Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Middle Ages - the story of one confused article

My name is Artur Chilingiryan. I'm historian and I have a few historian articles about the History of the Middle ages, published in scientific journals. This article was written with the idea to be an overview of the history of medieval Europe. But in the current version of the article there are some major problems that need to be taken seriously, if we want this to be a correct and true article.

1. 98 % of Europe's history is ignored

Currently, this article looks as if the title should be " Middle Ages in England , France and Byzantium ", not " Middle Ages". Because is said allmost nothing about the history of Eastern and Central Europe. For example - nothing is mentoined about the Bulgarian Empire, which is one of the most powerful states in Europe during the Middle Ages and has a huge influence on culture, art and literature of Europe (see "Section for Bulgarian empire" above). Nothing is mentioned about Kievan Rus , which is great power in Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages and plays an important role in common European history . The article is devoted too much space to the history of England and France. The history of the Carolingian Empire is too detailed. Minor events in the overall European history as the Carolingian Renaissance and the Hundred Years War are also too much detail. Just because they are related to the history of England and France. At the same time is missing events with European significance as the creation of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic; nothing is mentioned about Preslav and Tarnovo schools that have had a huge impact on the entire European culture. Did not mention anything about the Bulgarian church, which is the first independent church in Europe and the third Patriarchate along with Rome and Constantinople. In the 9th century the Old Bulgarian language became the third liturgical and literary language in Europe, along with Greek and Latin and lingua franca of Slavic Europe. Many historians say that this is the first step of the Reformation. Even the British historian Davies says that Bulgaria has Reformation much earlier than in Western Europe (Quote - "More importantly, they both created their own Orthodox Churches with their own Patriarchs - Bulgaria - in 1235, Serbia - in 1346... It was a step, which none of the countries of Latin Christendom could take until the Reformation, and which Moscovite Russia did not take until 1589", Europe. A History, p.381) The ignoring of these facts make the article biased and unbalanced.

2 . Violation of NPOV

This is the most important issue here. The editors have cited almost entirely British and American sources, who, because of various reasons (nationalistic, political and geographical) write only about the history of England and France. Most of these historians either ignore the history of Eastern Europe, or do not know it. Many of them are influenced by the stereotypes created in the western historiography during the Cold War (see "Section about Bulgarian Empire"). Some historians, quoted in the article (Davies, Collins, Wickham), have been criticized by many historians and some of the facts in these books about Eastern Europe are wrong. The problem is that the editors here do not recognize other sources of non-English origin, and so in this article is proposed only the British perspective, that is often biased. This violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia as NPOV.

3. Poorly prepared editors

I see that most of the editors here are not historians, but rather fans who do not know other languages exclude English and are not interested in presenting a comprehensive history of medieval Europe. Most of them only know the history of Western Europe. In fact, they even ignore sources of Eastern-European origin, even such high academic sources as Georgi Bakalov , Nicola Mavrodinov, Stoyan Popov and others, who are leading experts in the science of history and art. But trust the British and American sources, even if these sources are suspicious. It's too biased and nationalistic point of view and leads to point 2 above.

Solutions:

1. Part of the editors here are needed to be educated in terms of historical theory and to realize that what they quote is only one point of view, probably influenced by Anglo-American focus. [1]

2 . To add information about Bulgarian Empire (as shown in the discussion "Section about Bulgarian Empire above), about Serbia in the 14th century, Kievan Rus, more about Hungary and Poland. In the subarticles for art and culture should be added information about Preslav and the Tarnovo school that historian George Danchev called "the most influential institution in medieval Europe", to be added a photo of the frescoes in the Boyana Church and brief information about Boyana Church, because it is an example of the activity of the Tarnovo school of painting, which by Nicola Mavrodinov, Krasimira Gagova, Ivan Dujčev and many others leading experts has had a huge impact on all European art and the emergence of Renaissance painting.

3 . To be using a more sources, mostly non-British and non-American. The article is needed by more points of view, to be correct.

4 . Should be sought a dialogue with editors who are familiar with the history of the region. I can be useful for the history of Bulgaria, the Balkans, Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic (Bohemia) and Russia.--Sumatro (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Every event in every country for the entirety of 1000 years cannot be covered to exhausting detail. There are some practical space limitiations; you do realize that the fact that this overview article is not the entirety of Wikipedia's scholarship on the Middle Ages, and there are hundreds of articles at Wikipedia about all of the above subjects. Which is not to say that some of your criticisms are not valid; but the problem is not solved by merely copying the entire text of the First Bulgarian Empire and calling it "balance". --Jayron32 02:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm agree with User:Sumatro here. I'm historian too and I see the same things. In the article is proposed only one point of view, which is influenced by only British sources. This is not a bad thing, when we talking about the English History, but it is unacceptable by article, which is overview and describe the most important events and processes medieval Europe. In this case the unacceptable thing is ignoring of Bulgarian history, because in Bulgarian Empire are occurred many events, which are very important by European history, art and culture. Very detailed information by the French and English history (include Carolingian Empire, Hundred years war, the political and household organization in England and France) and lack of information by important events from Bulgarian, Balkan, Polish and Russian history is a phenomenon that upsets the balance of the article and look very discriminatory.--195.24.37.106 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One side "caricatured" but the other "argued?" -- POV.

In Section "Modern perceptions" it is written: "The medieval period is frequently caricatured as a "time of ignorance and superstition..."" by "both the Renaissance and Enlightenment" scholars. The tone and unarticulated, unsupported POV there is: "See how comical the "Renaissance and Enlightenment" (the Age of Reason) (and heretical "humanistic") scholars were!" However the next (opposing, theocracy-leaning side) paragraph opens with: "Others argue that reason was generally held in high regard during the Middle Ages." ..."Argue," as in to suggest logical argument, overtly implying the unsupported POV: "In contrast; see how rational the medieval theocrats were in comparison?"

One might not gather from the text of the article that this section (and some of the main article) is really about religious polemics until one glances at the references, —and more so if tries to find a guiding line or theme among them. (What else have they written?)

Caricature is defined as: to represent something deliberately exaggerating to produce a comic, or grotesque effect. —Most other definitions include the word; "silly." However the text does not back that POV up, nor the controversial unsupported POV that the medieval period was NOT a relative "time of ignorance and superstition." I'll replace with more neutral terms.

The usage of "caricature" is again used similarly in a later section. Why? Because the hidden agenda is an impolite taboo: Religion. Should there be any doubt that the argument from the controversial theocratic-leaning debaters and POV (as seen for example in Talk, Dark Ages) is getting a free (one-sided) lunch here, consider the titles of these polemics, tracts, books, and lectures used extensively in the entire article and this section as references:

"Grant: God and Reason," " Encyclopedia of Religion,"

'Lindberg and Numbers "Beyond War and Peace" Church History,'

'Numbers: "Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective" Lecture archive."

Yet they argue that both Renaissance and modern "pagan" historians are spewing lies:

"Other misconceptions such as ...."the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", or "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy",

...are all cited by Numbers et al as examples of "widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research." Is that so? So the great Christian theocrat Justinian the Great did not ban science and philosophy as paganism in the year 529, "a date often cited as the end of Antiquity," and start of the Dark Ages? In fact this string of arguments is rather boiler plate among religious fundamentalists that feel insulted when their Age of Religion, their venerable 1000-year theocratic institution is called the Dark Ages by those today they call "Neo-Paganism." [2] An other (more overt, or out-of-the-closet) sample from a similar/same list of boiler plate arguments that are used here as wiki references; quote:

In their desire to convince the uninformed of the alleged persecutions of the Gentiles by the Christians, the Neo-Paganists have been propagating the HISTORICALLY FALSE information that Justinian had shut down the Athens Academy ....Furthermore, the accusations that are being utilized by Neo-Paganists in their attempt to slander Christianity....

Again, "some historians" with a controversial and polemic POV are being passed off as "most historians" with results that are not up to Wiki standards. It needs further cleanup and deletion of questionable POV references and their off-the-wall arguments. Just a general impression here, but it seems to me that those who are arguing to forget everything we always knew about the Dark Ages, have more than burden of proof to overcome.
"Faith is the effort to believe what your common sense tells you is not true." Elbert Hubbard
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Good heavens. No, it truly is most historians that avoid the use of "Dark Ages" - as it really wasn't. Witness the Irish monasteries, Bede, Isidore of Sevile, Alcuin, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"charicatured" could probably be "presented", though. Furius (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

One small error - kingdom or empire?

In "Collapse of Byzantium" is said: The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria and the city-state of Venice. The medieval Bulgarian state is Еmpire, not a kingdom. "Kingdom of Bulgaria" is the name of the Bulgarian state in 1908-1946 - Kingdom of Bulgaria. Here we talking about the medieval Bulgarian state - in this case for the Second Bulgarian Empire - Second Bulgarian Empire. The correct it must be: The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdom of Serbia, the Second Bulgarian Empire and the city-state of Venice.--Zheko Sousa (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Start of Middle Ages

In England, especially, the Middle Ages is sometimes (traditionally perhaps often) considered to start in 1000, or 1066, or even a bit later. Preceding the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages. Major dictionaries acknowledge this usage, some presenting it as an alternative narrower definition, and others as the main definition: [3], [4], [5],[6].

There are numerous instances of this use of the term Middle Ages or Medi(a)eval easily locatable on the Web. This is just a ragbag of the first few that came up: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] [13].

The Wikipedia article 1066 also agrees "In England this is the traditional end of the Dark Ages and the start of the Early Middle Ages".

Despite it being incontrovertibly true that this usage is well-known in England, my attempts to note it in the article are repeatedly reverted in a knee-jerk manner by people who obviously cannot even be bothered to check what they are doing. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't incontrovertibly true. The "Middle Ages" means different things in different places at different times, and the "start times" are fuzzy at best. The start date of any historical period is not an incontrovertible truth, it's a fuzzy definition about which there is a VERY broad and general sense of approximateness. Not the precision you want it to be. You will note that the Wikipedia entry on the Dark Ages (historiography) notes ". Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century)". The 11th century (i.e. Norman Conquest) is generally considered part of the High Middle Ages, which is noted well in here. So yes, the Dark Ages did end at the conquest, but the Dark Ages is an archaic term for the Early Middle Ages anyways, and this article and elsewhere already notes the distinctions between Early, High, and Late Middle Age periods. But you're going to lose your argument 100% of the time when you demand that your perspective is an incontrovertible truth. --Jayron32 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have totally misunderstood what I wrote. I said "incontrovertibly true that this usage is well-known in England", which it is. I did not say that this is an incontrovertibly correct definition to the exclusion of others, which it isn't. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't even incontrovertibly true for England. As noted, the phrase "dark ages" is an archaic term. It refers to what modern historians call the "early middle ages" which is, historiographically, the time between when the Roman Empire left an area and the Great Migrations of Germanic and Norse people started, and ended around the time when an area was first organized as a centralized nation state. So, for England the Early Middle Ages lasts from 409-1066 (if you want to be falsely precise) or from the 5th to the early 11th century. Which is when this article says the "early middle ages" (which is a synonym for "Dark Ages") lasted. The "High Middle Ages" is the time period between organization into a centralized nation-state until when the Black Death hits. So, it's even worse than saying you're wrong here. You aren't even wrong. This Wikipedia article already agrees with you, and you have nothing at all to complain about. --Jayron32 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered arguing with you when you obviously cannot understand something explained twice to you in plain English. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your web sites aren't showing that they don't see the middle ages as before that - I could show you lots and lots of book titles that start the middle ages in Britain before 1000 - what you're showing is that these sites chose to start their work on 1066. The architecture one starts with 1066 most likely because little pre-Norman architecture exists - yes, there is some, but the majority of medieval architecture in England dates from after 1066. The archives also - there aren't a lot of archival records dating from before 1066 (they exist, but not so much in the national archives). The BBC history site is breaking down history into periods - by that site, Middle Ages starts in 1154! (This is because they are breaking down the Middle Ages into the Vikings and Anglo-Saxon period, the Norman Period, a section they can't find a name for so they call it Middle Ages (1154-1485) and then Tudor - this doesn't mean that they don't think that the whole period from 500 or so on to 1485 isn't medieval). Nor is "lordsandladies.com" a really high quality source. No actual historian would argue that the term middle ages doesn't apply to anything in England before 1066 - its only non-historians who don't understand that the Anglo-Saxon period is a sub-period. Nor do any of your sources directly state that in England medieval period is considered to start in 1066 - you just are citing a 1938 non-historian, a dictionary, and a 96 page book designed for children. For every site like the above, there are plenty of historians who use the term for the whole period. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add a note that the narrower definition is not technically preferred by historians, that is absolutely fine. Denying that the usage exists and is moreover reasonably common is not. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's astonishing what stuff reputable publishers will put up on the web - Cambridge should be ashamed of themselves. I'm glad to see Oxford do rather better. But dictionaries and tv websites are not the sources we should be using. I will accept that that is a scary bunch of references (much better as to modern usage than what you tried to insert into the article), and maybe we should at least add a note on this now vulgar (in the strict sense) definition. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that even that much is undue weight here - we're not covering England in the Middle Ages, but the entire period throughout Europe. The only reason we discuss the 1485 end date for England is that we're discussing other terminal dates in other countries - there is more "play" in terminal dates than there is in beginning dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One sentence in a huge article explaining a well-known (even if lay) definition cannot possibly be seen as undue weight. 86.171.42.192 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In which parallel universe did the Early Middle Ages in England begin in 1066? The rule of thumb is that the Early Middle Ages in England began with the departure of the Romans and ended in 1066: I was so gobsmacked to see such piffle on the 1066 page I felt moved to fix it. You're welcome. Nortonius (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(OP; Internet crashed so new IP.) I confess I did not really notice that it specifically said "Early Middle Ages". Even so, none of this alters that fact that, in England, and perhaps more in popular writing rather than (modern) academic writing, "the Middle Ages" is sometimes understood as beginning in 1000, or 1066, or thereabouts. All I want to do is put one freaking sentence in the article noting this correct fact, and I get nothing but a ton of grief, aggravation and wasted time. 86.160.216.243 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Popular writing" is also not known for it's academic rigor. We hope for a bit more. Among modern historians (people who actually matter), no one thinks the Middle Ages started in the 11th century. The term doesn't mean that. If other people misunderstand that and sometimes put that misunderstanding in writing, that isn't worthwhile to mention in Wikipedia, which strives to be a scholarly endeavour. --Jayron32 03:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that a note on the (once common) distinction between the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages is due. A good source would be Fred Robinson's paper "Medieval, the Middle Ages" in Speculum (1984). I've cited this paper before at Wikipedia, but I can't find where. Perhaps it was removed. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Note the last section of the article - Modern perceptions, along with a note to the Dark Ages article on the historiography of the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding about the IP's intentions: this isn't about what the Dark Ages were. There is a tradition—moribund today, but in any case not limited to English historiography—that treats the Middle Ages or the Medieval Period as beginning around 1000 (more on account of the "Feudal Revolution" than Hastings) and treats the period immediately preceding as the Dark Ages. Robinsons says, in the paper I cited, "[i]f we could rehabilitate [the term "Dark Ages"] ... then the Dark Age–Middle Age distinction might be worth reviving or retaining." The note that the IP proposes would exist solely to clarify that there was a tradition that restricted the term "Middle Ages" to the high and late periods and regarded the "Early Middle Ages" as not medieval at all. I think it's worth a note in the place the IP inserted it: within a discussion about when the Middle Ages begin. (Robinson's paper is online here.) Srnec (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See, now I think you're getting somewhere. A little equivocation can be a good thing, and noting the difference in terminology here among respected historians (even outdated ones) is probably OK. Still, we should not give the impression that the terminology is widespread among modern scholarship, but I can see how noting the change, over time, of what the term "Middle Ages" has meant (especially in light of the modern historiography being deliberate in avoiding normative terms like "dark" ages) to be a good idea. --Jayron32 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of section 1, including note B, needs to be expanded to explain more clearly the successive ideas of: a) all MA = DA; b) DA followed by MA from about 1000; c) EMA, HMA, LMA. At the moment b) is only in the note. At that point the now un-academic popular persistence in England of MA beginning c 1000, following DA or A-S, can be mentioned (and criticised, I'd say). While in this area, but now at the end, is "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science" really such a myth, talking about the Greek world? Something certainly did. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about this. The narrative in which Galen, Aristotle, Euclid and all were preserved only in the Islamic world is obviously incorrect. Medieval Byzantine and Armenian texts on scientific and mathematics aren't rare - they tend to mostly compile and make incremental advances, but then so do ancient scientists. Furius (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

Kievan Rus is the largest state in medieval Europe. But in this article has only two lines. The article is too many concentrated on the western part of Europe and Carolingian state. More information about Kievan Rus is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandramunjak (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is map of the area of Kievan Rus in 1054:--Mandramunjak (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

At that particular period it was probably culturally superior to much of Western Europe. Its culture was a rich mix of native Slavic, steppe Turkic, Byzantine, Romanesque, Islamic, and Viking influences. Birch bark manuscripts prove that most of Novgorod's population was literate, and Anna of Kiev knew how to sign her name (unlike her husband Henry I of France). All this does not suit the prevailing ex occidente lux ideology, of course. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruption

The editing here is getting disruptive. The talk page discussion, while it hasn't been all that productive, isn't too disruptive, but the repeated edits to the article itself against consensus on the talk page are just time consuming to the editors who have to revert them. A few of these are OK but it's now to the point where it must be clear to Ludogoro et al. that the edits are against consensus. I'm tempted to request protection for a month; does anyone agree this would be a good idea? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm typically cautious about protection, but I think that in this instance it would allow editors to get on with more productive tasks. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've resisted asking for protection because we do get useful edits (corrections, additions) from IP and other editors. I'd rather see something done to the editors causing the disruption than make it so others have to pay for someone else's problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I still show this page (and the article) as watched, but no longer show the edits adding the large block of text (and it being reverted) in my watchlist. I see them if I check the history of the page or my contributions, but why are those specific edits not showing on my watchlist? (I can see the edits for this section being started, but not the others). Any ideas? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Check your settings in Preferences -> Watchlist -> Advanced options; if those got changed somehow it might affect what you see. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think move protection would be an obvious first step given the most recent problem - there's no reason this article should be moved without a formal move discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.....and done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; let's hope that's all that's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Bulgarian bias

Before some days I added a short information about the arcitecture of the Tarnovo Artistic School, because, according to many leading experts the architecture and painting of the Second Bulgarian Empire play a important role in the history of European art. But my contributions was deleted, because of "18:23, 31 March 2014‎ Hchc2009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (161,823 bytes) (-1,485)‎ . . (As previously, see the (long) talk page discussion on the weighting of this issue)" I see that in this Talk page is existing a dispute by ignoring of the history of Medieval Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire). Obviously the problem is that Tarnovo school is related to Bulgaria and the Second Bulgarian Empire. Why there is information about the Gothic and Romanesque style, but has no details about the Tarnovo style and architecture of the Balkans? The frescoes in Boyana Church is the starting point of Renaissance - it's the first realistic images in European art. I think that here exist a some form of Anti-Bulgarian bias. I think that some of the editors here are related to the anti-immigrant campaigns in the British medias and British politicians - populists, as Nigel Farage. They used a hatred against immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe (Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles, etc.) by their political goals - [14] . Ignoring the history of Bulgaria here is part of this sordid political campaign, especially now when forthcoming elections for European Parliament. --Ludogoro (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to say "The frescoes in Boyana Church is the starting point of Renaissance - it's the first realistic images in European art." is just nonsense, and I don't think even Bulgarian specialists don't actually make such claims. Actually looking at the 1259 images is the best way to disprove this. They show a movement towards realism in the sense of the representation of volume and everyday detail, but so do other works from various parts of Europe. That they or other Tarnovo School works had any influence on developments in Italy and further West has not been demonstrated. The work of the Tarnovo school is probably under-rated in western-European sources, where it is essentially seen as part of a classicising movement in late Byzantine art, but hyperbolic claims don't help. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "Western-European sources", which you say are biased, because of Anti-Bulgarian campaigns (about the British sources) or because they still don't understand that the Cold War ended before 25 years. The frescoes in the Boyana Church are the starting point of the Renaissance - say it many Bulgarian and foreign experts, some of which I quoted in the text. Read what the sources says! Even the British sources, although many of them are infected by anti-Bulgarian bias, recognize it. Look at this documentary film about Sofia - on 14:27 is the part by Boyana church, where is saying that the Renaissance became from Sofia - [15]--Ludogoro (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

He is no art historian, and appears to be commentating a film on behalf of the Bulgarian tourist authories, so is hardly a WP:RS. Google books searches on various phrases show this sort of talk is common in guide-books on Bulgaria, but almost entirely absent in art history books about the Renaissance, Medieval art or even Byzantine art. For example, the over 600 pages in Evans, Helen C. (ed.), Byzantium, Faith and Power (1261–1557), 2004, Metropolitan Museum of Art/Yale University Press, ISBN 1588391140 don't seem to mention Bulgarian painting at all, to judge by the index. White, John. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250 to 1400, London, Penguin Books, 1966, 2nd edn 1987 (now Yale History of Art series). ISBN 0140561285 is 680-odd pages, & has no index entry for Bulgaria. There are certainly nationalist factors in this disparity, but we need to ask ourselves on which side they are. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ludogoro, I'd urge you to read and consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks when making some of the statements above. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone. It is real, that these problems exist in British society, historiography and media. Read the sources, before to comment, please! Many experts says that Boyana frescoes have a big role in European Renaissance. It is not my opinion! I just say what this sources says. --Ludogoro (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm content to accept that you didn't mean to, Ludogoro, not least because I suspect that English is not your first language. When you write comments such as "I think that some of the editors here are related to the anti-immigrant campaigns in the British medias and British politicians - populists, as Nigel Farage. They used a hatred against immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe (Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles, etc.) by their political goals", however, then many, including myself, will feel that is an attack on the editors concerned. Please don't do so again - comment on the content of the article, not your opinion of the editors. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And in all honesty, most of the article was developed by myself, and I'm not British at all. Nor are my parents, grandparents or great-grandparents, so I could hardly be associated with a British nationalist party. So... you're a bit off base with those comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If this were an art history article I might possibly be inclined to agree with the inclusion of this, but in a general article about the "Middle Ages" it would be a totally UNDUE inclusion, even if every art historian in the world were agreed on it, which I strongly doubt that they are. You are conflating "the renaissance ... in art" with "the renaissance", which is understandable, and art played an important role, but it's such a minor detail it's not worth including in such a massive overview article. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Why in this case in the article is included this minor detail In Italy the innovations of Cimabue and Duccio, followed by the Trecento master Giotto (d. 1337), greatly increased the sophistication and status of panel painting and fresco.. The Boyana frescoes was created in 1259, when Giotto is still unborn. It must be added in the article. --Ludogoro (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ludogoro, in this case you are only partly right. It is true that the frescoes in the Boyana Church are the first realistic images in European art, but it belong to the proto- Renaissance. In Bulgarian art history has only Proto-Renaissance (or Early Renaissance), because the Renaissance development of the Balkan countries was terminated by the Ottoman conquest in 14-15 century (1396 about Bulgaria). Here User:Johnbod must to know that the theory about "Giotto - The First" is just a legend. Actually this theory is very old - it was founded in 1550 by Giorgio Vasari in Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. In some countries it is accepted as canonical and therefore some historians (especially British and American historians and experts, who do not know this kind of art, because they have no direct connection with it - in England has no proto -renaissance; the U.S. exist as a state from 1776) is not mention anything about the Tarnovo artistic School. Moreover Boyana murals are completely different and are not directly affected by Byzantine art. In fact, in 1259 when the images was created Byzantium does not exist (in the period from 1204 to 1261 Constantinople was under the rule of the Latin Empire). Boyana master is the first painter, who violate the canon and depicts his contemporaries - Kaloyan and Desislava who are rulers of Sofia (Sredets) and just like the Medicis were patrons of many artists and writers. Some experts like Ivan Duychev ("Medieval European art", 1979) believe that the Tarnovo artists are the creators of the Italian Renaissance, because many Bulgarian artists leave Bulgaria in 1285, because of Mongolo - Tatar invasions after the death of Emperor Georgi Terter. Moreover, after the establishment of the Latin Empire, Bulgarian culture comes into direct contact with the Catholic Europe and the ideas of Tarnovo Artists was spreading in Western Europe (Mavrodinov, "Medieval art"). In the 14th century many Italians from various city-states was studied in Tarnovo. Other experts say that the Bulgarian and Italian proto- Renaissance were developed independently.

P.S. This is my first comment in Wikipedia. If something in formatting is not correct, please to be excused. :)--Magnus Agripa (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, when you talking about nationalism, first look at this article. The main problem here is called pan-Germanism (in this case it included German, British and Dutch nationalism, as Germanic states). See the title that you have placed on the article for the Frankish Empire - "Carolingian Europe". It is the most used cliche by pan-Germanists. Because even in the time of Charlemagne, when the Frankish state stretching from Brittany to Poland, Europe is not Carolingian - at the beginning of the 9th century in Europe there are still three other great powers - Byzantium, Bulgaria and the Arabs in Spain. Moreover, the impact of the Franks was confined to the territories between Poland and Brittany and is very small compared to the Byzantine or Bulgarian influence, by the historian Peter Konstantinov in his "History of Bulgaria". The term "Carolingian Renaissance" is typical pan-Germanistic hyperbole according to Pancheva in her book "Theory of the literature" (ISBN:9545293497), which is cited above in the previous dispute. What Renaissance in the 9th century? According to the same book, the Franks not create literature in their own language - they use Latin, while in Byzantium and Bulgaria was making literature of own language (Greek and Bulgarian).

Other example: "Western society". What Western society in Middle ages? It is nonsense. The separation West-East is created during the time of Cold War. In Middle Ages has no communism, democracy, NATO or Warsaw Pact. Absolutely nonsenses!

At the same time the history of the Slavic countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Kievan Rus, Serbia) are completely ignored, and according to the article these states does not exist or exist in a some peripheral area (Typical about pan-Germanistic nationalism is the hatred against Slavic Europe). This is the main problem in this article. Cold War only exacerbated this problem. Can you explain what is the logic to have articles about Frankish State and Byzantine Empire, but to lack article about Bulgarian Empire? What is the logic to have articles about Gothic and Romanesque styles, but to lack the Byzantine, Preslav and Tarnovo style? Why in the article is detail proposed the history of France and England (100-years war, Joan of Arc and others), but lacking Serbia, Kievan Rus, Russian principalities or Hungary. Why is mentoined Joan of Arc, but is lacking the Uprising of Ivaylo

What is common between all allegations: All article (history, art, architecture) proposed only the history of Western Europe. There are two explanations - or the editors here believe that Europe is only the area between Atlantic Ocean and Germany, and to the east of Germany is located some other continent, or the article is affected by Western-European nationalism.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I just scanned through the article and while parts focus on Western Europe, in particular Francia, it contains extensive discussion of the Byzantine Empire. The Magyar invasion is mentioned, the Baltic crusades, the Seljuk Turks, developments in Poland.

While there seems to be some Western European bias in the parts discussing cultural and art history, your conclusion is strongly overdrawn and not very constructive. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If be mentoined also First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire, The Golden Age, Preslav and Tarnovo style, the Boyana frescoes (as is mentoined about Giotto), Kievan Rus, Serbia in 14th century and the creation of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts everything will be OK. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' is mentioned under Middle Ages#New kingdoms and a revived Byzantium, as is the first Bulgarian empire, although it's not specifically named as such. The section needs expansion and copyediting. I'm not in a position to judge art history. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire is the second Empire in medieval Europe after the Byzantine Empire and is one of the most powerful states in Medieval Europe. This empire is founded by Asparukh in 681 - 119 years before the coronation of Charlemagne. But in this article is mentoined only in two sentences. About Byzantium has 2 articles, about the Frankish state - 3. Pan-Germanism in Action! --Magnus Agripa (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If this article is so incredibly biased towards Britain, France & Germany, why are there no complaints from the Spanish, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Georgians, or the Armenians? Why is it just Bulgarians over and over again with different names, but identical arguments? Furius (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the whole discussion "Section about Bulgarian Empire" above in the talk page. The main problem of this article is that the sources you use are very local - only British and American experts, causing imbalance of the events. This is the main reason for the dominance of pan-Germanism and pro- British nationalism in this article. I see that some of the editors, which are defined by their opponents as Bulgarophobes show a willingness to change tis status quo, for example User:Hchc2009 said "I'd also be keen to see an Eastern European academic overview of the Middle Ages to compare the weighting against.". OK. Now these users have a chance to show that they are not a Bulgarophobes, as their opponents to blame them (perhaps unfairly or may be fairly), and respect all points of view, even those outside their home countries. See this one impartial history, describing events from the Paleolithic to the present day. The book is a work of Bulgarian and French historians, but it presents viewpoints of historians from 29 European countries, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and others. I see that above in the dispute "Section about Bulgarian Empire" User:Amandajm is posted the contents of the second book of the Middle Ages and 7th book of all encyclopedia. According to criticians this encyclopedia is unbiased overview of the most important events in world history and the most influential countries. There are Maya and Mesoamerican civilizations, Khmer Empire and Angkor, China, Japan, Mongol Empire, Central Asia. Look at the weight, which is given to Bulgarian Empire.

This is the book about the period 5 - 10 century "World History, part 6, Invaders and Empires", ISBN:9789548517515. On the cover is Bulgarian Emperor Simeon I The Great. - [16]. Here you even can see 4 pages of the book [17]. First Bulgarian Empire was identified as the most influential country in medieval Europe because it creates its own alphabet - Cyrillic and the ideas of Preslav school in literature, architecture and philosophy became standard for the cultures in Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans. For "the Carolingian Empire," as you call the state of the Franks, is said very small (pages 109-115). The history of the Bulgarian Empire was presented to 38 pages (221-259).

The 7th book "World history. The Awakening of Europe 1000-1250" is proposed in the previous dispute by User:Amandajm. Here is listing the contents of the book, - [18] , translated into English above, in "Section about Bulgarian Empire" by User:Amandajm. If you really want one unbiased overview about Middle Ages, let's see what you do now!--Magnus Agripa (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

10 days silence! Wow! Why nobody of Anti-Bulgarian editors comment the book, quoted by Magnus Agripa? This is a wonderful encyclopedia of the history of the world. Hchc2009, you are one, who wanted to see a other overview from "Eastern Europe". Well, now there is a book and it presents the facts in a different way. Let's see if what you say is honestly!

About the proto-renaissance in the Boyana Church, Magnus Agrippa is presented the facts excellent. Johnbod, look at this sources, which confirm that the Renaissance began from Sofia - http://www.europost.bg/article?id=535 (Renaissance began with the Boyana Church The realistic frescos were painted almost a decade before the birth of Giotto), http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g294452-d319548-r201351637-Boyana_Church-Sofia_Sofia_Region.html (The Boyana church hosts the paintings of the "Boyana master" - an unknown artisan who painted the saints on the church walls in a style much resembling the Renaissance style but several centuries earlier.), http://www.novinite.com/articles/110882/Bulgaria+to+Celebrate+750+Years+since+Painting+of+Boyana+Church+Frescoes (The Boyana Church frescoes date back to 1259 AD, and are known for their pre-Renaissance features.), http://trakia-tours.com/the-madara-rider-route-40.html (Murals from that period are the most impressing - more than 240 figures, made by an unknown artist and all of them are vivid, individual, with their own style and look, the first realistic paintings in Europe preceding the European Renaissance.), http://en.vvtours.com/bulgaria_places_of_interest_en/bg_boyana_church/index.html (The Boyana Church is situated near Sofia and is one of the cultural symbols of Bulgaria for it represents the significant contribution of the Bulgarian Fine arts to the European cultural tradition. It has preserved valuable frescoes dating from 1259 with high artistic value who are considered to be the predecessors of the European Renaissance.)--Ludogoro (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't commented this time around, Ludogoro, because I did previously when it was first mentioned - see the discussion in the archives. Please stop with the "anti-Bulgarian editor" line, however; I've explained before that that sort of language is unpleasant. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Referencing tripadvisor won't convince anyone. I realize a number of more specialist works by Bulgarian authors make such claims, but despite requests no English-language ones doing so have yet been produced. Is it just bulgarian art historians who believe this? Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Find this book - http://biblio.bg/Bulgaria-History-and-Culture/%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80/9789548747196-34270?type=2#. This is encyclopedia of UNESCO and is British. And confirm this theory.--Ludogoro (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not in World Cat or Amazon by that name or by it's ISBN - and using Google Translate on that page doesn't give a publisher or even an author - just that it's catagorized as a "photography album" - and it sure looks like a tourist guidebook to me. THis isn't a high quality source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the problem here to mention on 2 - 3 lines about the Boyana Painter, as about Giotto. The sources are the academic books, proposed by me above. As I said the theory "Giotto - the first" is too old (Vazari, 1550) and is not seriously to be considered reliable in 2014. Obviously the English historiography is too conservative or just you can not find the necessary sources. I don't understand what User:Johnbod want to say with him last comment. What does the nationality of the experts here? If someone didn't know the Boyana Church is located in Bulgaria and it is normal the most studies to be work of Bulgarian experts. I guess that most studies of the Wars of the Roses are English or the sources about Géza I of Hungary are mostly Hungarian. To paraphrase Umberto Eco, I would say that I do not have to wait for an English genius to find something, which in Bulgaria even the kids knows. I agree that there are different theories and I respect the other POVs. You can to proposed the two theories, as about the periodisation: Quote: "English historians often use the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to mark the end of the period. For Spain, dates commonly used are the death of King Ferdinand II in 1516, the death of Queen Isabella I of Castile in 1504, or the conquest of Granada in 1492.". For example: "Other experts believe that the first realistic images are created in 1259 by the painters of Tarnovo Artistic School in Boyana Church" or something similar. Let see the 2 different POVs. It is fair for all.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Giotto claim isn't sourced to Vasari - it's sourced to a 2002 work. It's still undue weight to give this sort of claim in this very broad overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A Bulgarian source on Bulgarian material is great in general, but when the source is making claims which are claimed to have pan-European significance, it is reasonable to expect corroboration in English, French, Italian, or German scholarship. Surely if Bulgaria was heavily influencing these countries, at least some of their scholars will have noticed the impacts? Furius (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

German source, which confirm that - Gerhard Ecker: Bulgarien. Kunstdenkmäler aus vier Jahrtausenden von den Thrakern bis zur Gegenwart. DuMont Buchverlag, Köln, 1984, S. 22-23. Other German source - [19] with film - [20]. As a whole in the Western-European historiography has little evidence for this theory, probably because of the Cold War. There was a book from the 1990s of Japanese art expert - type of overview of European art, but it is difficult to find. Eventually the next week I will search it. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Furius, your last comment provoked me to ask you why in this article are cited only sources from English-speaking countries? In world history that I quoted above (and other editors before me in old disputes) is not given such a weight on the Carolingian Empire and England as here. In this article has a whole novel about Charlemagne, but Bulgarian Empire, Serbia, Kievan Rus and some other countries from Eastern and Central Europe are missing?--Magnus Agripa (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of the Bulgarian Empire, Serbia, the Kievan Rus, and other Central European countries. The claim that they are "missing" here is quite simply false. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Magnus, I'm not convinced by the TV programme as a RS, but I'm interested in the book on the monuments. What sort of background does Gerhard Ecker have, and what does he actually say? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is not what one or two non-Bulgarian sources of any repectability may say (though precious little has been produced), but the complete absence of this line in the standard large specialist books, several referred to above (here's another: Frederick Hartt's hefty Italian Renaissance Art, whose index has nothing on Bulgaria). Paul Johnson's History of Painting (I think it's called) has half a sentence on Boyana etc, but makes nothing like these large claims. Johnbod (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Mind you, it is worth collecting such references, as there are other articles where they could usefully be used - eg Boyana Church, which has rather weak refs currently, though UNESCO is included. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The article indeed concentrates on the western borderlands of Europe such as France, England, Ireland, etc. Systemic bias is impossible to deny. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, can you explain me why you always proposed a sources, when the word "Bulgaria" is lacking? This is not very helpful for the discussion. I do not support the extreme reactions of User:Ludogoro here, but I begin to think that you have a more specific opinion about Bulgaria.

In the book of Eckert - [21], one of the few "Western sources", as you say, which write impartially about the Boyana Church during the Cold War time, on page 22-23 is saying that the images of Boyana master in the church "St. Panteleimon and Nicholas" near Sofia, are the first realistic images in European art. The Boyana Painter is the first, who violate the canon and depicts his contemporaries - Sebastocrator Kaloyan and his wife Desislava, the rulers of Sofia during the middle of 13th century, the Bulgarian Emperor Konstantin Tikh and Empress Irina. The frescoes have a unique individuality and psychological insight and are the best preserved images of the Bulgarian Proto-Renaissance. German expert.

About the lacks in English language large specialist books, in one previous dispute - about the Bulgarian Empire (Hchc2009, I see the discussion in the archives!) is proposed article of the historian Petar Konstantinov, obviously published in the scientific journal "Istoriya" of BAS in 2006: "The truth is that specialists in Western Europe and the United States know very small about the Balkans and Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, when the East and the West was competed to conquer space , the battle was not only the field of technology and innovation. After 1950 the history of Eastern Europe was completely hidden from the history books and encyclopedias in Western Europe and the USA. For Bulgarian readers this seems inexplicable. Why? While the communist regimes impose a ideological censorship, to the west the major censorship principle was "Damnatio memorie". This method is used by the pharaohs in ancient Egypt - the new Pharaoh destroyed all images and works of the previous Pharaoh. So by the hate predecessor has not a trace of his reign, as if he never existed. Even before the rise of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe and the Balkans were little known by Western Europeans and Americans. Under normal circumstances, today these gaps would be filled. But the tension of the Cold War changed the expectations." Interesting theory, which is giving the answer to your wonderment.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What does Eckert actually say, Magnus, in the original German? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the text about Boyana Church in German language, as is in the original. Pages: 22-23

Gerhard Ecker: Bulgarien. Kunstdenkmäler aus vier Jahrtausenden von den Thrakern bis zur Gegenwart. DuMont Buchverlag, Köln, 1984

Page 22:

Die Bojana-Kirche verdankt ihren Weltruhm vor allem den Wandmalereien von 1259, die eine außerordentliche Leistung der mittelalterlichen Kultur Bulgariens sind. Der regionale Feudalherrscher Sebastokrator Kalojan ließ im 13. Jh. die alte Kapelle vergrößern, indem er eine zweistöckige Kirche anfügen ließ. Geschickt wurden beide Gotteshäuser miteinander verbunden, Zeugnis für den Respekt des Stifters für die vorhergehenden Traditionen. Wie eine Inschrift belegt, wurde das Gotteshaus vollständig ausgemalt und geweiht. Und vor allem diese Wandmalereien sind es, die die außerordentliche kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Kirche von Bojana begründen. Sie entstand im Jahr 1259. Der Meister, der die prachtvollen Fresken gestaltete, ist leider Unbekannt, war aber vermutlich von der Tanover Schule. Seine Fresken, die Zar Ivan Konstantin Tich-Assen und dessen Ehefrau, sowie auch den Auftraggeber, Sebastokrator Kalojan und dessen Frau Desislava abbilden, wie auch viele andere Motive, weisen zum ersten Mal einzelne Stilelemente der Renaissance auf, 200 Jahre bevor dies in Westeuropa der Fall war.

Page 23:

Doch den Meistern von Bojana war es gelungen, die vorherrschenden traditionellen Formen aufzubrechen und ihre Figuren mit einem Maß an Individualität und Gegenwärtigkeit auszustatten, wie es erst sehr viel später in der Renaissance entwickelt wurde. Die biblischen Gestalten und Heiligen, die das Gros der dargestellten Personen bilden, bringen in ihren Gesten und individualisierten Gesichtszügen ein Maß an Bewegung und Bewegtheit jenseits des traditionellen Kanons zum Ausdruck, das auf eine Periode des Umbruchs hindeutet. Die dargestellten Szenen aus dem Leben Jesu und der Heiligen, unter ihnen zahlreiche „Kriegerheilige“, wurden genutzt, um allgemeine menschliche Regungen sowie die damalige Zeit betreffende Gefühle und Gedanken zu formulieren.

Man kann guten Gewissens behaupten, dass der unbekannte Ikonograph, der sein Talent an den Wänden der Kirche von Bojana verewigt hat, ein Vorläufer der Renaissance in Europa war.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magnus. I'm not seeing in this where it supports the claim about realist art, though, just that the art contains "a degree of individuality and presence". My German's not great, though. What's Ecker's background? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On page 23 is saying: "18 Szenen im Narthex stellen das Leben des heiligen Nikolaus dar. Andere zeigen Alltagsszenen der damaligen Zeit. Auf den Wänden finden sich Darstellungen von 240 Menschen in 89 verschiedenen Szenen. Die Wandmalereien besitzen außerordentliche künstlerische Qualitäten, die Technik ist vollkommen, kompliziert und realistisch." Actually my German is like your German. And like my English :) Is there an English-language source to criticize or to refute this theory? For now, I see only sources in which this information is missing--Magnus Agripa (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your German has to be better than mine...! ;) That does note that the painting technique is realistic (I'm assuming that the adjective realistisch equates easily to the German art term Realist), but that's not quite the same as stating that these are the first realist images in Europe/the world. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Realistisch" mean realistic. Not the Realist movement, which began in the mid-19th century as a reaction to Romanticism.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NB: I'm reasonably content now that Eckhart doesn't say in any of the material quoted here that these "are the first realistic images in European art". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ghirla is correct here. Too many details about France, England, Italy and Germany. It must to add more detailed information about Eastern Europe and the Balkans.--Mandramunjak (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is. I'm agree with you and Ghrila. The article focuses only on the history of the western part of Europe, which is ridiculous, because this is overview of Europe in the Middle Ages. It is just one part of the continent, and honestly the events in Western Europe are not very important for the pan-European history. For example - because the discuss is about medieval Bulgarian Empire - the culture of the Bulgarian Empire in the Golden Age of Simeon the Great is on much higher level than in Western Europe. Old Bulgarian language is literary language of the 9th century, much earlier than any other European languages. Indicative of this is the creation of the Cyrillic script. First Bulgarian Empire had well prepared grammarians, highly developed culture and political hegemony in the region, making the state major center of Slavic culture and one of the three centers of European culture. But this is not mentioned in the article, which is very strange, but there is too much information about Carolingian Empire and Carolingian "Renaissance", England, etc. But before the 10th century in Western Europe has no one state - even the Carolingian Empire is not a state - it is wide etnarchy, which is disbanded after the death of Charlemagne. The statehood to the West began after 10th century - 987 - in France, 1066 - in England. In fact, if we exclude Byzantium, the only earlier state is Bulgaria, which was established in 681 and still exists today with the same name. First Bulgarian Empire is officially recognized by Byzantium on 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 681. After Bulgaria is Kievan Rus - in the 9th century (or more earlier, according to some historians). The missioners of Preslav and Tarnovo spread the Cyrillic script in whole Eastern Europe. The artists of the Tarnovo school are considered as founders of the Renaissance. Why all of this is missing in the article?--Magnus Agripa (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it is nonsense! If you actually read the article as it is it would correct many of your false perceptions about Western Europe. "Old Bulgarian language is literary language of the 9th century, much earlier than any other European languages" will not convince Anglophone medievalists, who are well aware of Old English literature, as you apparently are not. The real reasons medieval Bulgaria is probably somewhat neglected in English-language sources is that the periods when the state and culture were at their height were rather brief, and its development brutally cut short by the Mongols, leaving next to no legacy that impacted Western Europe. Plus the Greek sources which Anglophone historians are aware of are uniformly hostile to Bulgaria, and usually dismissive of it. Over-hyping by Bulgarian historians doesn't help either. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You obviously did not understand what I mean.

1. The Old English and Old Bulgarian literature have equal starting points - 7th century. But the Old Bulgarian became literary language in the 9th century, because has official literary form, established in 893 on Preslav council by Kliment Ohridski. The English language became literary language in 16th century, at the time of Shakespeare. English has not own officially regulated literary form before. Moreover, Bulgaria creates own script - The Cyrillic, which broke off from the influence of Rome and Constantinople and became a third center of European culture. England has never created own alphabet and use the Latin script of Ancient Romans. Moreover before the rule of Henry VIII England is dependent of Rome.

2. Invasions of Mongols have little significance. Mongols were defeated by Tsar Ivaylo, who is actually the only case in the Middle Ages, when the ordinary man of the common people became emperor, long before the French Revolution (here I want to ask why is not mentioned anything about the Uprising of Ivaylo. The only such case in the Middle Ages was Joan of Arc, but she never become Queen and the uprising is failed). if we exclude the period 1018 - 1185, Bulgarian Empire was a leading force in the Middle Ages.

3. Bulgaria is the oldest state in Europe. Can you tell me what other European country exist from 681 to now?

4. The major reason about ignoring of Bulgaria in your books is the period of Cold War, when Bulgaria was part of Eastern Bloc. Now Bulgaria is member of European Union, and it must be changed, I hope.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In your sense English has not yet become a "literary language", since there has never been an "official literary form"; we don't go in for that sort of thing, but seem to be doing quite well nonetheless. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Official language" is anachronistic for the middle ages, but Old English was being used for writing laws from the beginning of the 7th century (e.g. Law of Æthelberht). Old French and Old High German appear alongside Latin in the Oaths of Strasbourg (842).

Alphabets: Firstly, these are not as important as you present them as. Early Cyrillic is basically the Greek alphabet, with a few extra characters for sounds Greek just did not have. It represents cultural interaction not cultural separation. Secondly, even if the invention of Cyrillic indicates a desire to keep apart from Byzantine influence, there is no comparable pressure in western Europe, so no reason for alternative scripts to develop. Thirdly Runes are far older than Cyrillic.

Ivaylo: was defeated in three years. Other commoner revolts lasted longer (Basil the Copper Hand, Peasant revolt in Flanders 1323–28). Other commoners achieved power and stayed there longer (Michael II & Basil I).

European countries that exist from 681 to now: Not significant to the Middle Ages - it says more about the time since (Venice disappeared in 1797 - what does that have to do with its importance in the Middle Ages?). If it were the most important thing, we would need a section on San Marino.

Bulgaria a leading force in Europe: Definitely, from 800 to 1200ish it was a big deal. You've shown lots of maps of Bulgaria at its height being very important. But it's clearly less important here:[22]. And I don't know if it had quite the reach of other states. Bulgaria never sent troops to the Levant, but Britain, France and Germany repeatedly did, despite being a lot further away.

Bulgaria is important, but the case for uniqueness is not as strong as you make it out to be. Furius (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Furius,

1. The Old French and Old English have not their own literary norm. Because the French became a literary language in 1635 , when Richelieu established the French Academy. literary language doesn't mean "language with literature". Old Bulgarian literary norm is approved by Preslav school in 893.

2 . The Cyrillic alphabet is not Greek. The Cyrillic is Bulgarian and was created in Preslav. Even the linguists will be not accordance with your statement, because the sound, which is written with the letter "Ъ" exist only in Old Bulgarian. Even today, the Bulgarian language is the only Indo-European language with this sound. The sounds "Щ", "Ш" and "Ч" also does not exist in Greek.

3 . The Cyrillic - Why is so important? The Russian linguist Dmitry Likhachov said that in Europe has three cultural centers - Rome, Constantinople and Preslav (Tarnovo - during the period of the Second Bulgarian Empire). Why? The culture of the Bulgarian Empire in 9 - 10 century is on much higher level than in Western Europe. Every country with a highly developed culture became dominant and created their own script - Ancient Egypt has own script, China has own script, Ancient Greece has own script, Rome has own script, Bulgaria has own script. Western Europe in the Middle Ages is on much lower cultural level than Bulgaria and Byzantium and because of this reason the Western countries perceive the Roman alphabet - Latin, because the Roman culture is dominant. An interesting fact is that the Goths also create their own script. Guess where is created the Gothic alphabet! In Bulgaria - by Bishop Wulfila in Nicopolis ad Istrum, 18 kilometers from the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire - Tarnovo. Why a Germanic alphabet was established in Bulgaria, but not in Germany, England or Scandinavia, where are living Germanic people? I leave you to find the answer alone.

4 . The Uprising of Ivailo is unique, because one peasant became emperor. I'm never heard about other similar case in Europe in the Middle Ages.

5 . Bulgaria is not involved in the Crusades, because is Orthodox country. No one of the Orthodox countries (Bulgarian Empire, Serbia, Kievan Rus) sent troops to the Levant, because these countries are caesaropapistic. Furthermore, Bulgaria, Serbia and Kievan Rus have not economic and political interests in conquest of the Levant, because Bulgaria and Serbia controlled the Balkans, a transit corridor between Western Europe and Asia. Western Europe is isolated (to the west is Atlantic Ocean) and is needed by these areas. Because of this reason was established the Latin Empire, but it lost its influence after the Battle of Adrianople (1205), in which the Bulgarian Emperor Kaloyan defeated the Crusaders. During the reign of Ivan Asen II, the Bulgarian Empire is leading power and the Latin Empire is her vassal for a while.

Conclusion: The Bulgarian Empire is very important leading state in medieval Europe, but in this article is absolutely ignored. It must be changed.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

About Boyana church. The most important detail in the book of the German expert is that the Boyana artist is inventor of the Renaissance in Europe (Quote of page 23 - "Man kann guten Gewissens behaupten, dass der unbekannte Ikonograph, der sein Talent an den Wänden der Kirche von Bojana verewigt hat, ein Vorläufer der Renaissance in Europa war"). I don't see any problem to mentioned this in the article. I expect of you, Johnbod and HcHc2009, as English language persons, to find a source, preferably from English-language historiography, to criticize or refute this theory. For now I see only empty sources, which are silent about Boyana frescoes.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to do your own research to support your own theories, I'm afraid. NB: I don't think that "Vorläufer" means "inventor" in English, Magnus, I think you'll find it means "precursor". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, literally mean "precursor" or "predecessor". In this case, the author mean "the first" or "the one who started the Renaissance" or "first creator", "before the others". In Bulgarian language there is the word "предшественик", which is more accurate translation of "Vorläufer", but I think there is no exact equivalent in English, because even Google Translator translates it as a "precursor". But this is only one word out of context. If you read all of the text you will see that the theory is clear:

Quote: "Seine Fresken, die Zar Ivan Konstantin Tich-Assen und dessen Ehefrau, sowie auch den Auftraggeber, Sebastokrator Kalojan und dessen Frau Desislava abbilden, wie auch viele andere Motive, weisen zum ersten Mal einzelne Stilelemente der Renaissance auf, 200 Jahre bevor dies in Westeuropa der Fall war."

To English: "His frescoes , the Czar Constantine Tich - Assen and his wife , as well as the principal, Sebastocrator Kaloyan and his wife Desislava image, as well as many other designs, have for the first time individual style elements of the Renaissance, 200 years before that of Western Europe"

Quote: Doch den Meistern von Bojana war es gelungen, die vorherrschenden traditionellen Formen aufzubrechen und ihre Figuren mit einem Maß an Individualität und Gegenwärtigkeit auszustatten, wie es erst sehr viel später in der Renaissance entwickelt wurde

To English: The masters of Bojana had managed to break the prevailing traditional forms and equip their characters with a degree of individuality and presence, as it was not developed until much later in the Renaissance.

Again, I don't see any problem to mentioned this in the article. I want to see a source, which refute this theory.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Magnus, have (another?) look at WP:UNDUE, which has been mentioned several times above. A short stylistic comment about a piece of artwork by a single author doesn't have to go into an article on the whole of the Middle Ages. I also note that the reference hasn't even been added into the article on the church frescos yet, which has a tag on it to that effect. I don't want to sound irritated, but you do need to be really careful how you try to use sources to support claims - there seem to have been several mistakes in regards to just this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What mistakes? I quoted the original book. In German! But I not see any source to reject this hypothesis. May be Ludogoro is right about the Anti-Bulgarian moods here. I think, if Boyana Church is located in London, in this article immediately will be added information that the Renaissance began in England. But because this church is located in Bulgaria, I must to find about a billion sources from Alaska to Papua New Guinea to confirm this theory. This is not fair and I accept it as a personal insult. Why you didn't say anything about Carolingian Renaissance?Above I quoted a source, which say that this term is pan-Germanistic. Why in the article are cited only sources from English speaking countries? You want from me to find sources from different countries, but you quote only these of your country. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You stated above that Ecker says these "are the first realistic images in European art", arguing that this source supported the inclusion of the statement "the first realistic images are created in 1259 by the painters of the Tarnovo Artistic School in Boyana Church" in the article; as noted above, he doesn't appear to say this in any of the quotes you've provided. You then stated that the same source says that "the Boyana artist is [the?] inventor of the Renaissance in Europe"; again, he doesn't appear to say this. I'm assuming good faith, and these were mistakes. Incidentally, I've missed any requirement from other editors for you to provide sources from either Alaska or Papua New Guinea, but perhaps I've missed it in the archives above. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is words out of the context. In the book is written that the images are realistic. The frescoes were created in 1259. Is there earlier similar images in Europe? You can see that the author clearly say that these images have individual style 200 years before the Renaissance in Western Europe, which means that they are the first Renaissance images in Europe, because no evidences about such images before 1259. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul Johnson, who has seen the Boyana paintings, puts them in the context of a "classicizing revival" in Byzantium, which is the conventional view, see here. Lingering survivals of Greek illusionistic painting survive from all through the Byzantine period, mostly in manuscript painting on secular subjects. So-called Macedonian art (Byzantine) was an earlier revival, and the very damaged paintings at Castelseprio, probably by a Byzantine refugee, are much earlier than Boyana, probably 10th century. But like Boyana, they seem to have had little impact on later Italian art, so are little-known. As Johnson suggests, there is really no evidence that 13th-century painting in Bulgaria had any impact on Italy. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Macedonian period has not related to Boyana Church. In 1259 Byzantium does not exist. Paul Johnson does not know the processes in the Balkans and never systematically explored this part of Europe. Besides the English historiography is dominated by Western Europe - centrism and one form of neo-fascism. But because the anti- Bulgarian editors here are British or Americans, they think that only their sources are correct. The German and Bulgarian sources does not matter by you. This is absolute fascism!

It is an independent source - Mavrodinov, "Medieval art". Does any of you are reading this book? In this book is said that frescoes in Boyana Church are the first Renaissance images in Europe. But why this book is so important and must be used here? Because is unbiased. One example - on page 97 is said that the Gothic style was created by Arabs. The author has done serious research in Syria, Lebanon and Morocco. The Gothic architecture entering in Europe from North Africa. Why it is missing in this article? "The experts from Western Europe, mainly the British, French and American, seek to avoid this issue and downplay the influence of the Arabs, as it "significantly less" - is told in the book. Actually the Arab influence is much more, but because the Americans and the British people think the Arabs as terrorists and trolls, they can not confirm this theory. It is not impossible the "senior Western culture" to be created by Muslims - they say. This is just a one typical example of Fascist slope in English-language historiogrphy. Other cliches and nonsense are associated with Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Fascism by ignoring!

Because of the cold war the English-speaking historians know nothing about the Balkans - even you admit it in this old discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_Ages/Archive_7#Davies.27_Europe , where Ealdgyth quote a review about book of Norman Davies - "As might be expected from the leading historian of Poland in Britain, South-eastern and Eastern Europe, including Russia, receive adequate attention, as they have not always done in traditional histories of Europe." and "after this book, it will never again be possible to exclude Eastern Europe from 'European' history". This old discussion also shown your Western-European bias - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_Ages/Archive_7#Section_about_Bulgarian_Empire. What is the problem to add Bulgarian Empire in the article? --Ludogoro (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've left you a formal warning about the personal attacks against editors on your talk page Ludogoro; you've been advised about this being inappropriate before. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone of you. I just do not like your way to ignore every source, proving that you're not correct. --Ludogoro (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the comment in question Ludogoro. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence was a joke. I apologize if anyone was feeling offended!--Ludogoro (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources, using in the article are only English-language. I think the article is dominated by Western-European bias--195.24.37.106 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ludogoro, I'm agree with Hchc2009 about your personal attacks against the editors here. Your comments are too harsh and even brutal. Such sort of generalizations as "Americans and the British people think the Arabs as terrorists and trolls" are very unpleasant and are absolutely nonsenses. It is just one wrong stereotype. Moreover, in the beginning of the discussion you are indignant that the politics affects history destructive, but now you are who make a political dispute.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

But your note about the Arab origin of Gothic style is correct. I added this in the article. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, what does Paul Johnson actually say in this book about the Boyana Church? I see that the name of the book is "The Renaissance" and obviously are mention the art, during the reign of emperors of Macedonian dynasty in Byzantine Empire and the Tarnovo Artistic school. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the link above work for you? It takes me to the page, but may not work everywhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit the source (Theory of literature, from Plato to Postmodernism) appears to be a book on literature, so it not an ideal source to support a statement about architecture, especially for a contentious issue. Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an old argument - there are (if not recently destroyed...) some very early Syriac churches with pointed arches, then they appear in Muslim buildings, including in Spain and Sicily. See Gothic_architecture#Possible_Islamic_influence. But there is much more to Gothic than pointed arches, and the whole Gothic package of thin walls, large vaults and lots of windows is certainly new and French in origin, with St Denis etc, and there is little dispute now about that. This could be better put at the Gothic article really. This is useful on the history of the argument and seems balanced, unlike some stuff in the same publication on the subject. This is fuller if you have JSTOR. The bit as added, talking of Syrian & Nth african "Gothic", is nonsense. Either "Mavrodinov Medieval art" (also cited above re Boyana) is grossly mis-represented, or he is not a good source. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mavrodinov Medieval art" is an academic book used in universities and often cited in other academic works in many countries in Europe and the world. Johnbod, I think that the Geography is not your strength. When one idea is created in Syria, to come to Spain, it certainly has affected North Africa. The author testifies that the Gothic architecture elements has in some objects in Morocco. In fact, Spain, Syria, Morocco as all North Africa and Middle East were parts of Umayyad Caliphate. It is further alleged that the French, British and American art historians tend to minimize the role of the Arabs in the process. The reason, by the book, is that they consider the history of Gothic architecture only at European level.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mavrodinov died more than 50 years ago. Could you find a more recent source? --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

One correction - actually on page 96, Mavrodinov said that the pointed arch was created in Persia and is only developed by the Arabs and later - spreading in Western Europe. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that until northern France gets involved we are only talking about pointed arches, not Gothic architecture. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is only part of the big problem. See the title that you have placed on the article for the Frankish Empire - "Carolingian Europe". It is the most used cliche by pan-Germanists. Because even in the time of Charlemagne, when the Frankish state stretching from Brittany to Poland, Europe is not Carolingian - at the beginning of the 9th century in Europe there are still three other great powers - Byzantium, Bulgaria and the Arabs in Spain. Moreover, the impact of the Franks was confined to the territories between Poland and Brittany and is very small compared to the Byzantine or Bulgarian influence, by the historian Peter Konstantinov in his "History of Bulgaria". The term "Carolingian Renaissance" is typical pan-Germanistic hyperbole according to Pancheva in her book "Theory of the literature" (ISBN:9545293497), which is cited above in the previous dispute. What Renaissance in the 9th century? According to this book the culture of Frankish state and Western Europe in this period is at a lower level than that in Byzantium and Bulgaria. The Franks not create literature in their own language - they use Latin, while in Byzantium and Bulgaria was making literature of own language (Greek and Bulgarian).--Magnus Agripa (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Again - you cannot use one source to invalidate dozens and hundreds of sources. Carolingian Europe and Carolingian Renaissance are the common terms used for this period. This is an overview article - thus it covers things broadly and without going into details. A "theory of literature" book is NOT something that outweighs actual historical works produced by historians. I repeat myself here, but we follow the sources ... and bringing up one or two sources (that aren't historians or that are 50 years old) doesn't override the masses of current historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, read carefully what is written in the source, before to make such stupid comments. "Carolingian Europe" pan-Germanistic hyperbole and probably may be influenced by the nationalistic doctrines of some countries as England, France, Germany. Furthermore, the term "Carolingian Europe" seems idiotic. By this logic, the 9th century should be called "Simeon's Europe", 16th century - "Süleymaniye's Europe", early 19th century - Napoleonic Europe, etc. This, what you say is not the opinion of the historians, this is only the opinion of English historians and some American experts (If you believe that England and USA are "the world" it is your problem, which no need by comments) because I can not see the "World history" of Bakalov, that I quoted and which has been cited by other editors in the old discussions, to have been used in the article. I do not see quotes from books of Eckert and Duychev in article too. I do not see quotes of sources from previous discussions, which give different POV. I think that your problem is that you have no respect for others' views and is logical some users like Ludogoro to believe that the reasons are political. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop with the "pan-Germanistic" and other insults. No need for them and they do not improve the discussion level here. Comment on the content, not the editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What insults? I said that the concepts as "Carolingian Renaissance and Europe" are pan-Germanistic, because the Franks controlled only part of Europe and their Empire have a short life. I comment only the content, but the fact that some of the editors ignored some sources, which proposed a different POVs is too strange.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"What insults?" Well "I think that your problem is that you have no respect for others' views and is logical" would count. Please restrict you comments to the content of the article rather than personalising the issue as you did above. Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream western academia does not accept the idea of "higher" and "lower" levels of culture. So arguments that Bulgaria is/was a higher culture aren't doing you any good. Also, many of your ideas about what makes one culture higher than another make absolutely no sense to us (e.g. the importance you give to the culture having a unique language). Furius (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this "Western" academia? Is there are eastern, northern or southern academia? This claim make your comment to non sense. The fact that in this article are used only English-language sources shows that you are like an ancient Greek, who believes that all non-English are barbarians. Read carefully what I wrote above. I do not mean a unique language, I talk about alphabet and cultural influence. Furthermore your statement is also nonsense - if in "Western academia" has no "levels" of culture how to explain that the French people speak a language which is derived from Latin, but not the Gaelic language? Interesting.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

By me the correct name of this article is "Middle Ages in Western Europe".--Ludogoro (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Europe has coverage. Please stop with the bias claims - especially claims that the other editors are biased. It doesn't help discussions at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that some of the editors here do not respect other people's points of view, which is harmful for the article. I'm from Slovakia and honestly I do not understand what is this division of "Western" sources from one side and "Bulgarian and German sources" from the other. It is absurd and obviously these users are at odds with the Geography or they simply believe that they are living in 1989, not 2014. Bulgaria and Germany are parts of what you call "Western society". De Facto, Bulgaria and Germany are two of the countries - founders of Western civilization. Everybody, who knows about Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Luther, Goethe, Schiller or Kliment Ohridski, Patriarch Evtimiy, Ivan Vazov, Pancho Vladiguerov can to confirm it. My country is directly related to these countries. Between 804-932 Southern and Eastern Slovakia were part of the First Bulgarian Empire, whose northern border is crossed the Tatra Mountains. At the time of the Habsburgs Slovakia became part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Slovak and Czech languages and all Slavic languages are influenced by the Old Bulgarian language, which in the period 9-15 century is Lingua Franca for over half of Europe.

The Cold war separation "East- West" is artificial and void today. Only 100 years ago, Austria and Slovakia were part of one country - Austria- Hungary. After 1945 Czechoslovakia became part of the Eastern bloc and some people in the west of the Berlin Wall , it became "another world." In the old discussion one editor said that before 1989, "the west" knew nothing about Prague. Today, Germany is united and together with Slovakia and Bulgaria are EU members, i.e. even the political division does not exist today. I see a huge number of sources that support the expansion of the article in previous discussions, but here the editors ignore them because they are of non-English or non-American. This is ridiculous. Sorry, but Bulgaria and Germany have the most unbiased historiographies in the world because these countries have an active debate about the past. English historiography is more biased and more under the influence of the propaganda of the Cold War. The fact that the history of Davies is the first to talking impartially about Eastern Europe, according to the reviews, shows that in England and the United States the debate on this topic is still lacking. I urge the editors to have more respect for other people's points of view and to accept the criticism. I am an intelligent man from East European country and I don't like someone to looking me like a monkey, especially when you know nothing about me. --Mandramunjak (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And, as has been pointed out above, the balance in this article reflects Davies (one of the sources used) as far as Bulgaria is concerned. Do Slovak sources say the Renaissance originated in Bulgaria, by the way? Johnbod (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from a documentary film about Bulgaria with English subtitles - [23]. Many sources, Slovak and non-Slovak says that the Renaissance began in Bulgaria. The first Renaissance images are created in the Boyana Church, which is located in the southern part of Sofia at the foot of Vitosha Mountain. Boyana Master is the first artist who painted his contemporaries. I visited Sofia three times and once I had the good fortune to see this unique church. Boyana church is a UNESCO World Heritage significance. The Bulgarian culture is very ancient and influential as a whole. Still Tarnovo is known as the "Third Rome". Patriarch Callistus I of Constantinople said that the world has two imperial centers - Constantinople and Tarnovo. The fact that in medieval Europe has only three lingua franca languages - Greek, Latin and Bulgarian is sufficient proof of this.--Mandramunjak (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm agree with you, Mandramunjak. One historiography is unbiased only when looking critically at its own history. To my delight, in the Bulgarian historiography has a debate and comment on everything freely. This book became very popular in many countries and is translated to many languages is typical example [24]. Germans also discuss freely about fascist past of their country. But some historiographies like English and American are still too closed to similar interpretations. Actually the English and American historiography are not the only one. The Spanish people still do not like to talk about Francisco Franco. I think this is the wrong way . The problem in English-language sources is that they are biased towards Eastern Europe and conceal or ignore many facts. As the emergence of the Renaissance was not the original idea of the Boyana master. This is the end result of a long process that started back in the Golden age of Simeon the Great. But these facts are ignored in the English historiography and their theory is as follows: The Barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire in 476 (actually they only destroyed the western empire, Byzantium was destroyed in 1453) and occurred the dark Middle Ages. Then a miracle happened and ancient ideas are raised and was born the Renaissance. Bulgarian Empire is the missing link in the explanation of the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance (the film of Ludogoro at the beginning of the dispute is useful in this case, because it shows that Bulgaria has preserved its ancient culture). But because all of this is ignored the only explanation is the miracle.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Luther, Goethe, Schiller, Ivan Vazov, Pancho Vladiguerov...? I think we may be drifting a bit off topic in terms of the Middle Ages, even elastically defined! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that this article doesn't even begin to reflect some "But these facts are ignored in the English historiography and their theory is as follows: The Barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire in 476 (actually they only destroyed the western empire, Byzantium was destroyed in 1453) and occurred the dark Middle Ages. Then a miracle happened and ancient ideas are raised and was born the Renaissance." - nothing in this article says anything of the kind - we devote time to the survival of the Byzantine Empire - we discuss the various things that led to the Renaissance and no where is it stated or implied that the Middle Ages were a "dark ages". That sort of idea hasn't been prevelant in any history I've read that was written after 1900 ... whatever the origin of the writer. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The role of Byzantine Empire is mentoined, but the role of Bulgarian Empire is ignoring. I don't see something about the Golden Age, Pleslav and Tarnovo Artistic Schools. The Renaissance occurs in the Balkans and is widespread in Italy and Western Europe later. It is also not mentioned in the article. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that these are very good materials, which are confirm with academic sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_Ages/Archive_7#First_Bulgarian_Empire_2. I add a short information about Preslav and Tarnovo style. I see no seriously criticism of the content of these materials.--Ludogoro (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been plenty of criticism of these additions - they are way undue weight for the level of detail of an overview article. They present extraordinary claims (such as the Renaissance beginning in Bulgaria) that are not supported by most sources. Other criticisms are listed on this page and in the talk page archives. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not agree. The material about Carolingians is also undue weight, but is there. The claim about the Renaissance is extraordinary only by you. Above is quoted even Slovak source, which confirm this - [25]. Read some of the books, quoted here to understand why the Renaissance began in Bulgaria. In Western Europe the Roman Empire is destroyed in 476, Byzantine Empire is too conservative christian Empire. Only Bulgaria is saved and developed own ancient culture in Middle Ages. Do you know what is Golden Age? Do you know who is Simeon the Great? Do you know why the Constantinople Patrirach Calistus say that the world has two imperial centres - Constantinople and Tarnovo? Do you know why Tervel is called by his contemporaries "The Saviour of Europe"? Do you know why the most Slavic countries are using the Bulgarian alphabet, popular as Cyrillic? Do you know why exactly near Sofia are created the first Renaissance images? Do you know when was created Bulgaria - 632 or 681? Read, Ealdgyth, Read! And learn to be critical about sources. I'm sure that before this discussion, you even don't know where the Boyana church is located.--Ludogoro (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out with the personal comments on other editors. Please do not tell me what I need to do nor speculate on whether or not I know something or speculate on what abilities I have. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just advice. Because when you comment something that you don't know, it seems crazy. It's not bad to ask, if you don't know. --Ludogoro (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's discourteous, and you've been warned about the personal comments issue before. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Slavic Europe and the conversions

In the article is written: Missionary efforts by both eastern and western clergy resulted in the conversion of the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'.. It is true for the most Slavic countries, but not for Bulgaria. Even the next sentence reject this claim: Bulgaria, which was founded around 680, at its height reached from Budapest to the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea.. The Christianization in Bulgaria hasn't the same significance as in Poland, Bohemia etc. Actually Bulgaria was estabilished in 632 by Kubrat. 680 is the year, when Asparukh defeated the army of Eastern Roman Empire in Ongal. In 681 - The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV proclaimed Asparukh as emperor and recognizes the Bulgarian Empire. This is starting point of First Bulgarian Empire. Need to add more information about Bulgarian Empire. The article mentioned the first medieval empire - Byzantine Empire (the successor of the Roman Empire). The third empire of Charlemagne recognized as emperor in 800, is also mentoined. But the second Empire - Bulgarian Empire is omitted. The first and third empires are mentioned, but the second is missing. Very strange.--Rivaldeiro (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that this user has only three edits. Rivaldeiro, are you connected in any way to any of the other editors who have been addressing Bulgarian topics on this talk page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem with my edits? What Bulgarian topics? I signed in the Portuguese Wikipedia today. I just say the statement that you have written is wrong. Look at the article First Bulgarian Empire. --Rivaldeiro (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my suspicions. There have been many conversations on this page about the way the Bulgarian Empire is represented in the article, and I am inclined to suspect that a new editor who addresses this topic in their very first edits is actually one of the prior editors, editing under a new name. I hope that's not the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mike Christie, it is absurd and seems paranoid. Just in this moment - forget about all discussions and tell me how many empires exist in medieval Europe? The answer is 3 - Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Empire of Germans is mentoined in the article (even is very, very, very mentoined, especially the Frankish Empire), Byzantine - also is written in details, but Bulgarian Empire - The Second Empire in Europe (look at Tervel, who is recognized as Caesar in 705), where was created the Cyrillic script, one of the most powerful country in Middle Ages is presented with 2 - 3 sentences. Every historian and every person, who is looking even one historical book will not agree with the way how Bulgarian Empire is represented here. Their reactions are understandable, but your reaction is too strange. Many foreign sources are given in this Talk page. Why you not use some of these sources in the article. Why use only English sources. It is what is strange here.--Mandramunjak (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been some suspicious behaviour on this page, and I was considering an SPI. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've created a list of pro-Bulgarian editors of this page, in case someone does start an SPI. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, that's very useful. I'll get started on the SPI. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The case is here. I may have missed some details as I have not followed this discussion closely, in which case feel free to add it. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain me what this means? It is ridiculous. I found the article after the note of User:Ludogoro as you can see here [26]. I just wanted to edit articles related to the Second Bulgarian empire, as I started before this note. My opinion is that some of editors are correct that the Bulgarian Empire is ignoring here (I'm propose the reasons above) and because of that I became a member of this discussion. I'm not related to these editors.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your argument is that anyone, who disagrees with this balance in the article is suspect, right? Provoked by the list of Mike Christie, I made a list of anti-Bulgarian editors here - User:Magnus Agripa/sandbox. If you look at the history of the page you will see that these editors delete any editing related to Bulgaria in the article. Note that they use only English sources and not recognized the foreigner sources, which proposed a different theories and trying to destroy the other editors. Look at how many editors are escaped from the article. Maybe Ludogoro is right - here is existing some sort of Anti-Bulgarian prejudices. --Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have NOT deleted "any editing related to Bulgaria in the article". I've put in stuff about Bulgaria. My last Bulgarian related edit to this article was restoring mentions of Bulgaria. Calling other editors "anti-Bulgarian" is a personal attack against those editors and you were just warned about that. Kindly remove the personal attack. Nor am I trying to "destroy the other editors". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You're free to hate whoever you want. It is your problem. But tell me - why only me? Tell the same things to Mike Christie, who began with the "Pro-Bulgarian list". This is a double standard. Actually I want to delete my Wikipedia profil. Is this possible? I sign up with the intention to expand and create some articles related to the Tarnovo school, but obviously this will not happen. I'm never imagine that in Wikipedia is so full with shit. Block me, delete me, I don't care. I just want it to be over.--Magnus Agripa (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we please stop with assuming that other editors are motivated by hate. I've explained and explained why some of the proposed edits do not belong in this article - it's a summary article. See WP:Summary Style. This does not mean they might not belong elsewhere in other articles. Following wikipedia guidelines and policies does not make another editor biased or a hater. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mike_Christie, can you say me which of my comments are pro-Bulgarian? Look at my edits carefully before to make a wrong conclusions and let me in any lists. I'm not related to any other editor, even I don't know who are you. These are trumped up charges to me. Please comment on the content, not the editors. Please, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop with this Stalinist methods! It is too unpleasantly and offensive to me.--Mandramunjak (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Now about the content. Rivaldeiro, you say very important things. Dear Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Mike Christie and other opponents, why the first -Byzantine Empire and the third - Carolingian Empire are extensively presented in the article, while the second - Bulgarian Empire has only 2 - 3 sentences in the article. It is realy very strange. Let's see your opinions about that! --Mandramunjak (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

The checkuser results show two sets of sockpuppets that may be connected; one set is connected to Sumatro. There are also two IPs, both of which resolve to Bulgarian addresses -- one is in Sofia and the other I'm less sure about. I think this plus the behavioural clues makes it clear that Sumatro has wasted dozens of hours of the time of some productive editors -- and that's just on this page. Given that he has been blocked in the past for sockpupppetry, I think he should either be banned or receive a long block, but I'm not particularly familiar with the processes that lead to those outcomes. Do others agree, and can someone with more experience of those processes comment? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lovely. Just freaking lovely. I'm obviously in favor of whatever fits with policy and gets this morass cleared up so we don't have to deal with it again. Maybe I'll get the energy to edit again once this is past. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What Bulgarian adresses and why my User name is stiil there? My IP is not Bulgarian and I don't know none of the editors in Wikipedia as whole, include you and the editors in the list. Mike Christie, you continue with the trumped up charges to me. Interesting - How did you find that the address is in Sofia? I hope these are your fantasies, because the other option is dangerous. To investigate a IP address and it's location is a crime under the laws of the European Union and is punishable by 2-5 years in prison. I am from a country member of the EU. Bulgaria is also a member of the EU. I understand that the discussion here is very keen, and I believe that this is an attempt to strike against opponents - dishonest, unpleasant, but without criminal elements. --Mandramunjak (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's really unpleasant and can be a violation of human rights and personal freedom. Note that the users, which became investigations are mostly Americans, according to their templates in their User pages. Of course, this is not an accusation, but there are some disturbing facts as you can see here on website of DW -[27], [28] and [29] --Sumatro (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It definitely needs to go through the process at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance. I think it is best if Mike Christie launches it, as he is on top of the evidence.--SabreBD (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, happy for Mike to lead on it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I not agree. I urge all editors here from the both groups to stoped with "anti-Bulgarian" and "pro-Bulgarian" lists, to stoped all "investigations" and the discussion to continue. Let's make a deal between all of us to do not make a edits in the article before consensus here. It will be more useful about the article by me. --Mandramunjak (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we're done with the guidance page; as far as I can see we've completed that process. The two possible next steps I know about are an RFC/U or a post to AN. The latter would probably draw a block; the former might get us consensus on a ban but would take longer. Any opinions on which to do? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc blocked the accounts as sockpuppets. A request for a ban in case this boils over again would be useful. Does that mean RfC/U or could it be done through WP:AN? Nev1 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A big thank-you from me for all the hard work here. This has been such a tedious episode, which very quickly developed a prima facie impression of sockpuppetry for me. And I've been extremely impressed with the calmness and patience displayed by those who took the trouble to contribute to the Bulgarian question: I touched on it only slightly as I found the whole business so irritating, but others dealt with it admirably. Contributions from Ealdgyth and Hchc2009 in particular should be applauded, as well as those from all who have contributed to containing and shutting down this sockpuppetry. [insert standing ovation] Nortonius (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nortonius, very much appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to Nortonius'. The editors regularly commenting here have shown tremendous patience and no small amount of good faith in trying to deal with this situation. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Also I'd like to praise Johnbod for dealing with the art questions - it's not my best field of knowledge, and knowing he was there to answer questions and make sure I knew what I was talking about was greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Nortonius (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

End of Middle Ages ?

I realise the article is feutured. However I would like to suggest some improvements. When did the Middle Ages end ? A specific year isn't possible to give, but inventions as the art of printing, the magnetic compass, perspective within art, the knowledge of how to make cement (or concrete ?) came back. It had been forgotten for centuries. And the beginning of the exploring of the Earth, are such issuers that mark the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance. In year 1400 it still was Middle Ages, howeber not in year 1500. I've read "around 1475" (which isn't supposed to be an exact year, but as "around 3/4 in to the 15th century"). I think some of this could be mentioned already in the lead. The lead doesn't cover around the last century or so of this era. A TV-documentary stated that the Renaissance (atleast within art and arcitecture) began in the Italian city Florence (It: Firenze). Sometime in the middle of the 15th century, a dome was to be build on top of a cathedral (or church ?), and this was a difficult task. The tower stood open for many years, until the knowlidge of making cement was re-evented. Also paintings made with perspective began in Florence at the same time (or decades). Boeing720 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Printing, perspective, etc are all covered in the article. Also a detailed discussion of the various commonly given end dates - see the very first section. Exploration is also covered. It can't be said that 1400 was the Middle Ages throughout all Europe - most historians would say that by then in Italy you're into the Renaissance. The lead summarizes the article - and it is meant to be a brief overview... it shouldn't go into great detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrecct treatment of Iberian Peninsula

This article does not deal correctly with the Iberian peninsula, or treats it as if the only significant members of it were the small northern Christian kingdoms, which over centuries, with help from France, succeeding in conquering the Islamic states in the south of the peninsula.

During the tenth, eleventh, and part of the twelfth centuries, Moorish Spain was by far the leading civilization anywhere around the Mediterranian - by population, literacy, libraries, educational and legal systems, science, by any criterion one cares to name. It was anything but part of the decay and depopulation seen elsewhere. Córdoba was the largest city in the world. See al-Andalus, Caliphate of Córdoba, and Córdoba, Andalusia#Islamic Period.

Also, the black plague didn't have much influence in the Iberian peninsula, either.

How should this best be handled?

(I'm not a Muslim, if anyone is suspecting me of bias. Just a Hispanist.) deisenbe (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We use the overview books to determine weight of coverage - works such as Barber's Two Cities or Davies' Europe. And it's certainly not true that there was "decay and depopulation" other than in Spain - that's an old narrative that's been discredited. You've been trying to insert a POV into the lead of the article without having it in the body. And the source you're using appears to be an article you wrote yourself. You'll want to look at overview's of the entire period (which is what this article is) to get an idea why things in many areas are covered very thinly. (And I'm not sure it's true that Cordoba was the largest city in the world - Bagdad or one of the Chinese cities would probably need to be looked at in light of that claim also). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"And it's certainly not true that there was "decay and depopulation" other than in Spain - that's an old narrative that's been discredited" The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article starts with "depopulation". What discrediting are you talking about?

OK, let's say Bagdad or a Chinese city would be bigger than Cordoba. By your own words, Cordoba is the biggest city _in Europe_. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere?

Are you alleging that the Iberian Peninsula _is_ treated adequately in the article? deisenbe (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying (I categorically deny anything to do with "alleging" - that's very loaded and it's not helpful to the conversation to say that someone else is "alleging" something) anything about whether or not the article adequately treats anything.. I'm waiting to see any new overview-type sources that discuss this sort of thing. As for "depopulation and decay" - by the time of Cordoba's caliphate - no, northern Europe was not in a state of "decay and depopulation" - by 1000 or so, the Carolingian Renaissance had already occurred. That's hardly decay. Yes, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead uses "depopulation" - but the full sentence is "Depopulation, deurbanisation, invasion, and movement of peoples, which had begun in Late Antiquity, continued in the Early Middle Ages." - which covers the period up until about 700/800 - not through the whole period. You were specifically discussing the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries - which do NOT see decay and depopulation in Europe - quite the opposite, actually. I did not say Cordoba was the largest city in Europe... we'd need to see sources that mention that and state it clearly. If the overview works see fit to give prominence to some things, then we need to cover them. But we go from what our sources say - and the best sources for this sort of very-high level overview article are overview works. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)