This is an archive of past discussions about Middle Ages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The image of the Cross of Mathilde hardly seems like the best representative image summing up the entire Middle Ages in Europe. As a vague indicator of the quality of material goods at the time it is ok, but it smacks of undue emphasis on a religious symbol in an article about a region and time period not religion. Something like a Bayeaux Tapestry image would seem more appropriate, and also reflect a key political development in the High Middle Ages, the Norman conquest of England. Or, if a show of material culture is the objective, an image depicting cathedral architecture (such as [1]) - the pre-eminent monumental architecture of its day - would be more appropriate / reflective (and less undue overall). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the cross was not the image that the article bore when it was promoted to a featured article - that 2013 version, which can be seen here, featured the Saxon burial mask found at Sutton Hoo. Alongside that I observe that the page has grown to 110kB, up from 87kB, making it a tad overlength as well and clearly much changed from its listing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The image was added via a well-attended discussion, which you can see here. I think that given the difficulty of coming to a consensus on the image back then, we'd need an RfC to change it now. Personally I see nothing wrong with the image. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking at that discussion, it appears that a lot of the arguments for it were along the lines of "that's a very nice cross" - but pretty isn't really the objective here (that's a WP:DECOR motive); illustrative is. Though looking through that discussion certainly presents more food for thought. This was a decent option that weaved in a mention of Charlemagne. This a good civil depiction. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
After reading the discussion, I must agree with Iskandar323 that an aesthetic decision was made, and Norfolkbigfish demonstrated above that there would be several other possibilities. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow, hold the front page! - there are "several other possibilities"! One thing's for sure, plenty of people will be unhappy with any of them. I don't think the Bayeux Tapestry would get much support; do we want to reinforce the cliche that the MA was all about fighting? I don't at all see why bringing aesthetics into the decision is a bad thing. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with you: the Bayeux Tapestry would not get my support either, plenty of people will be unhappy any of the other possibilities as well, and bringing aesthetics into the decision is not a bad thing. On the other hand, we are talking about an encyclopedic article not about an interior design exhibition, so aesthetics could hardly be the only factor to be taken into account. Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, everyone's getting a little hooked on that one tapestry, I just said "something like" that, not that specifically, and then the discussion moved on from that. The central point is that there are hundreds of works of art from the Middle Ages that also usefully depict various different types of event or scene from the Middle Ages. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Well @Borsoka you better get used to the idea of ChatGPT becoming standard practice within the community. Just listened to Jimbo being interviewed and it seems work is already in-flight to assess how it can be used on WP, particularly enhancing the search towards natural language questions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I guess you will never be able to understand it ([2]) but I form my opinion based on my own experiences not on WP dons' opinions. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I've previously suggested a mosaic of images from various different medieval times and places, but no one else seemed to like it (it's in one of the recent archives I'm sure). I figured the only way it would change is if I just did it myself without waiting for consensus, but obviously it would just get reverted right away, so I haven't bothered. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
A mosaic frankly wouldn't be a totally terrible idea given that it is 1,000 years of geopolitical, social, artistic, architectural and religious history that this article is supposed to be summing up. More might not actually be less in this context. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer one single image. I still could accept the Cross of Mathilde but its use as a lead image should be explained for our readers. That it was made for a German abbess from the Ottonian dynasty and depicts her kneeling before the Virgin and the Child is not an explanation. Borsoka (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I at least am in favour of a mosaic. Trying to pick a single image that represents the different cultures, societal groups, and experiences that the article tries to cover isn't possible, you have to settle for a compromise. With multiple images there will still be challenges, but there is greater flexibility. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
How many pictures? I think the following themes should be represented: Post-Roman kingdoms, Byzantium, Muslim Spain/Sicily, Carolingian Empire, Investiture Controversy, Plague, Heretics, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance architecture or art, crusades. Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm guessing because the Renaissance is less archetypal medieval, more medieval-cum-early modern, but otherwise not a bad attempt - there's certainly some great plague art that one wouldn't use alone, but in a mosaic ... Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Because the arrival of Renaissance style in a particular region is very typically taken to mark the end of the Middle Ages. This only seriously conflicts with other considerations for Italy, where 1401ish is traditionally taken as the start of the Early Renaissance. The article rightly doesn't cover anything that could be called "Renaissance architecture or art" at all - Proto-Renaissance is a different matter. I'm rather amazed you are asking this frankly. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I was talking about scholars' beliefs. As I said, "The article rightly doesn't cover anything that could be called "Renaissance architecture or art" at all." Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, that is why I am asking the question: the first century of the Renaissance coincides with the last century of the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, in any particular place. Wow! You could say that the first century of the Italian Renaissance largely coincides with the last century of the Middle Ages in England. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The article covers all Europe in the period between c. 500 and 1500. The Renaissance began in Italy and started to spread towards Central Europe during the last century of this period. For instance, the fifth chapters of The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe has the following title: "The Mediterranean in the Age of the Renaissance, 1200-1500" ([3]). Likewise, the twentieth chapter of The Worlds of Medieval Europe by Clifford R. Backman is titled "The Renaissance in Medieval Context" ([4]). Both books are extensively cited in the article. Perhaps we could accept their approach instead of inventing our own original way to present the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This is getting a bit off-topic. The Renaissance spans the medieval and early modern and there remains active debate over whether it should be considered all early modern, etc. The lines drawn in the sand around dates are just that: vague approximations. The point is Italian early Renaissance stuff isn't as much the material of the archetypal middle ages as earlier less ambiguous stuff from the High Middle Ages - and perhaps that's where our attention would be better focused. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the lead image? Do we want to illustrate the whole article, or want to confirm stereotypes. If we want to confirm stereotypes, we do not need to think too much: we only need a combination of pictures about a brave knight, a drunken monk, a fair lady and stone castle. I we want to illustrate the whole article, we should be more sophisticated. Borsoka (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Call it what you will, but we want "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". That doesn't necessarily mean stereotypes, but it probably doesn't mean images perceived as being early modern. Your cathedral dome is fine, but The Birth of Venus in the 1480s is marginal. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You are right that these are just terms, that people at the time were unaware of, and which are used by historians in complex and sometimes contradictory ways, but I repeat (for the 3rd time) that the relevant sections of the article do not cover anything that an art historian would call "Renaissance", so if we want to illustrate the article, which we do, such a lead image is ruled out. It's a simple point; I don't know why it is found difficult. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The Renaissance properly began in Toledo Spain with the School of Translations from 1126 on when hundreds of classic texts were translated from Arabic into Latin and Castilian. This illustrates my original question regarding misconceptions about the contributions of Islamic Spain to western civilization and the Renaissance. John (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Although this is not the only problem with the article, but the beginnings of the Renaissance should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm against multiple images/mosaics (anywhere, everywhere). Our images are too small as it is, and I'm sure readers just slide over them. They are already a plague on some types of article. This article is very long, and there is a good deal of room lower down. As on some other articles, protracted discussions over the lead image distract from discussing better use of images lower down - not that I think the images here aren't better than the average article. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, all images can be discussed, but the lead image is the most important among them. The discussion should be started with it. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
So I think now is about time to quote MOS:IMAGES: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." This first bullet in the guideline makes two important points. A) If there is not easy representation of the topic, the nuclear option is actually no image. B) The image should be a natural and appropriate representation of the topic, as seen in other reference works. To the second point I would ask: does anyone stare at this ornate cross and automatically think: "Middle Ages!" I would be surprised. And do any other reference works use this to illustrate the middle ages? I doubt that very much. Let's see: History Channel - Knights, Britannica - A medieval painting of Petrarch, and a gallery of scenes and castles, History Extra - more chivalry. Or we have book covers, which is basically: Knights, Knights, Knights, Knights, castle and farmland, illustrated people enthroned, playing chess, walled city with waterways, hunting. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The only images that universally reflect the articles content is religion and war. So a Christian cross of some sort as this is a Euro-centric article, or some type of military innovation like the archer/crossbow. But as MOS:IMAGES says, no image is required so if the above two or a mosaic are not to people's liking, let's do that then. Biz (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This doesn't need to be a "Eurocentric" article despite what people have been pushing on the talk page for years and years. And even if, for whatever reason, we absolutely have to make it Eurocentric, medieval Europe is chock full of people who aren't Christian, so we definitely don't need to use a cross. My first choice is still a mosaic, but no image at all would be better than what we've got now. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
No image isn't an option, as helpful people would be adding one every 5 minutes (as they would be removing the Florence dome or Botticelli's Primavera). If we are trying to reflect the article, yes it needs to be something European. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Both these points by @Adam Bishop and @Johnbod make excellent sense. Attempting to find a single image that reflects a 1000 years of, if not Eurocentric then, world history is a fools errand. No image would be better than what we have now, but WP being WP there are many fools who would attempt to add that single image. That would seem to lead us back to the mosaic, unless I have missed something? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Except many, like me, really dislike these. So I think that leads us back to doing nothing; frankly this is the end result, after lengthy discussions, of many of the proposals/complaints Iskandar323 makes at articles he hasn't edited. In the previous big discussion I said I was ok with changing the picture every so often, but frankly it is such a grind, I'm not so sure. The current lead pic has been there for 10 years without complaints that I can see in the archive, apart from Adam Bishop's "global mosaic" proposal last year. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
That's getting a little ad hominem there. The length of this discussion is alone testament to the fact that the point that I have raised has chimes with others; I'm not here in this discussion on a one-man crusade or anything. I was drawn to this article by a thread raised about potential bias/POV in the article, which I panned to the article to investigate, and, before I even got to looking at the matter in question, lo and behold, I found an even bigger example of bias/POV in the shape of a giant piece of religious iconography lording over the page. It's a simple as that. That image, alone, is a deeply poor and inadequate reflection of the article's subject. Borderline meaningless in fact. You can demur all you like, but if your only contribution is going to gripe and say that everyone is wasting their time, feel free to sit this one out and let others freely waste their energy in a collegiate manner coming up with a more constructive solution. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
It's a good deal less of a "deeply poor and inadequate reflection of the article's subject" than most of the suggestions above, I'd say. That's a hard load to ask any single image, or a group of illegibly small ones, to bear. If you think it shows "bias/POV", that's rather revealing of your own preconceptions. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
As I believe I made clear above, you know where you can shove your tiresome personal slights. No. That you can't see any potential issues with the uninformative and distinctly single-themed item that currently heads the page is far more reflective of your views/you digging your heels in for ? reason. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is a simple example of what a photo montage could look like. It's a mix of ages, scenes and styles, with a broad commitment to period-appropriate artwork (except for the cathedral photo, obviously). These images aren't explicit suggestions; I've just picked some notable things/events with good related images that I think pop out, are clear and instructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I would be opposed to any form of mosaic. I think mosaics sacrifice a clear image in order to try to get broader coverage, but the resulting images are harder to understand -- usually smaller, and also they require more reader time to understand, which is unlikely to be given. Better to have something that does clearly represent some major aspect of the period, as the current lead image does. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. All nice images, btw, which could well be used lower down. And the current image reflects at least two or three major aspects of the period - Christianity, royalty (perhaps the caption should explain that Mathilde was a princess of the Ottonian imperial family) and monasticism. Plus it's from smack in the middle of the period - many alternates come from very late in it - the 3 bottom images in the mosaic are all 15th-century, 2 from rather late in it. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I should add that the cross shows medieval technical advances - the Byzantine-inspired enamel could/would not have been done by the Romans, as well as a distinctly medieval metalwork style. It also illustrates the obsession of medieval art with expensive materials and bright colour. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This has become one of those WP discussions where consensus seems impossible, despite many good arguments. @Johnbod's suggestion of keeping the image, but enhancing the narrative is one that could go to WP:RFC to end the debate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I still think that the bainstorming should not began with a mosaic but with the themes to be covered. Otherwise, the mosaic would be chosen as arbitrarily as the present image. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. I just provided an example to get people thinking and get the ball rolling, because the discussion was one of hypotheticals. What do you have in mind? If one is to follow the form of the article, in a 6-image setup, we might ideally want 2 early, 2 high and 2 late middle ages images. Quality + illustrative images for the early period seem to be the hardest to come by due to the lower quality of depictive art at the time and the lower survival rates. Hence the Theodora image, which was wrought in stone and thus survived and is of decent quality, but is also not necessarily the most critically relevant subject-wise. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The division between the three main period is quite natural. I would repeat that we should break with the "knight-monk-princess" approach. At least one picture should depict a peasant, and one picture should be dedicated to a town (such as Venice). I would also avoid Western-centricism. So I would dedicate one picture to the burning of Jan Hus. Finally, I would dedicate a picture to Muslim Spain/Sicily. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The "knight-monk-princess" approach, as it were, is what is often used in high-quality reference literature, for obvious reason of recognizability. Knights instantly scream "Middle Ages". Showing a peasant scene is probably a good idea though - just a matter of sourcing a decent one. On the other suggestions, when you have just six images, you need to focus on emblematic ones and not get too hung up on fairness at every conceivable level at once. I think it needs to be either an early, high, later period split OR a geographical one, not both. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of mosaics. I think that in many cases the images end up either displacing text/infobox content that is more informative, or else too small for readers to see clearly. I would prefer no image if one cannot be found to represent the many themes, years, and places that comprise Middle Ages history. (t · c) buidhe21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
There is room for about 3 images at normal size at the top of the article, before you get to the ones already in place. Asking any single image to "represent the many themes, years, and places that comprise Middle Ages history" is probably over-ambitious. Here's one I like, which has the great advantage of being in "landscape" format. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
A good castle image would not be a bad option - both being emblematic of the architectural and militaristic changes in the period indicative of the increasing organization of society and conjuring images of Medieval warfare by proxy. Castles are also fairly innocuous from a balance perspective, with architectural evolution being a thing of endless plagiarism and therefore naturally less bias to any one particular cultural grouping or geographical focus within Europe. Good suggestion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I had a brief scout myself, but the key advantage of that Palais de Papes image is the way the castle fills almost the whole frame (with very little wasted space) and it is a large uploaded image, so interested viewers can really get a good look at castle architecture. These other images give you as much if not more landscape than they do actual castle visuals. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
My principal concern is that the Palace of the Popes is absolutely atypical. It stands was built in the middle of a town. I think the landscape where the castle stands is as much important from historical perspective than the castle itself. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not clear that is true. Like any serious fortress/fortified castle, it was built to withstand sieges and with strategy in mind "on a natural rocky outcrop at the northern edge of Avignon, overlooking the river Rhône". Its page notes there was a Dominican monastery there before, but is silent on the proximity of Avignon at the time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's not really a castle at all, but a semi-fortified palace, and one of the best survivals of a grand secular palace. I don't really understand the town/landscape point. In most of Europe most castles were in towns, or had towns grow up around them. The romantic castle surrounded by an empty landscape is not very typical, I think. In fact Tomar, Malbork and Almodóvar del Río are all only separated from the towns that grew up around them by short, mainly steep, firing zones. But none of the photos here make that clear; indeed like most photos they try to hide the surrounding town. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a settlement always grew around the castle after it was built. However, Avignon had been an important town, able to resist the counts of Provence, centuries before the Castle of the Papes was built. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
So what was your point ("My principal concern is that the Palace of the Popes is absolutely atypical. It stands was built in the middle of a town. I think the landscape where the castle stands is as much important from historical perspective than the castle itself")? Obviously "a settlement always grew around the castle" is not true either, especially for smaller ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This is course is obviously nonsense. Even a cursory search produces numerous urban castles across wide geographies: Prague Castle (Prague, Czech Republic), Edinburgh Castle, (Edinburgh, Scotland), Windsor Castle (Windsor, England), Himeji Castle (Himeji, Japan), Château de Chambord (Chambord, France), Alhambra (Granada, Spain), Alcazar of Segovia (Segovia, Spain), Malbork Castle (Malbork, Poland), Bran Castle (Brasov, Romania), Tower of London (London, England), Alnwick Castle (Alnwick, England), Matsumoto Castle (Matsumoto, Japan), Český Krumlov Castle (Český Krumlov, Czech Republic), Citadel of Aleppo (Aleppo, Syria), Castillo de San Felipe del Morro (San Juan, Puerto Rico), Burg Hohenzollern (Hechingen, Germany), Kilkenny Castle (Kilkenny, Ireland), Castel Sant'Angelo (Rome, Italy), Spis Castle (Spišské Podhradie, Slovakia), Osaka Castle (Osaka, Japan) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
These were less common than the incredible number of keeps and castles built for military purposes by nobility nowhere near any walled towns. I think a mountain top castle (burg in German vs. schloss) from the 1200-1400 era would be the most emblematic thing of the middle ages, if were were not going to go with medieval artwork showing battles or people. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations! You have just invented a new method of statistics by comparing a list of data selected from a database to itself to prove what is typical in a database. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the point is that this typical/atypical typological discussion is a bridge to nowhere. Castles can be in or out of towns, and those towns can form before or after them. "Castle" itself is a vague term, ranging from barely fortified villas through to the largest siege-deflecting monstrosities. There are no real patterns here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Iskandar323, that is exactly the point. To get back to the actual debate the Palais des Papes image is good candidate; it makes excellent use of the frame while linking architecture, religion and history. If the mosaic idea fails, it would make a better single image than the Cross of Mathilde. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I still do not understand why do you think that an urban palace that was used by the highest ranking Catholic clerics as their transitory seat for some decades is a good representative of medieval Europe with its predominantly rural population who were mainly ruled by petty secular lords from their village castles. Especially, why do you think it is a better representative of medieval Europe than the Cross of Mathilde: it links medieval art, religion and history. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't (if you meant me). It should be clear from all the above that I have by no means given up on Mathilde. This comes from my suggestion a little way up that we should (rather than a mosaic) have more images at the top of the article. This would make a good #3 perhaps, with something more peasanty at #2. The popes lived in Avignon for over a century btw. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the popes lived in Avignon for more than a century if we count those who are regarded as antipopes by the Catholic Church. Even so, we should ignore that the large new palace (on the picture's right side) was built decades after the papal see was transferred from Rome to Avignon. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
So? It's 14th century, so very comfortably within the period, & as I say, essentially palatial rather than military. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The quality of the image is one aspect to be taken into account. However, the relevance of the picture should neithere be ignored. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The relevance isn't being ignored, but this thread has become a discussion of the minutiae of what makes the most perfectly representative castle when the reality is that there are so many different types of castle that none even can in fact be representative of them all. Given this, quality and clarity naturally rise back to the fore as decisive factors, and a good image of a UNESCO world heritage site that's "one of the most magnificent edifices of Gothic architecture of the 14th century" with "one of the highest medieval towers" [5] is not a bad option at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this discussion has led to nowhere. Changing a representative medieval artifact to an atypical castle would not improve the article's quality. Borsoka (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
You're still harping on about this typical/atypical business? Just to be clear, no one knows what you mean by typical ... it seems illusory. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think your artwork montage is an excellent starting point and much better than a picture of a castle/fortress/palace/walled town/keep or anything like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Do we need two lead images?
Asks Borsoka, reverting my addition of the Aviagnon Palais. I said above that I thought the opening of the article should be illustrated in the normal way, and that there was space for two new images there. The Palais pic was liked by several above, so I thought it safe to add it (I said above I thought a more social image would be a good #2). How wrong I was! Borsoka was happy with mosaic I think, but not 2 pics. Well I think we should illustrate the top of the article in the normal way. Others? Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
1. Could you refer to FAs with two lead images? 2. Yes, a mosaic could be an alternative. 3. I maintain that the Palace of the Popes is not a representative image, and I am not alone with this opinion. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
1) I'm not going to go hunting around, but just looking at the FAs I've been involved with (like this one before the takeover) the first two on my list, Waddesdon Bequest and Early Netherlandish painting both have more than one in the lead, besides: 1a) this is not the article that passed FAC, & it should be de-listed, as I have said before, 1b) It has an extremely long lead (too long in fact) and 1c) the 2nd section has no illustration, and 1d) I'm sure there are plenty more. There is absolutely nothing in any quideline to say the lead has only one pic. 2) What's the logic here? One good, two bad, eight good? 3) Being "representative" is probably impossible, and is not the only criterion here, as others have told you. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
1. OK. We have precedent. The first one is terrible, but the second one is a good example how two lead images could be used. Thank you for them. Yes, the article should be re-nominated because its so-called "FA" version did not meet GA criteria either. It is our community's shame that it was promoted. 2. Yes, I think, a mosaic is better than two lead pictures. 3. I have never claimed that "representative" is the sole criterion but I think it is an important one. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Since it has perhaps not yet been articulated clearly enough why the current image, the Cross of Mathilde, let's dive down a little into what MOS:IMAGES actually requires of an image, which is, as mentioned earlier: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Now clearly others here disagree, but I would contest that neither of the key requirements here are fulfilled. I do not find the cross to a natural and appropriate representation of the topic, in the slightest. Mathilde is an irrelevant person who is not mentioned, Essen is a place that is not mentioned, and the Ottonians certainly do have a place in the piece, but their material culture is not discussed in great detail. This brings me onto what this image actually represents, which is Ottonian art and the Ottonian Renaissance - both pages that are led by what you will see is a remarkably similar cross, also from Essen. So that is now three pages that are led by images of extremely similar objects: two where it is obviously actually appropriate, and one where it is far less so, and arguably, I would suggest, undue and a poor effort at visually encapsulating 1,000 years of European history. To the second point in the guideline, I would like those in favour of the cross to actually point me in the direction of a high-quality reference work about the Middle Ages that uses an Essen cross of any type as a cover or otherwise lead image in a similar way. That is what the guideline clearly states is required, and so I would say: cough up! Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Borsoka, @Johnbod: Since both of you are in the pro-Essen cross camp, would either of you care to explain why four Wikipedia articles should have borderline identical lead images, or share any source that depicts the Middle Ages like so? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this approach to the issue -- ask others to justify their position -- is not likely to be profitable. For my part, if I were one of the people you were asking this question, I'd be reluctant to post anything because I know you'd immediately start a debate on those points, and I have finite time to give to Wikipedia. I think it would be better to work, as you and others are doing above, to try to get consensus from a few editors on particular ideas, and then see if that can be built into a consensus for changing the lead image. That's much less confrontational, and more cooperative, than the approach in this thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to get consensus on particular ideas, but part of that is understanding why people think an Essen Cross is so great as an image despite being redundantly used on multiple other articles. In my eyes it is repetitive, and this page is the least due place for it. I don't think an Essen cross would even be particularly great on an article specifically on Medieval Christianity, and indeed, it isn't used at Christianity in the Middle Ages. Beyond this, there is a guideline which clearly outlines that we should be looking for the type of images used in high quality reference works to illustrate the topic. So, are we just not following the guideline here? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to give their answers to your questions in this thread? If they were to agree with you they would not be adding anything useful to the conversation; if they were to disagree they know they would be starting an argument. Your post here starts things off on a confrontational footing. My post here is just a personal recommendation to you that we are more likely to make progress on this talk page with other approaches. These conversations are tiring, and personally I don't plan to contribute much until we get to a concrete proposal that seems to be gaining support. I feel like otherwise I would be engaging in an endless debate that seems unlikely to be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree it is not great for this article. I'd favor a photo of a castle, or medieval artwork depicting people in period clothing, people in a castle, people in a walled town, that sort of thing. While Christianity is a hallmark of the Middle Ages, I don't think it is the most emblematic and descriptive thing to use for the lead of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I can see that discussion has stalled without resolution, so I'd like to restart things. Based on the discussion above I can see that a mosaic would not be popular, and that while the image does not have to represent the entire Middle Ages it should be representative of some major aspect(s) of the period. Having put some thought into it, I'd like to suggest two potential images. The first image is a T-O map, which literally represents Europe (and Africa and Asia) in the Middle Ages and incorporates the themes of Christianity and medieval science. The second is a stained glass window from Canterbury Cathedral which illustrates the Parable of the Sower; It represents Christianity, an element of medieval daily life, and medieval technological and artistic advancements via the medium of painted glass itself. What do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
(ec) I think the map is rather hard to read as a lead image; it would be fine lower down. The second doesn't have that issue, and is attractive, although the subject isn't distinctively medieval. I think it would make a good second image here, as the current first two evoke the world of the elites. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Then to not evoke the elites (I presume you mean scholars and clergy) that would be rank and file military or peasant activities?
...Which is why I think some variant of an archer and bow is a great image as this transformed the militaries in Europe during the middle ages (inspired by the the Huns) and it was not until the Ottoman's with their cannon ball that such a dramatic innovation would happen again. Biz (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Although I'm not wedded to this exact panel, among the images available on Wikimedia it is one of the best — there are equivalent ones depicting the labours of the months, but they're not vibrant and of a much later date (1450-75).
If I can allay your fears about the subject not being distinctively medieval, while the parable is Biblical every other aspect of the panel places it squarely in the Middle Ages — the sower's clothes, his elongated twelfth-century form, and the strip field system behind him (an particularly early attempt at perspective, I believe). It's not a bad trade-off, I don't think. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree, the stained glass depicts a genuinely medieval scene. Even so, I would prefer the T-O map: for me, it is more representative. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
A map is a nice idea - the good thing about it is the way it shows how geography was imagined in the period: the old world view with the Mediterranean at the centre of it all. That particular map is not the highest quality image though. Alternatives might be the Beatus map or one of the other many Mappa Mundi examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
This is one of the highest-quality map images that I could find, as it goes. There may well be better, but the original image is 3,791 × 5,496 pixels. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The use of period manuscripts and artwork seems quite appropriate to me. I think we should pick one which is both clear and which has good aesthetics (which I know is subjective). Just something to illustrate the setting of the article, doesn't matter much what. This map is fine for that, but I prefer the visual quality of several of the images in the first proposed montage (mosaic?) above. The map is a bit noisy. It could work though. Unsigned comment
I'm happy to support the stained glass if it results in this discussion actually moving somewhere. The advantages of it are that it depicts daily like while reflecting art, technology, culture and religion all in one go, as noted in the opening comment in this discussion. It is also visually clear and interesting. Seems to tick most boxes. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
As the discussion has stalled again I've taken the liberty of changing the lead image to the Canterbury stained glass panel. I'm still very open to using the T-O map or a different image entirely, but even if discussion doesn't restart the article will now at least open with an image several editors have approved of. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
That's fine with me for now. I would prefer an image (from an illuminated manuscript or painting) depicting nobility, war, or everyday life, rather than religion, but all 4 were major themes so it doesn't matter much. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
In all seriousness, when it comes to artworks this old any copyright issues will be with reproductions (such as photographs) rather than the work itself. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being a little facetious but I see what you mean. There's no question about the window being public domain, the question is whether the existing copyright tag is appropriate or whether we'd be better using PD-Art or similar. I'll wait and see what Nikkimaria says. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Usually that would be true. However, freedom of panorama laws in the UK are quite expansive, and include 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship", of which stained glass is one. Thus no consideration of the copyright of the artwork is needed for stained-glass works from the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
A.D.Hope, I think the problem I see with this image is it depicts something from the bible, which is by its nature not from the medieval period. I think we should use something that depicts the medieval period explicitly. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I did respond to a similar point when I originally proposed this image, which if you don't mind I'll repeat here:
If I can allay your fears about the subject not being distinctively medieval, while the parable is Biblical every other aspect of the panel places it squarely in the Middle Ages — the sower's clothes, his elongated twelfth-century form, and the strip field system behind him (an particularly early attempt at perspective, I believe). It's not a bad trade-off, I don't think.
I do stand by that, although if a similarly high-quality image of a more distinctively medieval stained glass panel was available there's a good chance I'd prefer it. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe the stained glass panel is very appropriate. The Middle Ages have been called the "Age of Faith" and the dominate feature of art in the Middle Ages is associated with that faith. Secondly, I like the subject matter of the panel: farming and farmers. 80 to 90 percent of the people living in the Middle Ages were farmers and yet their existence and importance often gets short shrift. Smallchief (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yep, it's a big improvement IMO. Thanks everyone who participated in the discussion and helped agree on an option that ticks most boxes for most people, and to @A.D.Hope especially for suggesting the stained glass image, which is just a great combination of relevant and eyecatching. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's a little cliché, and also from very late in the period (circa 1412 to 1416).
I must admit I've been surprised at the pushback toward a Biblical scene, considering Christianity is a major theme of the Middle Ages and the scene shows a sower in medieval clothing in a medieval strip field system. It's like quibbling about using the School of Athens to represent the Renaissance because it happens to depict an Ancient Greek scene, despite it otherwise being distinctly of its period. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. About the Middle Ages, the British Library says "The Church was the single most dominant institution in medieval life, its influence pervading almost every aspect of people's lives." This stained glass illustration is a beautiful example of Middle Ages art dating from the middle age of the Middle Ages, taken from the most durable remnant of the Middle Ages, a cathedral, and it depicts a typical Middle Ages scene, farming and the farmer, with reasonable accuracy. Smallchief (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Clergy, knight, peasant farmerThis that's already in the article depicts multiple classes though, including clergy. Omitting knights/knighthood/professional soldiers seems to be leaving out a big part of the story. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
It's rare that a lead image can represent an entire topic, but as long as it represents a significant aspect and is a high-quality image I'm happy. On that basis still support the stained glass panel; it gives a flavour of what the article is about, the rationale for using it is sound, and it's vibrant, high-quality image.
The cleric/knight/workman image is fine, but I am concerned that in showing a neat division of the medieval world it's too stereotypical. It's also duller than the glass. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm ok with the stained glass image and I do think it brings together some important elements. Could we use a photo of the stained glass that shows it in place with some of the architecture? Cathedrals were obviously very important. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the best idea, the panel is a small part of a large window (bottom row, middle) and its individual elements would be too small to see properly at lead image size. The panel is a complete scene in itself, though, so I don't think showing the whole window is necessary. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, can we link to that picture of the whole window in the description? I think it is informative for context on the image.
The contrast is good on the stained glass. I think you are right that it is a good picture to represent the middle ages since it's from a cathedral stained glass scene depicting the morals the church is trying to teach to people. It looks good on the surface and it can lead to some other topics. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely — I know I'm advocating for the stained glass but I'm not immune to its flaws. If the image is kept the caption needs work anyway, certainly a source and probably more detailed wording which further explains the context. A link to the full window should be part of that. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Equally well, people might be curious why there was art that looked like that in the middle ages and follow some links in the image description.
I agree it's not perfect. An illustration that was pretty comprehensive about medieval society would be better in my opinion. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh that's a good one too. Preferable to stained glass imo (especially something not showing the whole stained glass and its setting/context). —DIYeditor (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The overall mix of themes is not bad, but the depiction of the Louvre is terrible: it's overly fanciful and inaccurate. It doesn't help that the Louvre at the time already looked like a daft fairytale castle, but here the depiction is off and the perspective is all shot to boot. The castle aligned with its walls; it was not diagonal too them, and the walls were significantly lower, as depicted here, with the corner turret notably three times the height of the outer wall. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm very surprised you take a fanciful 19th-century illustration, long before the C20th excavations that uncovered much of the remains of the building, over a depiction by an artist who was probably very familiar with the actual building. You are I think not allowing for the closer viewpoint of the Berri image. Anyway, we certainly won't be using the other image! I like the reeve & peasants, and we should usae that somewhere for sure. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
New picture
I haven't seen any good argument against the priest/knight/peasant image being in the opening image. I think it is more comprehensive of the era. In addition, it represents what comes to mind when average readers think "medieval", namely the knight. When you see a stain glass you just think church or Catholic church. The argument that a peasant working on a plot of land is better because that's what the average person was could be used for any article on a pre-modern era or civilization. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Above, there was "The cleric/knight/workman image is fine, but I am concerned that in showing a neat division of the medieval world it's too stereotypical. It's also duller than the glass. A.D.Hope". There was also just a shortage of support. I don't myself think that "it represents what comes to mind when average readers think [of Foo]" is a strong argument at all, even if you are correct about what the "average reader" thinks, which could be disputed. We should not be pandering to Hollywood-inspired stereotypes. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I would stand by what I said earlier. 'Knight/priest/peasant' is an overly-neat view of the Middle Ages, especially considering feudalism didn't develop until around four centuries into the period and was largely absent from areas such as the Byzantine Empire. It's a good image for the body, where it can have plenty of context around it, but has connotations I'd prefer not to bring to the forefront of readers' minds as soon as they open the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It's clear what you are looking at with the "classes" illustration. The stained glass is quite abstract. I don't think being somewhat more vivid makes up for being plain hard to tell what it is even a picture of... —DIYeditor (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I realize that, but the idea that we need to show a knight in the first image because "it represents what comes to mind when average readers think "medieval", namely the knight" is a Hollywood-inspired stereotype (ok, and Walter Scott etc etc). Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, just as pertinent to show archers and men at arms, who actually did most of the work in most battles, and most of whom would have been peasants, sowing crops in their fields when not called up for war. In the "three-class" system, the gentry and scholars were really just an ornament atop a vast pyramid of unlanded peasantry. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Aside from in the depiction of the knight, the three-figure image is not actually that clear a demonstrative of social classes - it is a rather rough piece of art, and the details distinguishing between the headgear/shaven head are vague and subtle (e.g. both are flesh-coloured). Without the caption, a casual reader might well be confused as to what was going on in the image. And the one obvious element, i.e. the knight, is, as was discussed earlier in this thread, actually a rather stereotypical portrayal of the period. And returning to the issue of the quality, in these terms it is poorer, less visually interesting, and a less effective demonstration of artistic and technological development in the medieval period. It is just an ok-ish inked illustration on paper, compared to a rather more dramatic composition rendered in glass and lead construction. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
You mean the features that emerge from it being rendered in stain glass, with the constraints and limitations of that craft? This is rather what makes it innovative and interesting for its time period, unlike the cobbled together sketch. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This is taking things too far the other way, I think. Although the inhabited initial is not my preferred choice, as an example of medieval illumination it's a perfectly fine. The dark background is the main flaw, surely that's not real gold leaf? A.D.Hope (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Almost certainly it is - that some has peeled away suggests so. But it has probably got rather grubby, & (as is often the case at the BL) the phographer did not light it to emphasize the gleam of the gold. It is painted rather than "inked" btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I might have been hyperbolic, but the point remains that it does little to exhibit the best of either art or technology in the 13th-century. There are better ink-on-paper works. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking more of access — a work of art could be perfect, but if a high-quality image of it hasn't been uploaded to Wikimedia (or equivalent) then it's no good to us. However, it's also worth bearing in mind that images of non-copyrighted works of art can themselves be under copyright. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
That is not the position I & many other UK Wikipedians take. The servers are in the US & US law applies. The BL are in practice very relaxed about it (I perhaps shouldn't say so, but I have in the past been emailed BL images that weren't online by a senior person there, in the full knowledge I would use them on WP). Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand the Wikimedia position from the perspective of advocating for better access to public domain images, but in practice the foundation can't unilaterally decide that certain laws don't apply to editors. We are in the UK, so UK law applies to what we upload.
Having said that, I'm pleased the BL is relaxed about its copyrights and might be helpful if we asked for an image. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Why can't we have an image that is both authentically medieval and represents public expectations? We shouldn't dismiss the later. Is it "stereotypical" to represent classical antiquity with the Parthenon and the Colosseum? LittleJerry (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
If authenticity and reader expectations happen to coincide that's good, but we should prioritise the former over the latter.
To answer your example, it's definitely stereotypical to use the Parthenon and Colosseum to represent Ancient Greece and Rome, and the captions don't really explain why they're representative images. I'd swap one for an object or artwork and flesh out the captions to better explain their significance. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Laziness
@Johnbod: are you sure that you can accuse other editors of laziness ([6])? You are one of the editors responsible for this huge collection of original research and unverified claims (examples are listed here and here). As an act of penance, you could help other editors to improve the article instead of reverting edits and making ad personam remarks ([7]). Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am, and the article belongs to you now, as you have, as usual, driven other editors out. There's no helping you, as we know from other articles. I very much doubt there is any "original research" (Wikipedian for "Wow, I didn't know that") in the article. Refs are needed, so go find them. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
As usual you are unable to verify your own text, and as usual, you try to hide this fact by accusing me of misconduct. You obviously have not realised that other editors are not here to work for you. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I realized that a long time ago. I'm not sure this is my text, though it may be. Anyone with the intention of improving WP can "verify" it very easily. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I have not reverted everything. I put the tags requesting verification and indicating unverified claims. Again, it was not me who misled our community by placing pseudo-references after sentences containing my own thoughts and interpretations. (Just a side remark, the linked article (Codex Aureus of St. Emeran) and its cited source (Lasko) do not verify the sentence either.) Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Intrapersonal relations in power structures
@Ehrenkater: thank you for your edits but I do not understand your tags. The cited author (John H. Arnold) says, "In almost all places, the basis of the economy was agricultural, resting on exploting labour surplus from a large mass of more or less subservient peasants. Communication across regions was relatively slow, and could not be relied upon to be uniform in content or reception; power structures tended to rely heavily upon intrapersonal relations, and where bureaucracies developed they were fragile in comparison to later times." Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Borsoka
I, for one, have no idea what is meant by "intrapersonal relations", so for starters it would need to be clarified.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Except, of course, the two words mean very different things. One is connections between one of more individuals, whereas the other means the understanding of oneself. Arnold may have used an incorrect term, but as written changing this to interpersonal changes the meaning of what was written and what is in the article. It would be better to get another source if this was considered an important point, delete if not or rephrase. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I think Arnold refers to interpersonal relationship because at least two people are needed for a relationship, especially in power structures. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
To be more helpful it would appear that Arnold was using an academic psychological term. If he intended to use interpersonal he would, but he didn't, and we must accept that was intentional. The clue is in the subject of the sentence, which is communication and the use of the related terms content and reception. I am not expert on Interpersonal communication but both terms are used in models developed for this. The point being made would appear to be that power structures were subjective, dependent on the perception of the the rulers and the ruled rather than codified and objective. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read the sentence again. I think you misinterpreted the context: it is not "content and reception" (both linked to communication across regions). A reference to interpersonal relationships in power structures is quite natural: the power structures were determined by personal connections between peoples instead of institutions.
It is a single sentence, discussing communication, power structures and bureaucracy at the time. In it the writer uses a precise scientific term used in social psychology. There is no evidential reason to suppose the writer used an incorrect term, meant to use a different term or it is a typo. Content and reception are both used in models of intrapersonal communication, so there is every indication that the writer intended to use the word as written. Indeed it makes perfect sense, unlike using interpersonal which would appear to be totally superfluous and redundant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand it enough to recognise that just swapping interpersonal for intrapersonal creates an oxymoron that the author would not have intended. As such the use of interpersonal is not supported by the source or indeed explained clearly. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
When mentioning power in the Middle Ages, Arnold writes of "patterns of ritual behaviour, lines of social power, and methods by which individuals negotiated their position in society" (p. 47). In his analysis of medieval power structures, he emphasises the role of violence, saying that "that the possibility of violence ... played a role in the creation and maintenance of political systems at all level". In the same analysis, he adds that "Another set of tools ... was the bestowal of patronage and the cultivation of personal charisma. ... The process of patronage - bestowing office, lands or favours in return for political support - is familiar across medieval politics... Studies of civic oligarchical elites indicate similar systems of patronage and kinship networks at a more local level... " (pp. 132-134) All these statements indicate that he is referring to the importance of relationship between individuals (that is to interpersonal relations) when writing of power structures. Could you quote text from Arnold's book verifying any of your above guesses about the meaning of the term "intrapersonal relations" (an obvious oxymoron)? Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to delete, rewrite or resource the sentence as written. It is not really about terminology, so is probably in the wrong place anyway. None of this changes the fact that swapping interpersonal for intrapersonal in this sentence and as cited changes the meaning and intention of the author of this paricular point. By using the semi-colon Arnold is linking communication to intrapersonal relations deliberately, for a reason. So rewrite it as you like to include the wider citations but do not think it is valid just to swap one word and meaning for a different word and meaning, and cite it to a passage that does not support the change. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Arnold presents this information in section "Framing the Middle Ages", so WP can also present it when the term is explained. In Arnold's text, "intrapersonal relations" (an obvious oxymoron and typo) is mentioned in the context of power structures. Why do you think Arnold exclusively mention examples of interpersonal relations (such as negotiations, violence, patronage...) in the section of his book about power structures in the Middle Ages?
@Norfolkbigfish: above you stated ([8]), that Arnold "uses a precise scientific term used in social psychology" when mentioning "intrapersonal relations". Could you list some academic sources in the field of social psychology that also use this "precise scientific term"? Those sources could help us to understand this term. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
From Oxford Reference: intrapersonal relationship Interactions between members within a group and the resultant influence on individual members. See also interpersonal relationship.Artem.G (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Our relevant policy emphasizes that editors "should not attempt to change an article's established citation style ... without first seeking consensus for the change." The article now uses short citations, including only the author's name, the cited work's full or shortened title, and the relevant page or pages in the footnotes. It contains nearly 400 footnotes and editors who want to check whether a cited source indeed verifies a statement in the article are forced to search the cited source in section "References" that lists nearly 90 cited works. I think the introduction of a citation template, preferably the {{sfn}} template would significantly improve the situation, allowing editors to review the article more easily. As unverified claims in one of the most-viewed articles could taint wikipedia's reputation, I think we should enable potential reviewers to use handy citation templates. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the present system has been ideal for editors who verified their own thoughts in the article by pseudo-references to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod:Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., Nestor Makhno, and Len Deighton are among the newest featured articles using the {{sfn}} template. In their "References" sections, click on the author's name in each individual citation, and it will navigate you to the details of the cited work. You do not need to search the cited works manually. I think the suggested change in the article's citation style would significantly improve the article that contains nearly 400 references and nearly 90 cited works. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Are you sure that editors are now able to check whether the nearly 400 citations in the main text are indeed linked to a work listed in the "References" section, and also ensure that the nearly 90 works listed in the "References" section are indeed cited in the main text? The use of the {{sfn}} template could solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I was good to see you by lock it up and see if they have any questions let me know if you need anything let me know and I'll send you a picture of the same as last time I was there to help you out with that was a....... 103.205.37.217 (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd definitely support this change. The sfn template makes it much easier to directly access a source, as you note, and is particularly helpful in long articles such as this. It can be tedious to switch between reference styles, and it needs to be done carefully so as not to accidentally introduce errors, but once the process is complete the article will be improved. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Would you be ready to compare each of the nearly 400 citations with the cited works, and each of the nearly 90 cited works with the references in the main text in order to secure that each citation is linked to a cited work, and each work is cited in the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Ey, please remember to remove the request after you respond to it :) I also agree that using sfn to first everything would be nice. It’s not even changing the style by much, just adding links for the reader Aaron Liu (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I haven't "stopped replying" at all; there's just been nothing to reply to. It is changing the style considerably, but that won't trouble you, you have never contributed to the article at all that I can see, but are just a drive-by third opinion. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
You have indeed stopped replying. Weeks ago, I asked you whether you were ready to compare each of the nearly 400 citations with the cited works, and each of the nearly 90 cited works with the references in the main text [9]. You have not answered yet. Why do you think only editors who have contributed to this article could express their opinion on this specific issue (or any other issue)? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, no of course I am not. What a completely bizarre request, clearly designed to be pointless work, and nothing to do with the referencing style. Anyone can express an opinion, but drive-bys summonsed by an appeal don't carry much weight. I see you have gone ahead anyway (of course). Why have you changed Bartlett's ISBN? And why does a new ref not use sfn when you are busy converting existing ones. If you come up with any ref mismatches, do say! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
1. No, it is not a bizarre question. Each work listed in the References section should be cited, and each citation in the main text should be linked to a work in the Reference section. 2. According to my experiences, no editor's opinion carry much weight in your eyes. 3. Of course, I have gone away. I am not surprised that you do not want to facilitate the review of your edits but three independent editors' support is quite convincing. 4. I did not change the ISBN but I converted it because I want to use ISBN 13 consequently. 5. I will be converting all references but I want to be systematic, so I began at the beginning of the Reference sectiokn. 6. I am sure I will come up with new ref mismatches because I have not finished the review of the article yet. Unfortunatelly, your text is only by chance verified by the sources you allegedly cite.
This edit request to Middle Ages has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the military and technology section of the Early Middle Ages chapter there is a spelling mistake in the caption for the picture. It currently reads "Byzantine cavalry cheasing Muslim horseman". This is incorrect and should be changed to "chasing". 2A0A:EF40:4B7:A201:6D6F:7E79:AC79:34A9 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Wow. One complicated article including the Talk page.
Basically I see no way to correct this assertion: "Jewish moneylenders and pawn brokers led to antisemitism which manifested itself in the blood libel and pogroms." This ignores centuries of antisemitism in France (see Gregory of Tours' harrowing comments about Jews) and greatly over-simplifies a complex question, not to mention that the phrasing blames the victims of this hatred. At best this should read "The role of Jewish moneylenders and pawn brokers reinforced long-standing antisemitism which now manifested itself in the blood libel and pogroms."
2600:1700:8D40:9B60:3594:D8DA:D9E0:13B7 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
_08.jpg)
Trakai (Lithuania)
Malbork Castle (Poland)
Krak des Chevaliers (Syria)
Almodóvar del Río (Spain)
Tomar (Portugal)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#/media/File:Nef_cath%C3%A9drale_Laon.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Done There was a typo in the final footnote, now fixed. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)