Talk:Middle Ages

Suggestion

I haven't read much of this but could we not have a mosaic of images like WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inenglishplease (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead image (2)

NOTE: If enough people support a change of image to another image, it will happen...... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (Cut and pasted from above by Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

It seems that six regular editors, as well as six more unsigned editors have raised the matter of the unsuitability of the reproduction Sutton Hoo helmet as the lead imsge.

Arguments (and a couple of responses to make the context clear) by the twelve different individuals who have objected to the continued use of the present lead over the last year have been collected below. That is twelve people who have said that the current lead image is unsuitable. How many more are needed before the message gets across?

If you don't want to reread the cases put forward by the twelve editors, because you have done so already, skip to the bottom for their names/etc.

Collapsing this for ease of navigation on the page. BencherliteTalk 15:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

... and the pic is from a fake? Why not a Robin Hood film screenshot? Why before 1000AD? All this doesnt make any sense. Pedro (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) It can be used elsewhere in the article, but use the real thing instead!--Pedro (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, although the replica is good, we don't know how much historically accurate it is, but in any case the original is much more preferable, particularly in the lead. Wikipedia is not some kind of advertising agency, that picks and promotes modern polished stuff over historical one. The replica would suit to Sutton Hoo in my view (where it's not currently used). If we are using a single image here, let it show a genuine object apart from being eye-catching. Brandmeistertalk 18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Since the original helmet survived, it would be certainly better to place the original rather than replica. Btw, the caption for the current lead pic is buried and appears only after scroll-down (at least in my Mozilla browser), so as it is the pic may be confusing for some readers, who may think that the helmet is original. Brandmeistertalk 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The current image is likewise very early and unrepresentative. It's a fantastic photograph, but it's a bad illustration for this topic. The Manual of Style for lead images states "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page." The principle of least astonishment suggests we should use something popularly associated with the Middle Ages, and an obscure helmet from the fringes of the area in question is hardly that. I agree that the photo of the knight armor is not as good a photograph (it's actually less dark than the current one, but has awkward lighting and framing), but the subject itself is better. And, since lead photos tend to emphasize the highest achievements of a topic, they tend to be late examples in any event. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Hello, I am not a regular editor/user of wikipedia - but it seems apparent to me that the lead picture should be removed. I have read through the previous discussion above - and it seems pretty clear that a great deal of people have argued consistently against its inclusion, yet the image remains due to one or two editors arguing that it is "stylistically striking". As has been pointed out countless times - this helmet is a fantastic and iconic image for Anglo-Saxon topics - not for topics that include the whole of Europe. Non-english people would find this very biased, armour from a specific country should not represent the whole continent. I appreciate the arguments being made that point out there is no overall image that could represent the whole period. However - out of the choice that we have, Sutton Hoo is a great deal more POV than an image of a generic peasant/castle would be. I am NOT suggesting that we choose something from another country - but something that is instantly and visually recognisable as something from the Middle Ages. This Sutton Hoo helmet does not fulfill that purpose - before I wrote this, I had to find out what it was! ::::This should not happen for an article as broad as the middle ages. Removing image for now, pending discussion we can choose an alternative. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (But the image was returned) NOTE: This unnamed editor argued at length to have the image removed, and was continually dismissed, resulting in the following comment from another unsigned editor: Wait, seriously why is there so much hostility to this guy? It's pretty clear that the lead image isn't really appropriate - why is the debate being shut down? 86.173.69.123 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 94.31, the arguments against the lead image are very weak. Incessant repetition isn't making them stronger. The current image is relevant to the topic and because it looks really good. We try to write good prose, and we certainly prefer images that are pleasing to look at over dull historical maps of dubious accuracy. Peter Peter, my understanding was that it wasn't that "the arguments against the lead image are very weak", but that the proposed replacements themselves were in one way or another problematic. At least, that seemed to me what Ealdgyth was saying. Obviously, a lot of people have issues with the image, and the people who do also seem to know their stuff, and are not just Randy in Boise. Why set the hurdle at "a Carolignian artefact that looks as good as the current Sutton Hoo-pic" rather than "a Carolignian artefact that looks good"? Curly Turkey Let me point out very strongly that using a 20th century reproduction objects when thousands of genuine objects exist from the period is just plain reprehensible. [User:Amandajm|Amandajm]] (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC) But how faithful is the replica? I made Amanda's complaint back in the first round of the lead image controversy. I wonder if people would care if our article on Ancient Egypt led with an image of a replica Sphinx? Srnec (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah, can't trust the British Museum to get things like that right. Good thing we have sharp-eyed Wikipedians to put things right. Peter Isotalo 21:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Peter: You completely misunderstood the concern. The key sentence was the last one: "I wonder if people would care if our article on Ancient Egypt led with an image of a replica Sphinx?"—which your snark completely fails to address. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC) To suggest that a replica is as valuable as the "original" within the context of a history article is ridiculous. In the case of the Sutton Hoo helmet, the replica plays a very significant part in educating the public about a very badly deteriorated object. It is highly relevant to the interpretation of that object. But in the context of an encyclopedic article on the Middle Ages, it is of far far less value than would be an image of any one of the thousands of extremely well preserved genuine medieval helmets that exist, all across Europe. ........ Will the team who is working on this get your act together and take the objections against a non-geniune object as the lead, seriously? I presume it's morning in the UK by now, so perhaps someone will wake up and fix it! Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Here's an outsider's layman POV. The image is too large, the lighting is too harsh, it is sterile, ugly and boring. It looks like someone just took a picture at a museum while on vacation and was so proud of it they decided it just had to be on wiki somewhere. It wouldn't make me want to read the article on an already dry subject. I couldn't believe it when I read that it was a replica. It shouldn't even be used as the lead image on an article on the actual object, it should be at the bottom with a caption that it is an artists interpretation of what the actual helmet once looked like. I can't believe the editors at wiki would allow someone to hold everyone hostage like this.99.239.72.120 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC) The Sutton Hoo replica helmet, has a valid place, in the context of interpreting the genuine Sutton Hoo helmet. In a showcase of the BM, right near the genuine object, with a sign saying, this is how the helmet was probably put together (note that the first reconstruction has now been deemed wrong), there, in that context, it is a very useful object. There is always a place for reconstructions as instruments of teaching. .... But in this context, there is no need to use that replica to explain anything to your reading public. Knowing how one single 7th century helmet may have looked (provided they got it right the second time around) is notessential or even important in the whole breadth of the Middle Ages. So find something genuine. Amandajm (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC) I note that my previous comments were deleted (some strange suggestion about them being a troll, they were not (I didn't mind the person who decided to add them to a roll-up due to being sarcastic They were sarcastic - but NOT a troll.)). They were seriously illustrating the issue when you accept a replica as being a good example in an inappropriate context. Peter has previously commented that they are good enough for the British Museum. The fact is that the British Museum, on their own website, lead with the original helmet, not the reproduction. See http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore.aspx?ref=header 86.171.109.66 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I think this argument is a much stronger one than Al Jolson as a rejoinder to Peter's "Yeah, can't trust the British Museum to get things like that right" snark. If the British Museum won't even lead the Sutton Hoo article with their own replica, then why would an article covering a 1000-year period for an entire continent and its periphery? Personally, I'd like to see a collage of images like at War of 1812 (as an aesthetically pleasing example, I think). Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Basically, it doesn't comply with MOS as a lead image, because no reliable publication would use it in the context of representing the Middle Ages. Amandajm (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Please put up a "fallback"image that is not contentious. Your "fallback" image ought not be one that promotes ridicule such as "You might as well use a still from a Robin Hood Movie" and informed criticism that tells you that within a museum context, this would be totally unacceptable. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I find it hilarious, that even when criticism of the lead image is brought up time and time again - in various different ways with legitimate criticisms ranging from authenticity, to national bias - that there is a small group of editors here who seem completely opposed to changing the picture for any reason. It has been suggested before that an alternative, more authentic image can be used to replace the lead image - since any image would be better than what we have at present (literally every single suggestion would be better, just to pre-empt the inevitable 'but nothing has been chosen to replace waa' response). Yet I still see the situation where the 'default' is wrongly set to the lead image that is so contentious in the first goddamn place. Seriously, I looked into this talk page on the 23rd August, and exactly the same situation was ongoing with the ganging up on the previous person to dare to suggest that the image was questionable. What did I find? On Ealdgyth's talk page ...... she and other editors "complained about people continually bringing up this topic about the Middle Ages article". Hun, noone is commenting on the rest of the article, the rest is fine, but you should not shut down criticism of the lead image just because it is "tiresome". If there is a lot of criticism of something, by various different academics/members of the public, then that image needs to change. I am most surprised by the hostility of the seeming cabal of editors that are zealously guarding this image. Every. Single. Goddamn. Criticism. By. Different. People. Is. Shut. Down. Without. Acknowledgement. This has been going on for how long now? I had a look on 23rd August. and at that point the discussion had been going on for a while between several people, now its still ongoing and its STILL being shut down? Absolutely ridiculous. It's a goddamn farce, and every single editor who is still completely opposed to changing a 20th century fake ethnically biased piece is looking a mixture of corrupt and petty to members of the general public, whom this article is directed towards. Where on earth is the accountability here?! Can a neutral image of this article only occur through divine intervention at this stage? I will be eagerly following the rest of this tragedy as it plays out, I will scan the talk pages of the editors involved, and if I see any more gloating about 'lol those dumb people, why are they so adamantly against this image?' then this time I will save and post here for maximum exposure of the corrupt and petty nature of these editors, before they delete them as they did before. 86.173.5.29 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC) I also want to add my support for changing to the real Vendel helmet image over the fake reconstruction. Honestly just skimming the thread this convo has been going on for long enough and I agree that its kinda silly that the default image still remains as the lead when the majority of commentators have expressed their opposition to it. 86.27.189.2 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So how many editors have strongly recommended that the lead image be changed?

1. Pedro (talk)
2. Brandmeister^talk
3. AmateurEditor (talk)
4. 94.31.32.30 (talk)
5. 86.173.69.123 (talk)
6. Curly Turkey (gobble)
7. Srnec (talk)
8. Amandajm (talk)
9. 86.171.109.66 (talk)
10. 99.239.72.120 (talk)
11. 86.173.5.29 (talk)
12. 86.27.189.2 (talk)

And note this interesting little interaction' from the history of the article:

The image of the reproduction helmet was added to the lead on the 30 March 2012 by Ealdgyth

• (cur | prev) 23:37, 11 July 2012‎ Brandmeister (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,265 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (original helmet) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 02:37, 12 July 2012‎ Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,271 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (prefer the reproduction thank you) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 10:29, 12 July 2012‎ Brandmeister (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,265 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (original has much higher encyclopedic and historical value) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 11:03, 12 July 2012‎ Nortonius (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,271 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Brandmeister (talk): I agree re encyclopedic and historical value of original, but for *this* article I think the high-quality repro is more ...) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 14:20, 12 July 2012‎ Johnbod (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (123,265 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Nortonius (talk) to last version by Brandmeister) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 18:40, 12 July 2012‎ Hchc2009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,271 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Returning to the earlier picture while the talk page discussion progresses) (undo | thank)

There was a similar interaction when I attempted to introduce three different images, so that people could see what the change would look like.

• (cur | prev) 16:28, 15 September 2013‎ Amandajm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,257 bytes) (+166)‎ . . (If we must have a helmet, then lets have a genuine one, not the 20th century version. This picture looks into the page, per MOS, rather than outward.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:34, 15 September 2013‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,091 bytes) (-166)‎ . . (Undid revision 573035367 by Amandajm (talk), no consensus for this, discussion is still continuing and you are only one voice in that discussion) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 16:44, 15 September 2013‎ Amandajm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,316 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (So let's try Ealgyth's first choice and see how another genuine object looks, in place of the 20th century reproduction. Definitely looks nice and bright) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:46, 15 September 2013‎ Modernist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,091 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 573037040 by Amandajm (talk)prefer the former) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 17:51, 15 September 2013‎ Amandajm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,443 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Platine Chapel. Looks good.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:00, 15 September 2013‎ Hchc2009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,091 bytes) (-352)‎ . . (Reverting while the debate on the talk page continues - as yet, no consensus for change) (undo | thank)

Note that neither Nortonius nor Hchc2009 have been major contributors to the article, but have been adamant in the retention of that non-historic, 20th-century reproduction object. Likewise Peter Isotalo who has been vociferous in support of the replica has contributed only two small tweaks to the article. What is going on here? Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but, on the other hand, if you are going to support the status quo, in the face of objection, you need to produce good reason for doing so.

Where, then, are the major contributors to the article? Ealdgyth, (the major contributor) who chose the helmet in the first place, has shown some willingness to make another choice. Johnbod, a large contributor, showed an early preference for the genuine helmet (see above), and recently suggested a rotation of images.

Why are Ealdgyth and Johnbod, not here talking sense, coming to an agreement between yourselves in response to the criticism levelled by twelve different editors?

Anyone who wants to see how a different image would look in the context of the article can go to:

• Vendel Helmet
• Visigoth votive crowns
• Palatine Chapel at Aachen
• "Siege of the Castle of Love"
• The Market Place
• The Wilton Diptych
• Irish reliquary 7th or 8th century
• Anglo-Saxon reliquary cross

.......or a 20th-century reproduction object?

Amandajm (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Responses

Talk about tendentious cherry-picking – only recently I said "No other image has gained any more traction: if one were found which did, I might support it. Nortonius (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)" This confused, partial approach is tiresome and insulting. How many more times does it need to be said that if another image or indeed approach can be agreed on then it'll happen? Nortonius (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The suggested approach is to agree on any one genuine object as a replacement. You chose which you would prefer, and we will be a step further in the right direction. If everyone sits on the fence and says, I'll agree to agree with what everyone else wants.... we get nowhere! Make a choice of what is on offer, or go and choose something that might be better..... Yes, it takes hours of searching to find high quality images. Amandajm (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Plug for a particular image: "Siege of the Castle of Love", Amandajm (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean "You choose which you would prefer"? The point is, I'm quite happy with what we've got, the reproduction Sutton Hoo helmet, and I'm totally unmoved by any of the arguments against it. I am, however, quite happy that the image be changed if something more suitable were agreed on. Actually I think the image you plug immediately above is really lovely, and I think it rather odd that, in the edit summary of your self-reversion of adding that image to the article, you said it was "Too English": was that meant to be humorous irony? I believe it's French. If we had something similar but earlier… I might suggest the Franks Casket, but oh, it's English, never mind the fact that it immediately incorporates features common with other European cultures, and I don't want to go there again. Anyway I don't think any of the available images of it are of a high enough standard. Just don't confuse my having an opinion with sitting on the fence – I think you'd do well to stop throwing such accusations around, as I've suggested before. Nortonius (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the Wilton Diptych that is "too English". .... Yes, it was irony. "Too English" was one of the arguments used against some object or another during the year-long argument over the replacement for the repro-helmet.

The helmet has to go, because there have been a dozen punters who have objected, mainly on the grounds that it is a bogus object, and their objection can hardly be ignored.

Does this mean that you are happy to tick the "Siege of the Castle of Love" box? Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Most objections to the helmet have been on the grounds that it is not a castle from the Tres Riches Heures, or a suit of armour. I continue to have a strong preference for something pre-Gothic, largely because it will be an anti-cliche. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer Amandajm's question above, no, I am not happy to tick that box, how could you think that? Read what I've said again. This kind of scattergun approach is largely why I can barely be bothered to engage with this thread. I sympathise completely with Ealdgyth's comment below, and agree with her and Johnbod on this. Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The objections that have brought down ridicule have been against the reproduction nature of that object. I have listed them above (leaving out the most objectionable)

One of the criteria given in the MOS for choosing a lead image is that it should be easily recognisable as representative of the subject. The ivory mirror case is just that. Anyone who looks at the image sees all the things that are iconic of the Middle Ages (castle, knight and ladies, a distinctly Medieval style) so that the viewer can identify the period through the image, even if they have no idea what the object is, or what the image signifies.

I think that Tres Riches Heures is overused. As for the armour, there doesn't seem to be a single decent image of a whole suits of armour without camera distortion, and/or museum clutter.

That mirror case was your suggestion, and I think it is an excellent one. Why don't you go with it as an interim measure, while you are searching for your wondrously rare pre-Gothic representational-yet-anti-cliched image?

This is a stop-gap, Johnbo!

Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not replying because 1. I'm busy in real life and have already made my position rather clear 2. I don't see the need to keep belaboring my position 3. I don't find any of the images which were suggested to be better (in fact, I find all of the images put in on the 30th of Sept to be entirely too late in time period) and 4. Quite honestly, the sarcastic edit summaries and the constant long-winded posts and replies are extremely tiring to reply to and are quite honestly sapping my will to do anything with the subject at all or with Wikipedia. We get that you and some others aren't happy with the image - but it's not easy to do this sort of thing... and your way of going about things isn't helping. Let folks weigh in without swamping them with words. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing between the 17th and 30th September. During that period two other editors weighed in. It is tiring, Ealdgyth. "Entirely too late in time period". "Too late" for what? Your talking personal preference here, Your not talking about the suitability of the genuine against the reproduction. There is only one object that is "too late", the 20th-century helmet! That's obvious! Amandajm (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Random group of objects

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I like the cross - if we had more information on it. Unfortunately, the image page gives us no details. Johnbod, you able to dig anything up? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Which one? All are quite well known, the maybe-Italian one less so (& rather untypical). There is also the Cross of Lothair. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I was admiring the Matilda Cross but the Lothair one is also nice. And both have pretty striking photos we can use. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the Matilda Cross photo bears up better to close scrutiny than does the Lothair; but both tick my boxes for their quality, the age of the subjects and their relevance. Nortonius (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully support the Cross of Lothair, its a perfect image for this article, fits the early time of the period - represents the common christian identity and mixed in with the imperial carolingian world. Beautiful. 86.27.189.2 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Has nobody noticed that the central feature of the Cross of Lothair is a reused item dating from hundreds of years before this period? Are you simply being provoking, or are you serious?

While we know that precious gems and cameos were used and reused, isn't the focus on Ancient Rome just a wee bit too much, given that the thing is rather large and centrally placed? If anyone were to mistake it for a genuine jewel from the Middle Ages, well, then they would have been misled. So it would require a caption that stated, this is from the Middle Ages, all except that whacking great portrait cameo in the centre, which isn't.

And then the question would be asked, "Isn't there a single jewelled cross dating from the Middle Ages that doesn't have its major feature from a different historic period?" Can we just keep it to the Middle Ages? Surely the timespan is long enough to find something that suits!

The Matilda cross is fine. Excellent, in fact.

Amandajm (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are several re-used classical engraved gems on that too, though it's less obvious from the photo. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, the reuse of such gems was common. I don't see it as a problem on the Matilda Cross, because the dominant element is plainly Medieval. The non-Medieval elements have a definitely "recycled" appearance. I must say that I like the fact that the Matilda Cross combines a number of artistic skills; small sculpture, gem setting, filigree, enamel. Amandajm (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added details to the Commons file (and corrected mis-identification in the German, to a later cross): "The second "Mathilda Cross" given by Mathilda, Abbess of Essen from 973 to her death in 1011, now in the Treasury of Essen Minster (with other items given by Mathilde). She is shown with the Virgin and Child in the enamel plaque at the base of the front. The cross was probably made in Cologne or Essen in the years before her death. Mathilda or Mathilde was a member of the Ottonian imperial family, the grand-daughter of Otto the Great and sister of Otto, Duke of Bavaria and Swabia (d 982). The corpus (body) is a replacement from later in the century. The cross re-uses classical engraved gems and cameos. Enamel roundels at the ends of the arms show Sol and Luna (personifications of the Sun and Moon). The back is a plain gold plate engraved with an Agnus Dei in the centre and the Envangelists' symbols at the ends of the members, all in roundels amid decoration of dots and foliage motifs. See: Lasko, Peter, Ars Sacra, 800-1200, Penguin History of Art (now Yale), p. 101 & 103, 1972 (nb, 1st edn.) ISBN14056036X". I could add more. Mathilda has a bio and the cross itself an article in German WP, but not here. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely worth an article. What is the tiny little standing figure to the left, would you say? Amandajm (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Mathilda here? Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Due north-east of the BVM is a little engraved gem with a standing figure.

I really liked the idea of having several pictures rotate, so a different image comes up when you refresh the page, but the only way to do it, as far as I can discover, is extremely complicated, and I can't get my head around it. Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, using {{random subpage}} isn't really complicated at all - the subpages would have to be created in the Talk: namespace as you can't have subpages in mainspace, but apart from that it would be straightforward if the consensus view thought that using a number of images in rotation was the way forward here. Most half-decent portals use the template, for instance. As was noted earlier, this hasn't been done in an article before (as far as anyone knows) but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be; some thought would have to be given to whether, and if so how, the changing image selection was explained to readers. Bencherlite^Talk 06:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Bencherlite, thank you. It could be tried out on someone's talk page..... thant would be fun.

AmateurEditor, thank you for all your beautiful suggestions. The last manuscript is exquisite. I want to hear the Marys singing the music...... Amandajm (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

the middle ages started after antiquity in the 8th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.31.138 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

About reference style

Hi, User:Ealdgyth, sorry for not asking before the edit; so the format of references is so strict, that even grouping congenerous sources is not allowed? I'm just curious if there's any such way, 'cuz I remember from high school that MLA allows certain abbreviation from the same source (in the reference page). Please {{reply}}, thanks. --- SzMithrandir (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it's strict, it's that because you cannot control the size of the output device, you should not use things like indentation or ibid or similar - they won't necessarily show up correctly. This is a featured article - it's gone through a pretty rigourous review process and its just a good idea for anything that changes style or otherwise on it to be asked about first. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth:: OK, I see, yeah that's a good point, mobile devices .. thanks. SzMithrandir (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubby-dups

Intellectual life and Technology and military are both illustrated by pictures of scholars, in very similar positions. The picture with the spectacles is the more famous. It can go into the Intellectual life section and retain the mention of the glasses (technology).

I suggest that an image of technology is found that is not represented by a manuscript picture, but by an object.

DYK... that when Cologne Cathedral ran out of funds and the workers downed their tools, an enormous wooden crane was left on top of the unfinished tower, and dominated the skyline of Cologne for the next 400 years?

(No, I'm not proposing an image of the crane) Amandajm (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria

An anonymous editor changed the date for the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria from 1366 to 1396 and Ealdgyth reverted, I assume because the edit contradicted the source, Davies, Europe. However, 1366 looks wrong to me.

Judith Herrin's Byzantium pp. 310-311 says that Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia fell after the Battle of Marica in 1371. Some Serbs and Bosnians continued to resist, and met the Ottomans at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Historians disagree about who won the battle, but it increased Turkish control over the Balkans.

According to the Bulgaria article in the 1973 Britannica, in 1371 Bulgaria's last tsar, Ivan Shishman, was forced to declare himself an Ottoman vassal. They captured and burned his capital in 1393. His brother established himself at Vidin, and the last remnant of Bulgarian independence disappeared when it fell to the Ottomans in 1396. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article says "The Ottomans expanded into Europe, reducing Bulgaria to a vassal state by 1366..." not that they conquered it totally. The process did take a while, but it's also not something we need to go into great detail either - dates given are illustrative of the point along the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. If the article stated that Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans in 1366, it'd be wrong, but it's correct to the source (and I'd trust Davies' more recent work over a 1973 Britannica... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Section about Bulgarian Empire

The article is needed by section about Bulgarian Empire. In Middle ages in Europe exist 3 empires - Byzantine, Bulgarian and Carolingian (after that Holy Roman empire). In article has sections about Byzantine and Carolingian. We must added information about Bulgaria too. Because that state made influence by all Slavic and Western world. The Cyrillic alphabet, which is writing system by over 300 milion people and one of the official alphabets of European Union was created in Bulgaria. Old Bulgarian language is the first Slavic language, Bulgarian medieval literature was influent by Russian and others Slavic literatures. Bulgarian emperor Tervel was called "The saviour of Europe", after battle of Constantinople and he is the first ruler beyond Roman and Byzantine emperors, who was named Ceaser (705). We must adde section with short information about Second Bulgarian empire too. If somebody have a time can added that information. Tarnovo, the capital of SBE was called "The third Rome" and is one of the most important cultural center in Europe. --Sumatro (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually about Slavic Europe Bulgaria is like Roman empire by Romance and Germanic Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much detail. The Bulgarian Empires are mentioned in the exact level of detail they had influence in the period for. It's level of detail is based on the coverage in the broad histories of the period. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why about Carolingian empire and Byzantine has detail information, but about Bulgarian empire has nothing? We can't ignore the history and processes of one of the three empires of Europe.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points:

I'd be keen that we follow the BRD pattern here.

In terms of the weighting for an individual country within a large overview article, where naturally everyone would like an expansive section on their specialist area (myself included!) I would normally look to a high quality academic overview history of the period, and examine what kind of weighting/balance they provide the topics. Sumatro, or one of the IP editors, if you could identify an overview or two of the Middle Ages in Europe that gives more prominence to this issue, that would be a good way to influence the discussion (and certainly my opinion).

The referencing of the proposed text though is very poor, and not up to the standard I'd expect in a Featured Article. Leaving aside the fact that it is all in a jumble of different styles, each different to that in the rest of the article, counter to the MOS guidance, the sources themselves are pretty odd or handled poorly. I'm not sure who checked them, but it needs a lot of work. In particular:

• Pauli Historia Langobardorum VI.31, MGH SS rer Lang I, p. 175 - this appears to be a primary source, the History of the Lombards, written in Latin during the 8th century. Why is this a high-quality reliable source? Also, see the WP:PRIMARY advice.
• "Андреев, Й. Българските ханове и царе (VII-XIV в.). София", Page number?
• http://istoria-vuz.hit.bg/tervel.html - a dead link, at least from my machine. It might have become dead since it was added to this article the other day, but I suspect it wasn't checked in the first place.
• Theophanes, ibid., p. 397. I've no idea which ibid it is referring to, since it isn't mentioned previously.
• "Vita S. démentis" - no idea who/what this is referring to.
• "Енциклопедия България, Академично издателство "Марин Дринов", 1988" - what makes this tertiary source a high-quality reliable source? (NB: missing page numbers, bibliographic information, editor and author as well)
• "Dimitrov, Bulgaria: illustrated history." Leaving aside details like his full name, page numbers etc., what makes this a high-quality source?
• "De Boor, Сarl Gothard (1888). Vita Euthymii. Berlin: Reimer, p. 214" - Is a 1888 work really the best contemporary academic source for medieval Bulgarian history? In most other fields of history, there is more recent scholarship to draw on.
• "Delev, Zlatnijat vek na bǎlgarskata kultura." - Would have been more meaningful with its full title (including the other authors).

Several entire paragraphs and a range of sentences are completed unreferenced, including statements like the "Bulgarian ruler was indeed a man of vision", which obviously need sourcing. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the statement you cite in your last sentence, the whole section reads to me like a nationalistic screed, perhaps mainly because the English is rather poor and unencyclopedic. This (addressed to no-one in particular) is a Featured Article: I daresay some of this information could be included, if it were well-written, well-sourced and if it were agreed that did not upset the overall balance of the article. Nortonius (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

All of these sources are absolutely reliable. What is the problem? By Carolingian empire has 3 (3, O, God!) sections and no one by Bulgarian empire. And these sections are to much detail than "First Bulgarian empire". I think that the your reason to delete this part is just political. --Sumatro (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I cut out "Bulgarian ruler was indeed a man of vision...". All other in section seems perfect, by me. Someone of editors must create new section "Second Bulgarian Empire". I agree that the history of Bulgarian Empire is very important by Medieval and Modern history of Europe and instead to attack each other, we must to created that --JanHusCz (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The comments that have been made are not political; they are about the sources and about keeping the same relative weight for each subtopic as is found in the survey sources. Sumatro/JanHusCz, please work here on getting consensus before continuing to edit the article -- a good way to do it is to post here the material you'd like to add and let people comment. And please note the comments about this being a featured article; I don't know if you're familiar with the featured article process, but it means that multiple people have reviewed the article and agreed it is high quality. That means there's a consensus for the current text; you need to get agreement here on the talk page before making significant changes. One thing you might consider is adding your text to a subarticle; perhaps someone here can suggest an appropriate place for the material you added (if it is well-sourced). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources are not reliable nor are they verifiable. The Bulgarian "Empire" before the additions is given the weight that it recieves in the high quality academic overviews. Quite honestly, the "Empire" part is not at all used most histories of the period. The Bulgars get four mentions in Collins' Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 - and never once are referred to as an Empire. Krum's polity is usually called a "Khanate" or Khaganate. Wickham mentions the Bulgars or Bulgaria a lot less than he does the Byzantines or Carolingians. Two mentions in Barber's The Two Cities. Bulgaria and the Bulgars gets 18 mentions (including its modern rebirth and other mentions besides just medieval Bulgaria) in Davies' Europe (which is 1200+ pages). Its pretty clear that this section is undue weight based on the overview histories. It needs to go. It's not like Bulgaria isn't mentioned - it is. It obviously isn't mentioned enough for the nationalists, but frankly, Bulgaria (except when it interacted with Byzantium) wasn't that influential in medieval European history. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I see the sources and I think that these are reliable. I don't understand why you delete the subarticle in this case instead to editing new information and to make a too better. Your way is not constructive--JanHusCz (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not listening to what I say. It's undue weight to give that much space to the Bulgarians when the reliable overview sources (that I've quoted above) do not near that much space to the subject. We follow the sources, not what editors think. Nor are the sources reliable for the reasons given above. You haven't addressed that, you've just said "I think they are reliable." Nor is edit warring constructive. Nor is using alternative accounts - it certainly appears that Sumatro and JanHusCz are closely related if you look at their past contributions. Kindly revert your additions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like parts of the additions are just copied from First Bulgarian Empire - "In 680 Asparukh founded after the Battle of Ongal the First Bulgarian Empire, south of the Danube on Byzantine territory." and "Under the great Khan Krum (803–814), also known as Crummus and Keanus Magnus, Bulgaria expanded southward and to the northwest, occupying the lands between the middle Danube and Moldova, the whole territory of present-day Romania, Sofia in 809." - this is another problem - copying between Wikipedia articles needs attribution. And it's not summary style to just copy large chunks of the article over here. WAYY too many problems with these additions. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, copying and pasting material is guaranteed to unbalance the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Per Ealdgyth, I feel that adding this lengthy section is undue weight on this Featured Article. --John (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think that there is too much detail in the sections, as they were added, but on the other hand, I feel that the article, as it stands, could deal with the union of this rather extensive area a little more fully than it does at present. The fact that Western European writers have dealt with it rather lightly can be a reflection of a Western viewpoint. Amandajm (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to propose a high-quality, general overview of Europe in the Middle Ages from a contemporary Eastern European academic for comparison, that would be useful. (NB: I'd be slightly biased towards something that has been translated into English, or is in Russian, for linguistic reasons!) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria is Tsartstvo ( Kingdom ), Tsardom, which mean Empire. Tsar is Medieval Bulgarian variant of Emperor (from Ceaser - Цезар (Цясарь - Old Bulgarian) - црь - царь - цар - Tsar). Tervel in 705 received a title Ceaser from Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (one century before Carolingian to became empire). Bulgarian Empire is second in Europe, after Byzantine (Bozhidar Dimitrov, Georgi Bakalov, Georgi Markov). In many books Bulgarian empire is called "Third Rome" (Dmitrii Lihachov) Obviously you know nothing about Bulgarian and European history. And before to delete, please read!

5 reasons for including the First Bulgarian Empire in this article:

- Over 718 Bulgarian Emperor Tervel defeated the Arabs near Constantinople and prevents the Arab invasion of Europe. For this reason it is called " Savior of Europe". http://www.programata.bg/?p=62&c=1&id=51493&l=2 Exposition, Dedicated to Khan Tervel http://calendar.dir.bg/inner.php?d=16&month=2&year=2009&cid=&sid=&eid=51734 НИМ представя изложбата "Кан Тервел - спасителят на Европа" http://www.speedylook.com/Bulgaria.html Bulgaria at Sleedh Look encyclopedia http://www.bulgarite.info/node/5 Кан Тервел - спасителят на Византия и ЕВРОПА]

- Tervel was the first foreign ruler in history who received the title of Caesar - the second imperial title in the Byzantine Empire

- At the time of Simeon I the Great Bulgarian culture reached heights not exist anywhere in Europe at that time (with the exception of Byzantium ) . Literature and art of the Preslav Literary School are comparable to those of the Renaissance in Europe (Dimitrov - 12 duties in Bulgarian history (http://www.book.store.bg/p5851/12-mita-v-bylgarskata-istoria-bozhidar-dimitrov.html), Vasil Gyuzelev - Boris)

- In Preslav Literary School was created the Cyrillic alphabet, which today wrote more than 300 million people and which is one of the official alphabets of the European Union now. Bulgaria is the only one country in Europe that does not use foreign alphabet, and created own. Later the Cyrillic alphabet was adopted in the rest of the Slavic world (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus, Macedonia and others). That is one of the resons Bulgaria is called the "Third Rome."

- Bulgaria's capital Veliki Preslav is the second largest city in Europe in this time (200 000 pop.), after Constantinople.

- Bulgarian church is the first independent church in the history of Europe. In 927 it received the status of the Patriarchate, as is today.

- The Bulgarian language is the first to violate the trilingual dogma and became the official language of the church (893 - Preslav council) . It was the first written Slavic language.

- In Bulgaria in the 10th century was born Bogomilism spread throughout Europe and was made influence by church life in Europe.

- In the 9-10 century Bulgaria is one of the largest military and political force in Europe ("Bulgaria on three seas")

The Second Bulgarian Empire :

- The capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire Tarnovo is called Third Rome. There are created Tarnovo Literary School - one of the most influence medieval scientific academies. In 1393 , when the Ottomans conquered Tarnovo, many Bulgarian writers like fled to Russia, where he began enlightenment . Russian scientist Dmitry Likhachev called this " Second Bulgarian influence." Russian culture was created based on the books and translations of the writers of the Tarnovo school.

- Frescoes in the Boyana Church. There are the reason some scientists to believe that Renaissance has occurred in Bulgaria in 1259 (http://www.btv.bg/shows/btv-reporterite/videos/video/1231715464-bTV_Reporterite_Koy_e_boyanskiyat_maystor.html http://www.btv.bg/zavetite/novini/story/1510657883-Nayizvestnata_dvoyka_na_Srednovekovna_Bulgaria.html. But by more scientists there are just a "mount of Medieval art".--Sumatro (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sumatro, I've reverted your additions again. Your comments above do not address the point that other editors are making; find reliable sources that provide more relative weight to the Bulgarians in coverage of this period. As Amandajm and Hchc2009 say, you might be able to convince people to add a few sentences if you can find appropriate sources, but you are going the wrong way about it. Please stop editing the article until you have consensus here, and please start citing sources that support your position on relative weight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In article are presenting many reliable sources, which confirmed that. What is the problem?--Sumatro (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sumatro, what several of us have said above is that the coverage of the Bulgarian empire in a summary article like this needs to be driven by how academics weight the coverage in professional publications summarising medieval Europe. If academics normally give a topic a chapter of its own, for example, then you would expect a weighty section in an article like this. If it barely gets a mention, you wouldn't expect an encyclopedia article to give it much coverage. I've explained above why the sources listed earlier aren't being used properly (dead links; page numbers missing etc.); I'd welcome you filling in the missing details. I'd also be keen to see an Eastern European academic overview of the Middle Ages to compare the weighting against. Sources like the dir.bg calendar of upcoming parties, anniversaries etc., or a TV show, though isn't the sort of source I'd consider reliable for this though. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Alert to Western European Wikipedians: Steven Runchman informs us:

".... It is a pity; for there are many passages in Balkan history interesting and important enough to deserve recording. But few have been recorded satisfactorily. In Eastern Europe there has been too much passion; while Western Europe has adopted the attitude that nothing of consequence happened in Eastern Europe till the growth of the so-called Eastern Question in the course of the eighteenth century. Thus the First Bulgarian Empire has remained a vague and ill-known period, whose very name falls as a surprise on most Western ears. But its story deserves attention, both for its significance in the history of Europe, and also for its own qualities and the study of the great men that were its rulers. It is in the hope of winning for it some of this attention that I have written this book." Reference: Steven Runciman, A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, (G. Bell & Sons, London 1930)

I want to point out here that, despite the manner in which Sumatro is going about this process, the editors of this page need to recognise that they are being told is you have made an omission and it needs to be rectified.

All I can say is, get on with it.

It is not entirely up to Sumatro to find the sources. Now you know that there is a problem, get on with the research that is necessary to fix it.

Amandajm (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I did consult Curta's Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250 to see how much weight the Bulgarian polities get there. They get about the same amount of space as the other states surrounding the Byzantine empire. Which, in this article, get about the same amount of detail. We're not ignoring Bulgaria, folks. IT's in here, it's just not getting equal treatment to the Carolingian Empire or especially the Byzantine. Basically, it boils down to non-Bulgarians tend to see the history of Bulgaria in the middle ages as that of a second rank power at best. Not on par with the big polities. However Curta says that Bulgarian historians tend to see Bulgaria as a "medieval state par excellence". Curta covers Bulgaria pretty much as it's treated here. We cannot go past the sources, folks. Much of the claims above aren't borne out by reliable sources. The Cyrillic claims are murky - Saints Cyril and Methodius are credited with the first Slavonic writing system ... their disciples were the creators of Cyrillic, but it wasn't the first system for writing Slavic languages. I'm not seeing that there is a "problem" still - I need to see sources that cover Bulgaria as equal to the Carolingian empire or the Byzantine empire before I'd say there was a problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC

On the contrary, the Bulgarian Empire does not need to be equal in significance to the Carolingian and Byzantine Empires in order to require a a somewhat fuller treatment than it is getting at present.

Currently we have this:

• 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'.[126]
• The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria and the city-state of Venice.

When I look at First Bulgarian Empire, I find that under Simeon the Great there was an empire that extended over Modern Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Serbia, and into the Ukraine. Of course, Western Scholars may dismiss it as insignificant, but it seems to me that it affected a large number of Medieval lives, for a time span of several hundred years.

This needs more fully dealing with than the two cursory mentions that are currently in the text.

Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that Runciman's book - entitled "A history of the Bulgarian empire" - focuses heavily on the Bulgarian empire, Amandajm. :) The weighting of the article seems in accordance with academic overview histories of medieval Europe that I've read in English and French. I'm afraid I'm not going to "get on with it" and exhaustively work through general non-English works looking for exceptions. As noted above, language and the availability of the work permitting, I'd happily try and take a look at an academic work showing a different weighting if someone were to flag it up, or listen to their conclusions if they were to precis their findings here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The point being made by Runciman appears to me to be that there has been an imbalance and that his book has been written to redress it.

Are you really seeking to find balance in those books where Runciman has already been stated that you will not find it?

I am suggesting that you take Runciman's view seriously. His book appears to have been written in English.

Can I suggest again that the size of the area be taken into account.

Can I also suggest that if this neglected empire made serious incursions into the Byzantine realms, then they are worthy of consideration for themselves, not simply as an enemy?

To look critically at the two mentions that we have:

• 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'.[126]

This quotation, in reference to Bulgaria, is about the events of the 9th century. There is no indication that the Bulgars had been a power to be reckoned with for about 300 years before they accepted Christianity, and that after this event they consolidated into a power that controlled a large area.

• The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria and the city-state of Venice.

The second mention is of event about 200 years later. We haven't been told that Bulgaria exists, but we are supposed to know it, when the Byzantine lands are divided.

Conclusion The indications are that some mention needs to be made of the existence of a Bulgarian Empire. This may be just a single, well constructed sentence that puts the whole matter concisely, but it needs to be said in a way that, at present, it is not.

When somebody points out that there is a gap in the information, then there is a better way to respond than is currently happening.

Amandajm (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, bitching edit summaries like the following don't do justice to you or your contribution to the article: "..... And is it too much to ask for people to conform their citations to the style already in the article?? integrate into text"

Please take into account that before anyone made changes to your article, you were requested to do it yourself. This request was made, not out of respect for your "ownership" but out of respect for your (presumed) greater knowledge of the subject. The same applies to the very minor changes suggested (below) to improve the expression, and which also met with unpleasant edit summaries of the "ridicule" type. You are getting into a bad habit there.

Please read the conclusion of my post, immediately preceding this one. Amandajm (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. Rather than reply with anything, I'll just say if you're offended, i'm sorry, but it is very annoying (and something I'm constantly having to fix across many many articles - not just here and not just with you) that someone comes in and doesn't even try to fit the citation style of their additions to the style already in use in an article. I try very very hard NOT to do that to other editors - and it's something I call out on a regular basis. As for your other points - I'm sorry if you're offended. It isn't my total intention to be annoying to you. (And I'm done, because nothing I say will resolve anything and I have no desire to get into a long back and forth with you over this.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the version that I suggest to be added in article. There are use only academic books, which are easily verifiable. Now I think that hasn't problem with adding of information about the third important state in European Middle Ages.

First Bulgarian Empire

Main article: First Bulgarian Empire

Khan Krum feasts after the victory at Varbitsa Pass.

In 680 Khan Asparukh founded after the Battle of Ongal the First Bulgarian Empire, south of the Danube on Byzantine territory. Asparuh's successor, Khan Tervel helped the deposed Byzantine Emperor Justinian II to regain his throne in 705. After that Emperor Justinian II named Tervel Caesar, the first foreigner in history, who receive this title.. During the siege of Constantinople in 717–718 he sent 50,000 troops to help the besieged city. In the decisive battle the Bulgarians massacred around 30,000 Arabs and Khan Tervel was called The saviour of Europe by his contemporaries.

Structure of the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th to 10th century

Under the great Khan Krum (803–814) Bulgaria expanded southward and to the northwest, occupying the lands between the middle Danube and Moldova, the whole territory of present-day Romania, Sofia in 809 and Adrianople in 813, threatening Constantinople itself. Between 804 and 806 the Bulgarian armies thoroughly eliminated the Avar Khanate and a border with the Frankish Empire was established along the middle Danube. In 811 Krum defeating a large Byzantine army in the battle of the Varbitsa Pass, which confirms Bulgarian hegemony in Southeastern Europe. Krum implemented legal reform, establishing equal rules and punishment for all peoples living within the country's boundaries, intending to reduce poverty and to strengthen the social ties in his vastly enlarged state.

In 870, at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Bulgarian Church was recognized as an Autonomous Eastern Orthodox Church under the supreme direction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the first Church officially accepted, apart from the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. During the Council of Preslav in 893, Bulgaria adopted the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language as official language of the church and state, which became the third official language, recognized by the Churches and used during services and in Christian literature. Boris I commissioned the creation of two theological academies - in Ohrid and in the capital Preslav - to be headed by their disciples Clement of Ohrid, Naum of Preslav and Angelarius where the future Bulgarian clergy was to be instructed in the local vernacular. These academies can be considered a prototype of the Bulgarian - Slavic University.

Old Bulgarian Alphabet

Glagolitic alphabet, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius, had distinctive decorative complexity and was difficult to write. Clement of Ohrid and his students created much more functional alphabet - the Cyrillic alphabet. In the 10th century Bulgarian missionaries managed to impose this alphabet in Russia and the Serbian principality. Today Cyrillic is official writing system in many countries from the Adriatic Sea to the Pacific Ocean.

By the late 9th and the beginning of the 10th century, Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessaly in the South, Bosnia in the West and controlled the whole of present-day Romania and Eastern Hungary to the North. Under Tsar Simeon I (Simeon the Great), who was educated in Constantinople, Bulgaria became again a serious threat to the Byzantine Empire and reached its greatest territorial extension. Simeon I styled himself "Emperor (Tsar) of the Bulgarians and Autocrat of the Greeks", a title which was recognized by the Pope, but not of course by the Byzantine Emperor nor the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He was recognized "Emperor (Tsar) of the Bulgarians" by the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch only at the end of his rule.

By 917 Simeon I broke every attempt of the Byzantine Empire to form an alliance with the Magyars, the Pechenegs, and the Serbs, and the Byzantines were forced to fight alone. On 20 August the two armies clashed at Achelous in one of the greatest battles in the Middle Ages. The Byzantines suffered an unprecedented defeat, leaving 70,000 killed on the battlefield; the pursuing Bulgarian forces defeated the remainder of the enemy armies at Katasyrtai. In the beginning of 10th century Bulgarian Empire was one of the most powerful states in Europe. During Simeon's reign, Bulgaria reached its cultural apogee, becoming the literary and spiritual centre of Slavic Europe. In this respect, Simeon continued his father Boris' policy of establishing and spreading Slavic culture and attracting noted scholars and writers within Bulgaria's borders.--Sumatro (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is far too long and boosterish in tone. No other state gets this sort of coverage in the article. And that's only the first empire! It isn't going to happen. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

By Carolingian empire are to much longer! In 3 sections! What is the problem?--Sumatro (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Bulgaria is too far away from France. The further a place is from France the less it fits the "medieval" paradigm. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Smec, thank you for defining the problem! That rather eliminates Constantinople from the scene, doesn't it?

But looking at the historiography, a great deal of this article is written from the point of view of the Byzantine Empire. The other "empires" of Eastern Europe are only described in terms of how they related to the Byzantine Empire.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. It just coincides, very tidily, with the way history is usually written by English authors. When I was studying Medieval History, all those long years ago, we had to do historiography as part of our course, and investigate the process of writing history, and the overwhelming one-sidedness of it, the way writers follow their personal biases, preferences, interests etc, to the exclusion of the "other". I supposed that it is still part of history courses, but I'm beginning to think they must have dropped it. After all, it was rather tedious, having to see the other chap's point of view.

Perhaps Sumatro only wants to add this information because of a personal bias of some sort. Runciman, in his book on Bulgaria, did warn that this sort of thing happens in the writing of history, but then, of course, he was rather pointing the accusation the other direction. Maybe the present contraction to one and a half lines really is enough! Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a historian by education, and I have dealt with the period of the Middle Ages. In this case User:Sumatro is absolutely correct by Bulgarian Empire. The Lack and ignorance of Bulgarian history is a huge gap, that needs to be repaired. Bulgaria has a huge weight in the medieval history of Europe and is needed by a separate sub-article in this article, like Frankish and Byzantine empires. Bulgarian Empire has its own path of development and actually becomes the third Rome. In this empire during 9-11 century became running a processes that influence the development of Eastern Europe and of Europe as a whole. That is the reason to be added in this article. It has no logic for the Frankish Empire to has three sub- articles, for Byznatine - 2, but Bulgaria is missing. The creation of Slavic writing system is very important moment in medieval history. Bulgaria is the first and only one state in middle ages which create own alphabet. Carolingian Empire was not created own alphabet and took Latin. Today thanks to bulgarian missionaries in 9-10 and 13-14 century, over 280 million people around the world write in Cyrillic (not Glagolitic on Cyril and Methodius) , which was created in Bulgaria by Clement of Ohrid.

Unfortunately I do not see any arguments by opponents of adding, which to claim the academic maturity. Sumatro realy is feel the reason, but he/she was not explain detail. The reason by ignoring Bulgarian Empire here is just political. During the Cold War, a significant part of the history of Eastern Europe (include Bulgarian) was ignored by the Western part for purely political reasons. And now also is saying too small about that in Western textbooks. That's what happens here. That's the problem with which we, today's historians should rise. But the Cold War ended before 24 years ago. Maybe the article about Bulgarian Empire will be added after 10 or 20 years, when this political hatred will be forgotten. Now once again the politics kill the history. The bad thing for Wikipedia is that the ignorance of Bulgarian empire and Eastern European historigraphy broke some of rules of Wikipedia as NPOV. But the good things are needed by time before all. --195.24.37.106 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

195.24.37.106, User:Sumatro, I want to correct a significant point that has been made here.

Historically, it probably is the politics of the Cold War that has resulted in this problem. But only in part. The other part is that the histories that are used as references on this page have been written by historians at the furthest west of Europe, and the events of Eastern Europe had little effect on them in the course of history.

British historians write about the Byzantine Empire, because the British went to the Crusades. They write about the Peninsular War because some of the most heroic British actions took place there. They don't write about Bulgaria because it hasn't had much impact on them.

The current attitudes expressed here on this talk page on Wikipedia are not caused by any current political hatred. The people here are not actively hating the countries of Eastern Europe. What you are experiencing is the prejudice of ignorance and unfamiliarity, not the prejudice of hatred.

Problems: There are three major issues.

1. The proposed addition is very long and detailed. You need to work on the addition and bring it right down to a more manageable form. While it remains very long, the editors here wll say "It can't be included because it will overbalance the article". They will not rewrite it in a suitable form. They will just say "It is too long; it is not written well enough."
2. The second problem is that the editors here want (for references) reliable recent English histories of the period that give weight and importance to the Bulgarian Empire.
3. Thirdly, (this is the hardest to overcome), some of the editors on this page have recently shown themselves as almost incapable of making a significant change, even under the circumstance of both serious editors and historian assuring them of the unprofessional, unsuitable nature of the pictorial content, and random contributors sneering at the incompetence of the writers (and Wikipedia) for allowing really unsuitable material to head up the page.

It took thousands of words, and a consensus of six regular editors and the additional comments of six unsigned editors to get the lead image of a 20th-century reproduction object changed for a genuine object. This may make you laugh, but it is a fact!

So, the message here is, don't expect any help from the regulars on this page. I have succeeded in winning you one single line of text on Bulgaria. If you come up with a really good short paragraph, and at least three English Historians as reference, plus the opinions of at least six regular contributors who say that your paragraph should get included, then you might be successful. NOTE: Your paragraph has to be short. Amandajm (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Amandajm, since you bring up the subject of "that" image, to the effect that no-one should "expect any help from the regulars on this page": as I recall, not only were most of those "thousands of words" yours, pouring out misdirected, tl;dr tirades against people whom you patently regarded as ignorant buffoons, but also they gave me an abiding mental image of you as someone running around like a headless chicken obsessing about an imaginary travesty, when in fact the answer was very simple – as was pointed out to you so many times. Again, as I recall, you expressed some shock when another image was found which achieved consensus very quickly and was substituted without demur – the simple answer was put into effect! Yet you seem to perceive that as some kind of victory against dullards! How absurd. If "the regulars on this page" were as blind to the notion of change as you clearly believe, then don't you think there might have been a fight over that new image? From what I've seen, that image has remained unmolested at the head of the article since the day it was put there. Let me be blunt: it's you who can't expect any help from the regulars on this page, because your manner is pompous, patronising and tedious in the extreme. I snap my fingers under the nose of your arrogant self-regard, and intend to have no further interaction with you. Nortonius (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Nortonius, so, having collected the opinions of twelve people scattered all over the talk page over more than a year, and finally made it clear that there really was a consensus for change, it happened. And the ultimate solution was good. It is a great "genuine" object that heads up the page.

My comment about your choice of the Mathilda Cross was that it was "an excellent choice" and very much preferable to the Lothair Cross. I didn't express any surprise whatsoever when someone (you) eventually made a choice that met agreement. I wasn't sure what you meant by my "shock" so I looked at my edit summaries, and found one that says "I find this hard to believe". This doesn't refer to the choice of the Mathilda Cross. It refers to the fact that two editors agreed that the Cross of Lothair would be good, apparently not taking into account that the central feature was a great big "non-Medieval" object, a large Roman Cameo. I really did find it hard to believe that of all the thousands of possible objects the choices had gone from a 20th-century educational object to a 1st-century recycled cameo. (The small re-used gems on the Mathilda Cross are fine, because they are not the central feature and therefore misleading)

Now we have a different issue entirely.

You have just stated that I am not going to get any help here because I'm pompous, patronising and tedious person who ultimately got the "reproduction" object removed, and I don't deserve any more help, having done that. However, you are not being asked to help me. You are being asked to help two other contributors who want to see Eastern Europe more fully dealt with than it is now.

Can you think of any reason for not helping in this matter? These people have already tried a number of approaches, including writing thousands of words on the talk page. At what point do they get taken seriously?

Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't think that I've taken this conversation seriously Amandajm. As per my comments above, I'd happily try and take a look at a current academic work showing a different weighting to the history of the period if someone were to flag it up, or listen to their conclusions if they were to precis their findings here. That doesn't have to be an English language work, just a general cross-cutting study of the medieval period from a leading academic - the sort of top quality source that you can imagine informing a featured article. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, you are right. I had missed your comment. I don't think they are likely to precis their findings. This article is fairly rigidly controlled. It is not going to be easy for these editors to have anything that they contribute accepted easily. They need to be helped. It's up to somebody here to assess the importance and do the precis. I don't believe that one and a bit lines sums up the whole story. It was a little longer (about three lines) but got cut. Something more recent than Runciman would be good, but then, I think that Runciman's criticisms ought to be taken into account. Look at the way attitudes have changed towards Eastern Europe: A few years ago, people barely knew that Prague existed. Now it is regarded as possibly the most beautiful city in Europe and people travel across the world as tourists. I suspect that an acknowledgement of Eastern European history has been slow in coming. How does one assess "importance"? I don't have access to a history library with up to date information. Amandajm (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many complications!

In the Eastern Empire the slow infiltration of the Balkans by the Slavs added a further complication. It began small, but by the late 540s Slavic tribes were in Thrace and Illyrium, and had defeated an imperial army near Adrianople in 551. In the 560s the Avars began to expand from their base on the north bank of the Danube; by the end of the 6th century they were the dominant power in Central Europe and routinely able to force the eastern emperors to pay tribute. They remained a strong power until 796.[59] An additional complication was the involvement of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) in Persian politics when he intervened in a succession dispute.

Can someone please fix this poor expression?

Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm, I'm a bit busy with dealing with the above section. Is there some reason you're suddenly afraid to edit the article and instead insist that someone else do your editing for you? It's certainly never been a problem before for you to edit the article ... so why should we jump to edit something for you instead of you just fixing it yourself? Personally, I don't see how this is a "poor expression" as it ties the last sentence into the first. Repetition isn't something that is always always bad... sometimes it's good because it ties things together. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And in other instances, on Wikipedia, the use of expressions like "another complication" are labelled "Weasel words" and a banner to that effect is jammed at the head of the paragraph. "Another complication" to what, exactly? You are not being hassled by a banner to get it fixed immediately. So there is no need to take such an impatient tone. We all have lives here. We are all a little bit busy. Maybe another contributor would like to give it some thought. Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It now reads " the Eastern Empire the slow infiltration of the Balkans by the Slavs added a further difficulty. It began small, but by the late 540s Slavic tribes were in Thrace and Illyrium, and had defeated an imperial army near Adrianople in 551. In the 560s the Avars began to expand from their base on the north bank of the Danube; by the end of the 6th century they were the dominant power in Central Europe and routinely able to force the eastern emperors to pay tribute. They remained a strong power until 796.[59] An additional problem was the involvement of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) in Persian politics when he intervened in a succession dispute." I still fail to see how "complication" is a weasel word, but hopefully this resolves your issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation: You are writing about a series of historic events.

If you write "added a further difficulty" (or "complication") and "and additional problem" (or "complication") then the question arises "a further difficulty to what previous difficulty?" (or "complication" as the case may be) . Who has this difficulty? Who is it a "complication" for? Why is it a "problem" that Maurice was involved in Persian politics? Who was this a problem for? If it "complicated" something, then what was it that was made more "complicated". You have removed the doubling of the word, but haven't solved the problem.

State: "From (date) there was a slow infiltration of Slavs into the Eastern Empire through the Balkans" or some other such pertinent statement that leaves out "further difficulty/complication". You can then indicate the difficulty by another clear statement: "This caused displacement of the Byzantine people" or "this brought about aggression between the different races" or some equally meaningful statement that tells your reader more than "further difficulty/complication".

In both instances the "further difficulty" and "additional problem" should be omitted unless you state very clearly what the problem was, and who had the problem with these events. Amandajm (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of the previous paragraph "Justinian's reconquests have been criticised by historians for overextending his realm and setting the stage for the Muslim conquests, but many of the difficulties faced by Justinian's successors were due not just to over-taxation to pay for his wars but to the essentially civilian nature of the empire, which made raising troops difficult." That would be the first difficulty. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I get that. But you are writing a history of events, not an assessment of Justinian and a rebuttal of his critics. It's an an encyclopedia, not a paper. Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as this is an encyclopedia, one is required to write clearly. Your sarcastic edit summaries and your obvious resentment at being asked to improve something do you no credit. Amandajm (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)