Template talk:Middle Ages Tall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Classifications_and_Templates at the Middle Ages Project for a discussion and your input on future directions of Middle Ages templates. --Stbalbach 20:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire != Medieval Greece

Byzantine Empire is not the same as "Medieval Greece". In fact the link of Medieval Greece to the Byzantine Empire article is wrong. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Right. Medieval Greece itself is currently covered in Roman and Byzantine Greece. Adam Bishop 9 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

Why is not the same? Dont confuse the modern borders of Greece with those during the middle ages. Even academics concur that the history of the Byzantine empire is just the history of Greece during the middle ages. Byzantine population was overwhelmingly Greek, and that means that of Asia Minor too. Which is why the neighbours of Byzantium refered to them also as "Greeks" or "Yunans". The Roman and Byzantine Greece article is far too limited. It deals only with Greece proper which was a small part of Greek speaking territories, leaving out Asia Minor, where infact most Greek lived in. Which is afterall why the neighbours of Byzantium refered to them also as Greeks or Yunans. The Greek nationality of the empire is testified by Byzantines themselves, so I dont understand why it should be disputed, and the article should be as historically accurate as possible. Colossus 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Well the idea with the History of Greece series was to talk about the history of what is now Greece itself, not the entire Greek world in general. We have the Byzantine Empire article to talk about that. Adam Bishop 9 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Actually, the History of Greece introductory article makes it clear that the series is about the Greek people and the Greek state as well. This is even more clarified in an older version of the series, before it was COTW, where it stated about the History of... articles that: These articles therefore cover both the history of Greece and the history of the Greeks. It was only in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the establishment of a Greek state and the expulsion of the Greeks from Turkey in the 1920s, that these two histories have been reunited within one territory. Besides, about half of the ancient Greek city-states where located in Asia Minor, which is outside of modern Greek territories. Yet, they remain a vital part of ancient Greek history. Medieval Greek history was more than just about a series of invasions involving a fraction of Greek territory. The scope of the articles is not strictly geographic and that's why I integrated the Byzantine Empire article into the History of series. And in retrospect, the same applies for the History of Germany series too. Medieval Germany encompassed greater territories than modern Germany, yet the Holy Roman Empire are integrated into the History of Germany. Colossus 9 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Well then what is the point of having the article at all? The medieval Greek world is covered in the Byzantine Empire article and its various related articles. Adam Bishop 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I can say how they handled it in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, which is most extensive encyclopedia on the middle ages. There is a Greek section in the index, but all the references point to sub-sections in Byzantine Empire articles, or Latin State articles, or Armenian articles, or etc.. there is no primary article that discusses Medieval Greece proper, probably because Greece and Greek speakers were always part of other political entities during the Middle Ages. The notion of viewing history based only on a shared common language/culture is nationalism by definition and thus POV. Stbalbach 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Well then what is the point of having the article at all? The medieval Greek world is covered in the Byzantine Empire article and its various related articles. Exactly. There's no point at all in preserving the Roman and Byzantine Greece (the Byzantine part that is) article in the first place because it does not meet the standards of the other History of Greece series, which was created on the premise of following the evolution of the Greek nation throughout the ages in its natural development. The original author for some reason sufficed in describing the events that had direct impact on the Greek archipelago only, excluding the greater part of that Greek state and society. That would be equivalent to writing a history of the United States from colonial times to today, and limiting the history telling to the Eastern-most regions, only because those were the lands originally inhabited.

Since we agree that the Byzantine empire article is a much more complete history of the Greeks in the middle ages than Roman and Byzantine Greece is, and given that the History of Greece series calls explicitly for a history of the nation and the state, I think extracting the Roman section from it and integrating it along with the Byzantine Empire article into the series is for the best.

Well, I am the original author of it :) I thought that was the point of the History of Greece series, and that's certainly what it seemed to be when we were writing those (I know Adam Carr was also involved). Adam Bishop 16:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I can say how they handled it in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, which is most extensive encyclopedia on the middle ages. There is no primary article that discusses Medieval Greece proper, probably because Greece and Greek speakers were always part of other political entities during the Middle Ages. That's only your explanation of it, but the DotMA is a reference guide, not historiography, and thus much less inclined to represent historical continuity. Besides, DotMA is only a single work, and you've ignored all the other authoritative histories that go against it and place Byzantium as the medieval Greek entity connecting ancient and modern Greece.

Well, the history of greece series is intended to provide continuity. I think the problem is, Medieval history has its own historiographical traditions, which doesnt always line up with others, and it goes both ways. It all depends what your trying to emphesis. If you want to emphesis the continuity between ancient and modern, then I can see your point, but I think that is just one way of looking at it. Medievalists try to look at it how it really was at the time.

The thing about the DoMA is its more than a single-source, its a source written by 1300 medeival academics. I brought it up because of how they decided to structure the article names within a larger encyclopedic context of european history, its comparable to Wikipedia as a large encyclopedia, provides some precendent from the medieval scholarship community. Its not definitive of course nothing is. Stbalbach 16:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The notion of viewing history based only on a shared common language/culture is nationalism by definition and thus POV. Nationalism isnt POV. Your talking about extremism. Extreme points of view always find themselves in the minority, obviously because they cant be substantiated by commonly accepted reference texts shared by the majority, and it is that interpretation of events that is discouraged by Wikipedia. The view that Byzantium is the medieval predecessor of the modern Greek state is not a new one, not even an uncommon one. And nationalism is the very concept behind the creation of all History Of... series. History categorized according to the provenance of the modern nation-state. Should we start by dealing away with all History of... series?

Anyway, if I wont insist on renaming the Middle Ages template. My intention was to establish homogeneity. Medieval is a prefix applied to a lot of modern countries linking to their medieval periods, so I thought it would be better to do the same for Greece linking to Byzantium, but apparently it draws too much attention to itself. Yet, medieval Germany in that same template links to the opening History of Germany article, not a proper Germany in the middle ages or otherwise article. So, since Stbalbach is so strict with his logic, that link should immediately lead either to the medieval predecessor of Germany (Holy Roman Empire) or a new Germany in the middle ages should be integrated in the template and in the History of Germany series. Colossus 16:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course Medieval Germany should have its own article, it just hasnt been written yet, so it goes to the next best thing until a new article is spun off. Stbalbach 16:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mergeing templates

Im not sure why these templates would be merged. They each serve a function. The "Tall" template is for a very detailed view, used in articles like Middle Ages. It has the advantage of having lots of detail, with the disadvantage of being very big and intrusive on article space, which can cause stacking problems and limit the amount of article content (such as pictures). As a compromise there are the "Wide" templates which go along the bottom of articles. They are less detailed, but also less intrusive, and for more generalized use. --Stbalbach 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As I mentioned on Template talk:Middle Ages, the tall template doesn't work for many articles as they are already part of another series (e.g. Medieval Britain is already part of the British histroy series) and having two long templates is ugly. Thus a wide template at the bottom is sometimes required. - SimonP 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)