Talk:Byzantine literature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Byzantine literature is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. | ||||||
| If you would like to participate, you can improve Byzantine literature, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | |||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet been prioritized. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
Byzantine literature is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Added some pics to liven it up, as I have with the rest of the topics on the Byzantine Template, done some polishing to Byzantine Medicine as well.
[edit] Removing images
It looks like Wetman reverted the addition of several images from the article [1], but I'm not clear on how the reason corresponds with the removal. Can you let us know? Thanks! Demi T/C 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was just an incidental reversion of all the edits made by a certain anonymous asshole who had been blocked. The images should be alright though. Adam Bishop 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam. My edit summary stated "(rv series of anonymous edits from unreliable source: please check whether valuable text has been reverted)". Valuable text could have been inserted even by the known vandal, after whom I had been cleaning up, thus a check from an informed editor was requested. No real need to ring my doorbell... --Wetman 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to interupt on your love-in, but that was wetman must justify his removal of text, in the discussion page and consult with other members in concern to whether he can rationalize their removal. He did no such thing. He removed on the basis it was me, and judged me to be an 'unreliable source' based on the fact I vandalized his user page, this alone does not constitute a reason for removal.
- Thank you, Adam. My edit summary stated "(rv series of anonymous edits from unreliable source: please check whether valuable text has been reverted)". Valuable text could have been inserted even by the known vandal, after whom I had been cleaning up, thus a check from an informed editor was requested. No real need to ring my doorbell... --Wetman 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If you people want to copy articles from other encyclopedias, say, the catholic encyclopedia [2], you can at least try to do it right. Copy the text as it is in the original source (and cite the source), do not copy what you like and change what you don't like. user:anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.191.175 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I made some edits in the lead and in the first section of the article (not really a cleanup as stated in my edit-summary), replacing the outdated and badly quoted information of the Catholic encyclopaedia with information from the latest version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. I don't know how credible the catholic encyclopaedia is, but a source which calls the Orthodox Church by the names "Graeco-Judaic christianity" and "Greek schismatic Church" doesn't strike as too neutral in my books. I'm not saying that it's a bad source, but I think it shouldn't be preferred over modern sources. So I'm suggesting that all subsections concerning a Greek, christian, roman and oriental element should be removed and replaced with something more mainstream. I have yet to see such a dubious analysis of Byzantine literature in modern scholarship. Miskin 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
