Talk:Renaissance/Archive 1

message: A period of such historical importance should be much more than a bunch of lists, methinks. Tothebarricades.tk 21:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion needed 

message: This is a large and complicated topic. I wonder how much can be done in a single article. There is a seperate page for the Italian renaissance. Perhaps a lot of the details should be moved there. Things that could be in this page include: historiography, definition, origins, signifigance, transmission. Keeping on topic with the term its self and leaving the specifc of the history for other articles. Have seperate pages for each of the renaissances like Italy, England, Germany, Spain with the specifics of cultural adancements. Seperate pages for the history of the period. I think someone who comes here and says "what is the renaissance?" should be able to get a good feel for it on a high level then branch off to more specific articles. Stbalbach 21:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization and structure 

message: I feel that US-specific spellings should be avoided on this article - the topic mainly discusses European history (yes it's relevant to the thereafter - but US-isms placed here are particularly striking). <B>zoney</B> ███ <B>talk</B> 14:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. First and foremost - one spelling convention per article - i.e. each article is at least consistent. If an article is about a US topic - then US spelling. If about a UK or commonwealth / non-US topic, then British/International spelling. Ambiguous articles (very general topics), are generally left in the language they were started in. I argue that this topic is more European than anything else - and Europe generally uses international spelling, as used in Britain and Ireland. The European Union article for example, is written in British/International English. <B>zoney</B> ███ <B>talk</B> 15:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: We need a section on sculpture and at least a small intro to music and dance, as opposed to the two links there.. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sculpture/dance and music 

message: The Italian renaissance spread to Croatia - Gundulić, Menčetić, Držić, Vetranović, Zlatarić.  I'd like to mention it, but I don't know where. --VKokielov 03:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian Offspring 

message: God, it was hard to find this page--it's a hard word to spell. We need to set up a network of redirects to the article. Any ideas for pages that should redirect here? Any that aleady do? HereToHelp 20:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: I wrote a paragraph in the Renaissance article titled But what is the Renaissance? and I just wanted to say I would appreciate it if it were not deleted as I believe others will find it of some help. It explains breifly what the word 'Renaissance' means in a form that young learners can understand. 
Sincerely, User
- 4/10/05_12:32pm -
:Sorry, I did delete it. First off it was wrong. Renaissance is not an Italian word. Secondly the subject is already well covered later in the article. - SimonP 04:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what is the renaissance. 

message: Why do the Van Eyck paintings keep turning up on Renaissance-related paintings? He was not a renaissance painter. Many even refuse to call him early renaissance, but rather classify him as late gothic. Nothing about the merits of the painter, but to illustrate the northern renaissance far better examples are possible. Piet 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Eyck 

message: Early Renissance redirects here. Early Renissance is proped to be merger with Early Renissance Art, which is also proposed to be merged with Quattrocento. (Which is silly because Early Renissance redirects here!) Links on this page to "Renissance Painting" redirect to Early Renissance Art described in my last sentance. Clearly there is a redirect/merger mess here. I would ask whose in charge here, but we are in charge. It looks like some of this work was undertaked a few years(!)ago but I don't know how much of that was accomplished.Lizz612 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is Quattrocento is a term used by art historians so it should deal with the fine arts in Italy. So everything seems OK - although Early Renissance Art could cover any country, not just Italy - so disagree with that merger. Also Early Renaissance should clearly not merge with Early Renaissance Art. -- Stbalbach 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted those merge tags altogether. Someone added them and made no discussion to rationalize it. Confusing and largely incorrect understanding of what these terms mean. -- Stbalbach 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection mess 

message: I've dropped by to review the article for GA. The work here is well done, but short of GA in one respect. The GA standards now require in-line references, which this article does not use. I normally look for at least one reference per section. The point behind these is so the reader can easily move from the article into its supporting literature. For example, if I was curious about the coining of the term and wanted to go to Giorgio Vasari's work, an inline note would let me know where in the fine bibliography of this article I would look.
Although it really isn't necessary for GA status, the language could use some work. We should avoid passives, long sentences, uncommon english terms such as "efflorescence" and semi-colons. These kinds of things tend to slow down english readers and seem to make the text feel ambiguous (even when the text is precise). 
I've put the article on hold to let you all get at it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this should be a historiography article about the term - it's origins and (mis)use, not unlike Dark Ages versus Middle Ages articles. -- Stbalbach 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  The article needs a better focus to make it more than just a retread of the Italian Renassance article.  Eusebeus 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (Besides: I think it's a perfectly proper heading, since it's a common scientific topic). Rursus 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom 

message: The hold has expired on this article's nom. When time permits, please follow the suggestions above and renom. It only needs a little work left for GA status. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed; Hold Expired 

message: * for example, hold the view that the changes in art, literature, and philosophy affected only a tiny minority of the very wealthy and powerful, leaving the lives of the great mass of the European population unchanged. should be complemented with a citation for it is purely refutable as many articles didn't come from the high bourgeoisie. In fact, many of them were children of peasants, and then later became acquiainted with the royalties through their painting/scupting talent.
* Another passage, Many people who lived during the Renaissance did not view it as the "golden age" imagined by certain 19th century authors, but were concerned by these social maladies., needs to be cited as it claims a fact not to be seen in all the Renaissance litterature.
* Such a subject as nominalism should be expanded upon to give more strength to the claim.
* Can Causes really be the name of a section which talks about the emergence of the Renaissance? I would choose something that carries information on the fact that it is the beginning, Start of Renaissance. This is only an opinion, if you feel it doesn't need to be changed just don't do it.
* The subsection Causes should have inline citations to let readers know who came up with such arguments as those for the starting point of the Renaissance.
* This article should stick to one type of english (I would guess British English as per the MoS).
* Is There were collaborations between patricians and artisans without which the Renaissance could not have occurred. Thus it makes sense to adopt a civic theory of the Renaissance rather than a great man theory. some material taken out of books or not for it could pass as original research, a citation would be greatly appreciated.
Lincher 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional comments 

message: Ahh, I think the Causes section in the Renaissance is very fascinating (and a little fuzzy), but I would like to have some more citations and references to make the text more significant and stringent (read: "rhetoric with NPOV kept"). Rursus 12:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Besides: I think it's a perfectly proper heading, since it's a common scientific topic). Rursus 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation need for theories of causes

message: Why isn't education in the Renaissance even touched on in this article? It's certainly a worthwhile topic . . . --Bertieismyho 04:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: Though generally the article is not too bad, it drifts here and there and on more than one occassion uses old fashioned quasi-Hegelian ideas. Take "Early Renaissance arrived in the Iberian peninsula.." It is a bit humerous in fact to imagine this. Brosi 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange wordings 

message: What does this mean? "When the Roman Empire fell, some carried its knowledge to the Middle East for safe keeping." Where did this safe keeping take place and what was "its knowledge" Are we talking about te Sassanian Empire or something. And what "body of knowledge" was brought back???? The 12 and 13th centuries in the West were influenced to a high degree by Islamic philosophy and mathematics, is that what this is about..Brosi 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  very odd phrasing 

message: The first sentence could be redone too: "In the traditional view,...." what tradition? whose tradition? 
Should it not -at least - be something "In the view many historians since the middle of the nineteenth century." But even that is a bit too loose and difficult to unsubstantiate. The "traditional" view is still the basic view, and so the contrasts with the "modern" does not apply.Brosi 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another wording issue 

message: Just throwing in my two cents on the above discussion on the "causes" of the rennaissance. Certainly it is easy to argue that a lot of things contributed to the rennaissance and I am not a historian. However, I believe most of the "causes" listed (although they are certainly "traditional" arguments among Western scholars) really are more incidental issues rather than "causes." For example, the internal problems in the church and the rise of the middle class likely created a positive climate for the Rennaissance but from what I read these really didn't make the Rennaissance happen. The specific reason that rediscovering the Roman/Greek heritage became trendy in Italy was all the Byzantine Romans carrying documents and education which hadn't existed in Western Europe for hundreds of years flooding into Italy as Constantinople was going down the tubes. Contact in various forms with the Arabs certainly contributed dramatically as well but I have never read anything (nor would I believe very easily) that the Europeans were inspired to learning by the Arabs directly. If anything, until the Rennaissance was well under way, Western Europeans tended to disdain anything Arab simply by virtue of its being Islamic. It was the Eastern Romans (i.e. Byzantines) who tended to be a little more open-minded about accepting new things from foreign cultures.
I'm not arguing that these other "causes" should not be discussed, but the way things are worded, the contributions of the Eastern Romans and the Arabs are significantly more downplayed than seems appropriate given the understandings of modern historians. 
--Mcorazao 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation of discussion on causes 

message: I do not like the term 'causes' since it seems to suggest that one or the other led directlty to the Renaissance. The term should be 'contributing factors'or 'contextual considerations.' The 'great man argument' is not a cause but a historical argument, and a not very good one at that. 'The Balck Pague theory' is not a 'theory' it was a real event the economic impact of which has been discussed by historians as playing an impotrant part in the economics of th erly renaisance. etc. ANyway.. the whole section needs to get redone and put in a more scholarly-professional tone.Brosi 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on 'causes' 

message: The BIG problem though is that this article is about the Italian Renaissance and overlapps with the site Italian Renaissance which is better organized etc.. This site, should be more generally about the renaissance and various renaissances. i.e. it should be MUCH shorter.We can fiddle with this page all we want but if it overlapps with Italian Renaissance then we are doing a diservice to the users.Brosi 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big problem 

message: "Raphael was famous for depicting illustrious figures of the Classical past with the features of his Renaissance contemporaries. The School of Athens (above) is perhaps the most extended study in this." 
This is an exaggeration. Raphael was famous for portraits and Madonnas. He did, however, execute a number of frescoes at the Vatican in which he portrayed Pope Leo X as an earlier Pope and, in another fresco, Pope Julius II observing a scene from antiquity. The School of Athens is remarkable in its extensive depiction of contemporaries, rather than being something that Raphael was, in general, known for.
--Amandajm 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School of Athens 

message: In the historiography part -- Yes Wiedererwachung is correct, (i.e. rebirth) BUT the source here - a book by the eminent Erwin Panofsky - sais Wiedererwachsung (which of course means something a bit different: 're-growth' or something to taht effect) p. 8. Renaissacne and Renascences. So what to do? Should we go with the assumption that the source made the error?Brosi 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiedererwachung or Wiedererwachsung  

message: This page receives so much vandalism - is there any way to put a block on the page!Brosi 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Surfing through the topics, I realized that we still have no survey article about "Renaissance technology", though we already have one on "Medieval technology". This is really a deficit, since  a wealth of exciting technological developments took place in the Renaissance like
* patent laws
* linear perspectivity
* printing press
* bastion
* new and more powerful hoisting machines
* new and more powerful cannon
* double shell domes and many others
And we have those famous artist-engineers like Taccola, Keyser or daVinci whose drawings show the whole range of technology then. So, why don't we create a new topic called 'Renaissance technology'? Gun Powder Ma 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaissance technology 

message: Hey, I found this site just a bit ago and it has a lot of information on the Renaissance. It's in PDF format: Compendium. There is problay some useful information there. --Ashfire908 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source of information 

message: This article refers to the Renaissance as a historical age, both in its introduction and the section of the same name. However, I think this might be quite an outmoded way of describing the Renaissance (as is evidenced by the 19th century works cited by that section). I'm only an undergraduate, but in all of the works I've read, it is described as a cultural movement, seperate from a historical age (I suppose it straddled the middle ages and the early modern period). Would anyone object to me changing the article to reflect these views? Tommaisey 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Renaissance as a historical age