with the empire, not the historians), is a point of extended controversy at the Dark Ages page, and is inaccurate as stated.

FWIW, the inaccuracy comes from the fact that the comparison that mattered to Petrarch, inventor of the term, was to earlier times, not later ones. (A logical but uninformed person might at least wonder, then: What changed to leave us fewer records than before?) It is especially ironic that this footnote, defending the weak form of the term "dark age(s)", was inserted into a paragraph about the defining example of a societal collapse, i.e., the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. In fact, the same paragraph later says, "As Roman authority disappeared in the west, cities, literacy, trading networks and urban infrastructure declined," making it unambiguous that the societal-collapse meaning was intended (rather than the paucity-of-records meaning). Jmacwiki (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Dark Ages" is first recorded in the 18th century, long after Petrarch. The Dark Ages article is a lot of nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Aetas tenebrae": Petrarch wrote in Latin and wouldn't appear in online English dictionaries. Here's his quote in translation: a great black gulf in human history, a gulf of ignorance, of superstition, of cruelty, and of wickedness. That time we call the Dark or Middle Ages. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from Otto of the Silver Hand by Howard Pyle. Kauffner (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I got it from the Wikipedia article on Dark Ages and Historiography and the ideal of the classic: Francesco Petraca in The age of Elizabeth in the age of Johnson but I did skip a line in the attribution—sorry! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Old Moonraker, that book in your link does not have that quote, nor is there an article or chapter in that book with that title, nor does that title seem to exist at all (even after correcting the typo for "historiography"). Kauffner is right that your quote comes from Howard Pyle - it is even attributed to him on the Dark Ages article. However, the concept does date back to the Italian humanists; this essay by Theodor Mommsen about Petrarch and the Dark Ages is helpful, but I'm not sure Petrarch used the actual phrase "aetas tenebrae" (or "aetas tenebrarum" which is also possible). I'll keep looking though... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked it again: see page 21—sorry about the typo, which I've now put right. Remembering the earlier debate about relying too much on one source I was trying to get beyond Theodor Mommsen. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean "aetas tenebrae". It looked like you were saying the "black gulf" quote came from that book. Unfortunately the author just attributes it to "humanists", not Petrarch specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the West-European Middle Ages
I have read this article and may say that it deserves a lot of critics - mainly because it represents only West-European medieval history and almost nothing is said about Eastern Europe. The main points are the following:

It is written in great details about the Frankish empire while almost nothing is said about the Byzantine empire although the latter existed for much longer.

Major European states like the Bulgarian Empire, Hungary and Kievan Rus are not even mentioned although their influence on medieval history (and on the whole history of Eastern Europe) is great.

Key events in Middle ages are not mentioned if they happened in Eastern Europe while similar to them in Western Europe are described. Examples: The battle of Tours in which the Arabs were defeated is mentioned while the two sieges of Costantinople are not; It is said about the Viking invasions but not about the Mongols, etc.

As a whole the article can easily be renamed "West-European Middle ages" if not corrected. But the term "Middle Ages" refers to the whole Europe and the article should represent all European history of that time at equal levels. Scheludko (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a viable claim. It could as well be marked as one-sided untill more is added to the article. --Thaum1el (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic-Protestant Hungary is not part of Eastern Europe, it is part of Central Europe. In Geographical and cultural term, Hungary is not an Eastern European country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.223 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the source classifying it - UN still considers Hungary, Poland and Czech republic as East-European countries, according to Wikipedia. But this is not the point here. What is important is that the article is not balanced and emphasizes on events that took place in Western europe. Medieval Hungary, whether Central or East-European state, should be at least mentioned.Scheludko (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

According to all European written encyclopedias (just check it!) Hungary Poland Czech R. Germany are Central European Countries. UN is mainly a political society instead of scientific. Eastern Europe means Orthodox Europe.

Westminster Abbey image
This picture depicts the west end of the abbey, dating from 1745. Is it the right one to use for this article? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Switched to thirteenth century Duomo di Amalfi. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Put Duomo di Amalfi back again. Another building from the middle ages would do, but no 18th century pastiches please.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodization issues
The subsection of Periodization issues starts with the problems of when the period ended, and continues with the problems of when the period started. Isn't that quite backwards, should be the other way around. I don't know about you, but when I first encountered this, and this is an area of which I'm quite interested, it made me go, "Huh?" It's confusing. --Thaum1el (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Huns" on map
On the "Map of territorial boundaries ca. 450 AD" I think that after reviewing the map and the history of the Huns, it really should read Hunnic Empire. "Huns" implies the people, despite the fact that the Germans and Slavs were still there, just subjugated by Attila and company. Also the map provides for no sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_map_450.PNG --AJH (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note this section on the Huns page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#20th_Century_use_in_reference_to_Germans. --AJH (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All of these "Hun" and "Hunnic Empire" maps are very misleading. Take this caption from Attila's page: "The Hunnic Empire stretched from the steppes of Central Asia into modern Germany, and from the River Danube to the Baltic Sea - albeit not simultaneously, as the Huns first appeared in Southern Russia and later moved to Central Europe." So this map is inaccurate as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huns_empire.png. And this from the image file page itself: "The borders of Attila's empire are only approximate because: The empire was a very loose collection of conquered peoples and did not have the structure of a formal empire (such as the Persian or Roman Empires). Records of the eastern and northern borders of Attila's empire are nearly non-existent." --AJH (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the term in the UK
In the UK, the term "Middle Ages" and (particularly, in my limited experience) the adjective "medieval" are sometimes (or perhaps even often) restricted to just the period between the Norman conquest (1066) and about the start of the 16th century. See, for example,. I think the article should mention this. 86.133.211.253 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * On the other hand, see, , , , and many more. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not claiming it's exclusively used in the sense I described. If you want further evidence, look no further than Time Team (which, if you didn't know, is a long-running British TV series about archaeology which is stuffed with experts and professors and suchlike). Read what they say at . 86.133.211.253 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC).
 * That usage is specific for Britain though; the preceding era is "Anglo-Saxon", and of course not all of medieval Europe has an Anglo-Saxon period. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the preceding period is commonly referred to as the Dark Ages; that period during which there is very little written record, and what there is, generally written centuries after events took place. Fairlightseven 30/04/10
 * All my comments are to be understood as subject to my opening qualification "In the UK,..." 86.133.211.253 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC). Edit: Sorry, pehaps that was ambiguous. By "in the UK", I mean "when talking about British history". 86.133.211.253 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Ah, right, I missed that part. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading the article again, and others on related subjects, I am convinced we need to cover this British usage. Traditional schoolboy classification goes Romans - Dark Ages - Middle Ages (from 1066) - Tudor (or Renaissance). This view of the term is extremely widespread, and permeates other Wikipedia articles - for instance, the first line of Castle says the castle is "seen as one of the main symbols of the Middle Ages" - hardly true if they started in 400AD. What i need to establish before making any change, though, is how widespread this usage is. And I suppose get some references Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's being discussed here sounds a lot like a Dab situation: "Middle Ages" presumably means the term that has a West European focus -- except where a geographic focus on East Europe or Britain -- or, perhaps, East Asia, South Asia, etc. warrants a different sense. If other versions of MA are article-worthy, then the accompanying article needs a HatNote (not just to Medieval but also) to Middle Ages (disambiguation). Huh! In fact there is such a Dab, but no HatNote. Fixing that. --Jerzy•t 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Justinian Plague
Why is there barely any mention on the Justianian Plague? As it practically set the scene for the dark ages. Faro0485 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Byzantine empire itself is barely mentioned, not only the plague of Justinian.Scheludko (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Map
The first two maps down called "Europe in 1328" and "Europe in the 1430s" are a little bit bad. On the middle of the maps the country was called only "Hungary" or officially "Kingdom of Hungary". It would be better to correct it. Here are some reliable map about the age.  Toroko (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Decimal numbers and India
The article mentions that decimal numbers came from the Arabs. Europe got decimal numbers from the Arabs, but the Arabs got decimal numbers from India. It makes sense to clarify, as much of the latter Middle Ages were spent finding a sea route to India (and China). Details like this help to give a general reason as to why (because of greater economic/intellectual/cultural development at the time. I cannot edit this page, so please make the changes if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell Kent (talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates
The lead section grossly over-focuses on exact-to-the year dates, which are profoundly silly when taken literally. It also included an unreadably complex sentence. I'm refactoring, probably including moving part of the lead into the "Periodization issues" secn, where it will be less emphasized and thus less harmful. --Jerzy•t 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

{editsemiprotected}
Hi, the first line reads "The Middle Ages ... is a period of European history covering roughly a millennium in the 5th century through to the 16th century."

But I think that "in the 5th century..." should be changed to "from the 5th century...". This sounds better to me as there is then a natural "from... to..." coupling.

Thanks.--93.33.105.45 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fix. Thanks for the suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A vandal has gotten (pun intended) loose.

Under the heading Periodization issues, somebody has replaced the word "Rome" with "little children."

It now reads:

"The Middle Ages form the middle period in a traditional schematic division of European history into three "ages": the classical civilization of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern period. The idea of such a periodization is attributed to Flavio Biondo, an Italian Renaissance humanist historian.

Commonly seen periodizations specify a beginning between ca. 400 CE and 476 (the sackings of little children by the Visigoths to the deposing............."

Jim5551212 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverted, but in the future, see WP:SOFIXIT. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He probably can't, it's protected. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Years vs. Centuries
From the lede: "Some historians have attempted to put specific dates on the Middle Ages." This strikes me as unnecessarily judgmental. It is not like the dates were assigned by second-rate historians. The beginning date of 476 is from Leonardo Bruni, perhaps the most influential historian of the period and the man responsible for the periodization. Periodization is all about dates. To define a period as beginning in "roughly" a certain century undermines the reason for using periods. Kauffner (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediœval or Mediæval?
As if the hornets' nest of Pronunciation weren't bad enough, please someone settle the dispute (and my hash) over whether the archaic spelling of Medieval is Mediœval or Mediæval. I reckon it's the former - but what do I know? Nuttyskin (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the latter, since the Latin word is "aevus". Latin doesn't have any words beginning with "oe" (well, they have plenty, but they are all Greek borrowings). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Middle Ages only occurred in Europe and borders to Europe?
Looking at Template:Human_history, every era's link has some explanation of other parts of the world for each time period, except Middle Ages. The Middle Ages needs to be expanded on other parts of the world or it should be a subgroup of another category. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The term 'Middle Ages' refers to a teleological model of history which is specifically Western European - i.e. it's the bit between the demise of the Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance. As such it only applies to those parts of of the world which were under Roman influence. Other regions doubtless have their own terms for the corresponding periods of history and I think it would be wrong to impose a specifically European chronological term on them.StuartLondon (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, well that makes sense. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Use Typographic Ligatures! :D
It is important to consider ligatures throughout Wiktipedia, as it is part of our history on the Languages of Latin, Old English, etc. that used and STILL use typographic ligatures.use ligatures. "Æ/æ", "Œ/œ", and the ampersand, "&" are very common ligatures, all derived from Latin (used in Old English). They are from the forms of "ae", "oe", and "et" (Latin for "and"). "Et" can be seen easily as a ligature with the Trebuchet MS font, shown here: "& ".

Thank you
 * 序名三　「Jyonasan」 Talk  20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrrection to 'Medieval Book Leaf' caption
I've changed this from '...possibly a book of hours' to '...a Psalter'. If you read the text this page is clearly the end of Psalm 145 and the start of Psalm 146 (the historiated 'L' is the opening of Laudate Domine...). Books of hours normally just contained the 7 Penitential Psalms (not 145 and 146) and these did not follow each other in sequence. Hence this must be a book of Psalms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartLondon (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the term always used in plural form, "Ages" rather than "Age"?
The article does not currently address this. When "Middle Ages" clearly denotes a single period (or even when subdivided into Early, High, and Late) the term is still used in plural. I know this is the conventional form, but I do not know the reason why. AmateurEditor (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. The term "Middle Age" was often used in the 19th century--as in Stubbs, History of the Middle Age of the Church (1853) but fell out of use by 1900, for some reason. Rjensen (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I can only assume it is meant to refer to the subdivisions, but then even they are used in the plural form. Perhaps it is just another oddity of the English language. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Middle Ages" is a translation of Latin medium aevum, which is singular. So it is a mistake in translation and not related to subdivisions. Anyway, people have been doing it this way for a long time. I found an example from 1722 (Memoirs of literature by Michel de La Roche). Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that the answer can be found here: Medieval, the Middle Ages. "The assumption that all the modern vernaculars derived their terms for "Middle Ages" by translating medium cevum is, however, erroneous. As Gordon has shown, Neo-Latin writings (wherein the term as well as the idea certainly originated) display a variety of ways of expressing the idea "Middle Age(s)," including media cetas, media antiquitas, medium sceculum, and media tempestas as well as the plural forms media scecula and media tempora. The earliest of these is documented in 1469 (media tempestas). The earliest documentations for the plurals media tempora and media scecula are 1531 and 1625 respectively, and it is interesting to note that Englishmen were among the earliest users of the Latin plural terms: Henry Spelman was the first person to use media scecula, and although media tempora appeared first in a book published in Switzerland, Francis Bacon used the term sometime before 1620 in the Novum Organum."1 So, before Neo-Latin writers settled down with the term medium cevum, which became more or less standard in Latin usage, there was this plethora of terms for "Middle Ages," and the various vernaculars were modeling their terms on the whole range of Neo-Latin terms, both singular and plural. It is no surprise, then, that some of the modern languages should have a singular term today (e.g., French, German, Italian, Danish, Greek, Polish) while others (English, Dutch, Russian, Icelandic, and their imitators) have plural forms. When one examines the emergence of terms for "Middle Ages" in the various vernaculars, one finds, not surprisingly, that a number of different terms, some singular and some plural, were often tried out before the standard modern term became standard." AmateurEditor (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work! I added this to the article. Kauffner (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kauffner. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The maps at the end of the article are totally incorect
Venice borders at first two maps are incorrect, along with those of HRE and Hungary. There are probably other mistakes, but i'm directing to those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.46.204 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hungary
The several paragraphs on Hungary are not written grammatically and seem to overstate the significance of Hungary to Europe in the middle ages -- were these pages added to the original article? 137.189.84.174 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hungary Concern As well
I also noticed an over emphasis on Hungary in this article and quite a few others concerning Europe. I also think that their significance in Middle Age affairs is being grossly overstated.(talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 February 2011--Jensonmorton (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree especially about the map showing the hungarian's raids and the explanation given below it (about the european countries "praying for mercy"). But not only Hungary is overemphasized. Carolignians are also mentioned with quite a lot of details while other major states like Byzantine empire and the Arab Caliphate are barely mentioned.Scheludko (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDIEVAL ENGLAND
Don't forget, Hungary had the third most populous country in medieval Europe. Its territory was bigger than France (Only HRE had bigger territory) Many Hungarian kings have larger inland revenue than the French or English kings. Sagittis hungarorum libera nos Domine" - "Lord save us from the arrows of Hungarians" It was a prevalent catholic prayer in the first half of the 10th century.

I also noticed an over emphasis on England. England wasn't such a powerful country until the colonization of the modern period. I can understand that many modern Americans have pro-English cultural sentiment (without any real English ancestry), but it can cause the falsification of the importance of medieval England. Its little territory and population, its weak diplomacy and lower inland-revenues and army-size, suggest that medieval England wasn't so important as the article try to represent it. England's history must be shortened.--Etatsgererauksz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kingdom of Hungary was from 12th century second class power - for example, hungarian kings couldn't even protect Zara in 1202. In Middle Ages, it's not about how much land do you own, it's about how much kingdom is centralized and protected from anarchy. In Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary was more of nobleman's republic (in a negative sense), excluding only the period of Anjou dinasty.

England was one of the most advanced kingdoms in Europe, after conquest in 1066. Normans organized a country that worked like swiss watch (comparing to all other countries). Do you really think that you could do something like Doomsday book in Hungary? Anglophone domination and over - exaggeration of their history today is another topic. Philosopher12 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Venice was defeated many times by Hungary. Venice could attack successful Hungary when Hungary had to fight other frontlines against other countries. Hungary could defeat Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire many many times when they believed themselves as a great power. Hungarian kingdom could built up the largest royal crusade army in the history of crusades in the Holy land. Hungarian kings could realize larger inland revenues then french or english kingdom in many times of medieval era. Hungary had many successful wars in two and three frontline wars, very few medieval monarchy was able to create a winner situation in three frontlines at the same time. We are proud that medieval Hungarian royal residence ( Buda Castle ) was bigger then the medieval residences of french and English kings. Medieval Castle of Buda was de facto bigger than your Windsor Castle. We are proud that the renaissance appared closely at the same time as Italian renaissance, centuries before other countries.--Voidlence (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Don't forget, Hungary represented the esternmost bastillon of the higher western (catholic-protestant) culture. Read about here: www.educator.uw.hu

Read about Matthias Corvinus, Bela III,and Louis the great.


 * Since I'm a student of history, and hungarian kings were also kings of Croatia, I do know about Matthias Corvinus, Bela III, and Louis the Great, as I know about Kingdom of Hungary in Middle Ages. Those three kings were great, but they didn't rule for a long time, comparing to whole Middle Ages. After Bela III there was decadence, after Louis the Great and Matthias there was anarchy. When Andrew II got back from crusade, there was such an anarchy in Hungary that he was forced to issue a golden bull. When Richard the Lionheart got back from crusades, England was working like a clock, taxes were collected regularly although king wasn't in country, and English even paid enormous sum for their imprisoned king.
 * For the myth about "antemurales christianitatis", it's actually heritage of all countries bordering Ottoman Empire - Croatians think of themselves as protectors of Christendom, as do Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and Bulgarians.
 * Middle Ages are not some video game as if you can speak of them like "Venice defeated Hungary, but Hungary defeated HRE and Byzantium". This is not Medieval 2 Total War or Stronghold Crusaders, we need strong references in wikipedia."


 * Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilization 400-1500: "In Hungary, numerous fights over throne in 11. and 12. century weakened Arpad dynasty, successors of St. Stephen who succeeded, between Germans and Byzantines, to enlarge their kingdom in Transylvania, Croatia and Slavonia. Bela III., who married one of the sisters of Phillip Augustus, succeeded in empowering his kingdom, but feudal class forced his son Andrew II to sign Golden Bull 1222. which was inaptly called the Great Charter of Hungary. For, instead of imposing national freedom, it secured the power of nobility which led country to anarchy. Death of last Arpad king in 1301., opened the crisis which led to foreign rulers."
 * Around page 130., my translation. Wikipedia shouldn't be based on some internet pages but on clear sources like champions of annales movement, and similar trusted sources. Philosopher12 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hungary was unstable during changes of dinasities, or in uncertain succession of throne.

The Medieval Hungarian State "Medieval Hungarian constitutional development made the power of Hungarian Kings the most efficient one of medieval age, and that reason was the absence of feudalism. No doubt, infiltrations of feudalism, as prevalent through-out Europe, are to be found in old Hungarian institutions, but as an accidental inter-mixture only, not as their essence and chief feature. That blending of public prerogative with rights belonging to the sphere of private law, which is the essence of feudalism never prevailed in the organisation of Hungarian public powers, never broke their action on the nation as a whole. To this early prevalence of public law in the government of the country do Hungary owe not only a superior efficiency not detrimental to liberty of Hungarian public powers, but in connection with it an early growth of conscious national unity, of patriotism on broad lines, at a time when tribal feeling and feudal allegiance sub-divided all European nations into small units which paralysed each other, and into a corresponding fractional mentality adverse to the very idea of State and to inchoate national feeling." ( Count Albert Apponyi: "The juridical nature of the relations between Austria and Hungary" Arts and Science Congress, held at United States St. Louis in 1904 )

Did ou read this?: www.educator.uw.hu --Voidlence (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I stated that Hungary was the easternmost bastillon of the Western (Catholic - protestant) civilization. Romanians Serbians Bulgarians often greatly collaborated with the Ottoman conquest, because Orthodox balkan states ofted hated more the Western (Catholic-Protestant) world than the Ottomans. An important example: Don't forget that the vast majority of the guards of the Turkish-occupied Hungarian castles were southern slavs. These Orthodox Balkan countries had too little population and too backward development to stop the Turks. The Hungarian castles proved to be very important later in the long struggle with the Ottoman Empire. Don't forget the vast bajority of orthodox balkan states (as medieval Hungarian calls them: "lilliputian nations" didn't lived very European lifestyle. The shepherd-nomadism was the life-style of the majority in these countries until the 17th century(!!!). The countries of the Balkan region and the territory of Russian states fell under Ottoman/Mongolian rule very rapidly, due to the lack of the network of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. Therefore: They were so-called "one battle states", which means: You can conquer them with only one decisive battle. --Voidlence (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Hungarians in time of their settlement in 9th and 10th century were nationally united, as were Normans in France. Hungarian Kingdom was more advanced than balkan states, and yes, orthodox Slavs were soldiers for Ottoman Empire in forts of Hungary. But you are mixing timelines:


 * 1.) Hungarians were united as a nomadic tribe in 9th and 10th centuries.
 * 2.) Once they were settled in Pannonian basin and with establishing a kingdom (1000), elements of feudalism slowly started to get into Hungary.
 * 3.) After 12th century, Hungary lost it's power struggling with anarchy after every dynastic change, in wars with Byzantium (Emanuel Komnenos especially).
 * 4.) Government and centralized system didn't work in Hungary as in France or England due to aristocratic antagonism towards any form of feudal absolutism, and due to weak rulers (except only few).
 * 5.) After 12th century, and certainly after first half of 13th century, Hungary ceased to be not only relevant european, but also relevant regional power.


 * I cited Jacques Le Goff. I haven't seen one serious author who would say that Hungary was more powerful than France or England, even in the time of greatest anarchy in France in second half on 9th and 10th century. I read Laszlo Kontler (A History of Hungary) and Peter Hanak, and none mentions anything like that. If you have sources (not internet pages but real modern academic literature), I would be happy to see and verify it. Problem with literature older than 100 years is their exaggeration, and old approach towards history. Regards, Philosopher12 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English, but I can speak and write only in Hungarian Italian or German. The throne inheritance problems caused very bloodly conflict in Every medieval country (remember the was of roses) Hungary had a special bad luck with their Kings, many of them hadn't sons male successors. However it is not the fault of the system, it is rather a bad luck for the country.

I don't agree with you. Are you law historian or iurist? The basic institutions and administration system of medieval France was based on one of the backwardest type of Early Medieval (Caroling) period until Charles VII 's period. After battle of Mohács, Hungarian law system didn't changed radically, however its institutions were enough developed, when the 1848 revolution broke out, it was enough to expand the franchise to transform Hungary into a liberal state. Medieval Hungarian villeins have always more rights then their western-european "colleagues" until Dózsa Rebellion in 1514. The medieal Hungarian judiciary system was well separated from the King and from the parliament and from the execution (Do you remember Montesquieu?), and it contained three level, and it introduced the first ("Ius apellata")rigtht of appeal in post-Roman Europe. The court of assizes were also part of the system in the first instance of the judiciary (therefore it wasn't only medieval English specialty) Hungary first introduced the hierarchy of legal norms (which is a basic legal phenomenon in Continental Europe) The highest rank was the constitutional laws, the second highest was the parliamentary laws, the third was the royal councils's decrees, the 4. was the royal decrees, the 5. was the local local regulation of the counties and the royal cities, the 6. was the local common law of the territory. Lower legal norms (acts and decrees) coundn't harm the higher rank legal norms. It appeared only in the 18th 19th century in many countries. Hungary was among the first countries where the self government of counties and cities appeared.Members representatives of the Parliament had immunity rights. The medieval Hungarian villeins had the right of free movement, when they felt the injustice of landlords. Before 1514, they had right to sue the landlords for unfair demandings. Local landlord had no right to justiciary over villeins. In Spain HRE France villain were roughly thrall of their owners. These were wonderful and rare things in medieval Europe. Remember when Hungarian landlords started the curtail all of these freedom, the peasant unprising (Dozsa rebellion broke out), because the nobility wanted to convert the Hungarain peasants into similar thralls as their western European (French Spanish German etc...) colleagues were... The 80% of French population were villeins, the village judicature in France based on the landlords, who judged them as the "owner of the villeins" in their castles. (primitive Caroling age judicature). --Voidlence (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Medieval Hungary introduced first the ideology of the "supremacy of parliament" over the kingship, long before English parliament. All sovereignty belongs to the nation

Don't forget the real Freedom of Religion was invented by Hungarians in Transylvania: Read: Religious freedom And we invented the minority rights in July of 1849.

Medieval France was a famous mosaic state (similar to the Holy Roman Empire) until the End of 100years war, when it started to build its absolutism. The only medieval French except was 1214–70 period when France was really united and strong. Their kingdom didn't know the difference between private law and public law (which is the main essence of feudal mentality). Moreover the early absolutism of France based on private law (private ownership) Charles VIII and his successors became the really lord of their country after they gained their territories by serials of private inheritances, and almost tripled their private territory in Kingdom of France. It is clearly show the backwardness of the French legal and political system. For a comparison: Louis the Great of Hungary owned (as private ownership) less than 1/8 of Hungary, however his rule was very absolute. Matthias Corvinus owned (as private ownership)around 1/6 part of Hungary but their power was very high in their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidlence (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungary had well -developed self-government system in the counties, The Hungarian kings had salaried many officers in the centers of the counties, which were the cores of public administrations, they were led by the Supremus comes. France started to build the system of royal intendants, and the governments in french coounties after the 100 years war.--Voidlence (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And you forget three important things. Hungary produced 2/3 of European and 1/3 part of the World's gold production. (you can found many books about it in google-books. The other: In medieval English and French history the starvations were very frequent happening, however Hungary could be food exporter even in the worst weather disasters.--Voidlence (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) French villains (80% of the late medieval french population) lived in very brutal poor living conditions, Hungarian and other travellers speak about them. They hadn't stock-yards, hutch they live in one roof with their animals, and noticed most of their hovels contains only one premise. The living standard of medieval french rural population (the vast majority) was uniquely low in the vestern world. France was a very populous (Only HRE had bigger population), but in total a very poor country. France's importance its huge population which could compensate its poverty.

The economic centrum of Europe weren't the English channel (England or France). The largest and real commercial/trading centers of the continent were Northern Italy and the cities of the Rhine region. Don't forget the largest medieval commerce were in the mediterranean sea (Levant Italian city-states especially Venice) with the largest merchant navies. In the North Sea the largest merchant navy was Hanseatic League. An other very important fact: The largest medieval Banking-houses located in the Northern Italian and Southern German cities. --Voidlence (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very well aware of all those things. You don't have to explain to me Werboczy's "Tripartitum", nor the medieval economy. Poland and HRE also had parliament/Reichstag, with great religious freedoms (all Jews fled to Poland after prosecutions). But does that mean that they were strong countries? No! Have you heard where does the road from road from Italy go? Through Rhine to Flanders on English Channel. Where were the wool manufactures? In 14th century in Flanders, and slowly in England. You are just centered to Hungary, and you don't see that England and France had all those things, and much more. They could raise much bigger taxes than Hungary (in Hungary efficient taxes were raised only in 15th century from the time of Corvinus), the most important scientists and intellectuals come from Italy, France and England (Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Franois Villon, Geoffrey Vellhardouin, John the Joinville), hungarian peasants lived in equal conditions, France was developed even in 12th century. You just find me the solid reference where it says "Hungary was advanced than England and France in Middle Ages."  Philosopher12 (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, I know you aren't law-historian :) Reichstag is not considered as a real parliament until 1356. Medieval period Polish political and law-culture were strongly affected by Hungarian law-culture (read polish historians about the determinant Hungarian influence of medieval Polish law-system). Religious freedom didn't exist in HRE. (Don't confuse with so-called tolerance, because it is an ernomous semantic problem. (See the talkpage of religious freedom article) You forgot an other important thing: the Caroling style structure of French administration, there weren't so called public administration sytem and officers who are paid by the king until the french absolutism. The administration sytem and judicature was the primitivest early feudal type: the Landlord judged over their villeins (they were much more like a an atique thralls of their signeurs than real villeins.) The signeurs owned their population) until in Hungary the villeins belonged to the Crown instead of landlord. We couldn't even talk about French constitution, the hierarchy of legal norms were unknown. I spoke about the socking living standard of medieval french peasant, but I don't forget to mention the situation of their so-called "cities". The french and German cities look like an ernomous village, everything was built from wood, the only excepts were the stone city-walls, the town-hall and the church of the city which were stand in the centre of the city. The roofs of these medieval French English and German houses were covered by thatch or wooden tiles. French have some ernomous cities, however they looks like poor if you pessed in the city gates. Hungarian cities had more fewer population. Howewer, the houses of the Hungarian so-called "royal-free cities" were stone/brick buildings covered by ceramics tiles (similar ti Italy) from the end of the 13th century, therefore they had like a modern-period cityscape. And dont even talk about the very frequent starvations of France and Enland.--Voidlence (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't thing that france was a developed or more developed country than Hungary, Especially in the 1250-1500 period. Lack of Public administration and modern judicature, lack of constitutional system, lack of real parliaments. The French diets weren't parliaments, because their decisions weren't laws, they were just advisory plenums. The landlords of mosaic-state france and the french kings don't interested about it enough. The low level of village lifestyle and the ghetto like french cityscape are clear proofs. Why had France "important" despite of these horrible things? Because it had 12M (!!!) population by the turn of the 15-16 century. --Voidlence (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungary entered the feudal age after 1526. All law-history books (I have many of them) write the period of Hungarian feudalism in the 1526-1848 period. It is the period of Stephen Werbőczy, he laid down the fundaments of Hungarian feudalism. Feudalism (in legal point of view) didn't existed in England after 1066.--Voidlence (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the point of this discussion. It's impossible to claim that Hungary, England, France, or any state was better or more advanced than the others. They all had many differences and similarities; it's very interesting to make a list and compare and contrast, but when discussing the Middle Ages, it is futile to argue that any of these characteristics makes one state more or less "advanced" than another. This accomplishes nothing - except to demonstrate whiggish chauvinism. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bishop! what an agressivity.... You hadn't so offensive style in recent years. Instead of baseless personal attacks and accusations, I suggest to you to read about these things. Google books is a wonderful thing :-) You tried to prove that an arch-feudal (caroling-age structured) medieval country (France before the absolutism) was modern. Law-history is a special part of History :-) And it is less understable/clear for a person who is not lawyer --Voidlence (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What? I didn't say anything like that. But maybe this subject is less understandable for someone who is a lawyer and not an historian. Anyway, I'm sure we are all misunderstanding each other, since we're obviously not communicating in a common language. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, Do you speak German or Italian? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelalter ? http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medioevo ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidlence (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But the German and Italian articles rarely mention Hungary at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is only the aftermatch of the little size and importance of present-day Hungary. Read English and American Books before Trianon treaty :-) And see the defference Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 and and modern Britannica. Or the old Brockhaus encyclopedia. Hungary arcticles (and history articles) in modern encyclopedias are signifficantly shorter than 100 years ago. + don't forget the cold-war effect (1945-1990). Hungarian inventors history and science were simply forget after 1945. However there are a huge renaissance of the Hungarian scientific contribution in English/American scientific literature (physics, chemistry, geology and biology applied technology mathematics) since the fall of communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.0 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Current page [6.1.11]
Mostly done with the historical period. Only thought would be to split off Medieval European culture section into it's own article. --J. D. Redding 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Louis role.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Encycopedia Pallas: A_Pallas_nagy_lexikona

It was published by the Pallas Literary and Press Corporation between 1893 and 1897. Therefore the map is clearly old. The source of the picture states that the map originated in the Pallas encyclopedia, you can read it in this site:

The source is here: http://keptar.niif.hu/html/kepoldal/index.phtml?id=000590

Your robot removed a 120years old map about Louis The Great's rule (Louis_role.jpg) The map is originally part of the Hungarian Encyclopedia Pallas, it was printed in 1890. It is clearly older than 70 years. There is source: The full map: http://keptar.oszk.hu/000500/000590/magyaro-nagyl-terkep_nagykep.jpg, here is the informative source: Kapcsolódó dokumentum: A Pallas nagy lexikona : Magyarok eredete, the last edition of Pallas Encyclopedia was printed in 1910. Can you upload this important historical map again, and insert it in its former wiki articles? Thank You!--Darkercastel (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Chauvinist User Iaaasi was behind the curtain. Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get (Romanian) people to edit on his behalf. He often vandalised Hungarian-related articles/pictures. I'm wondering that antisemite user has connection with admins in media wiki and-commons. Also he entusted his friend to delete two photos in Ányos Jedlik article too. Both photos were originated/copied from Hungarian Wikipedia to wiki commons with full informations.--Faberers (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Date typo Jerusalem capture
Date of Jerusalem capture by Saladin here Middle Ages is wrong, probably typo. 1087 instead of 1187. 212.201.86.62 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed—thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * your edit was overwritten so it's still wrong. -- 212.201.86.153 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. it's still there, fixed by User:Mandarax. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sehenswurdigkeiten, 15 June 2011
Hello, under 2.1.12 Far East's Dynasties, under China's Dynasties, the first sentence reads "Six Dynasties of China immediately followed the fall of the Han Dynast" Please rectify the spelling error of the word "dynasty".

Sehenswurdigkeiten (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, done. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Hat Tags
In a effort to remove the Article Hat Tag. Also, individual sections shoud be tagged, not a general article tag.--J. D. Redding 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed--a general tag is no help to editors and tends to warn readers way from the article. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)