Talk:Byzantium after Byzantium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Confusing sentence
The following line needs to be fixed: "Stephen the Great of Moldavia would of marry one of the last Byzantine princess, Maria of the Principality of Theodoro in 1472." Did he, or did he not marry Maria? Regardless, "would of" should be "would have" --Thiseye 03:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV fork
This whole article seems entirely misconceived to me. Byzantium after Byzantium is the title of a book, but this book is not what the article is about. The article simply uses the book as a source, in order to promote a specific interpretation of the history of Romania. As such, the article constitutes a POV fork of the history article where such things would belong, i.e. History of Romania or whatever of its many sub-article fits best (probably Early Modern Romania). "Byzantium after Byzantium", in itself, does not constitute an encyclopedic topic at all. I strongly advise to merge this, somewhere, wherever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is not about the history of Romania, and hence it cannot be a specific interpretation of it. Bizant dupa Bizant is a cultural movement which can not be attibuted specifically to any time period: Middle Ages or Early Modern Times. As the Renaisance is used to describe an epoch in western art, literature, philosophy, etc., so is the sintagm Bizant dupa Bizant used in Romanian works pertaining to the history of church art, architecture, church literature... For example: here is the content of a Romanian Phd course in the history of art:
[1] Formarea culturii bizantine. Arta bizantină până la domnia împăratului Justinian;
- Arta bizantină de la Justinian până în perioada iconoclastă;
- Arta bizantină de la victoria asupra iconoclasmului până la prima cădere a Constantinopolului în 1204;
- Arta bizantină de la renaşterea paleolitică până la căderea definitivă a Bizanţului în 1453;
- Bizanţ după Bizanţ. Moştenirea artei bizantine în ţările ortodoxe.
- Unlinke re-hellenisation for example, Byzantium after Byzantium is an existent and used term, which refers to something clear and specific. 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- That may well be. But what the article is currently doing is nevertheless a general tour of Romanian history after the Ottoman conquest, and hence a fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do I have to repeat?!? This is not about "history", about a well defined chronological time period. 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- At the very least, one should clarify the scope of the article: Is it supposed to deal with the whole legacy of Byzantium ("imperial heritage related to the political, social, cultural, and intellectual background of the history of Southeastern Europe..."), or only or primarily with Romania ("...as examplified by the strong links established between the Empire and two principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia")? Currently it effectively does the latter, but the quote you gave above seems to imply that the phrase is also used in the former sense. If this article can be pruned down into something useful, I would suggest Post-Byzantine culture of Romania or something similar as a more descriptive title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- It simply cannot be "post-Byzantine" because it contradicts with the very idea of what this article is trying to say: while it is argued that Byzantium ceased to exist in 1453, in fact it has not, but continued in Wallachia and Moldavia. And you can`t simply say that it refers to a period "after the Ottoman conquest", for the simple reason that there was no conquest. The only conquest was over the Byzantine Empire, but as what Byzantium meant in terms of culture was not restricted to the borders of the empire, the idea of Byzantium contined to exist outside the conquered space (and also, what Byzantium meant, did not "sprung" only in the Byzantine Empire, but developed within the space from Russia to the Melkite Churches in Siria, hence you can`t hyjack the idea of Byzantium, and confer it only to the lands within a certain borders)... 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Articles shouldn't be "trying to say" things that are not commonly accepted in English terminology. "Byzantium" refers to the state of Byzantium, which ceased to exist in 1453. "Post-Byzantine" refers to whatever remained after that, ideas and whatnot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I`m not. Others, starting with Nicolae Iorga, did. The article is about what they "tried to say", to use your logic, not about what I try to say. Greier 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Articles shouldn't be "trying to say" things that are not commonly accepted in English terminology. "Byzantium" refers to the state of Byzantium, which ceased to exist in 1453. "Post-Byzantine" refers to whatever remained after that, ideas and whatnot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- It simply cannot be "post-Byzantine" because it contradicts with the very idea of what this article is trying to say: while it is argued that Byzantium ceased to exist in 1453, in fact it has not, but continued in Wallachia and Moldavia. And you can`t simply say that it refers to a period "after the Ottoman conquest", for the simple reason that there was no conquest. The only conquest was over the Byzantine Empire, but as what Byzantium meant in terms of culture was not restricted to the borders of the empire, the idea of Byzantium contined to exist outside the conquered space (and also, what Byzantium meant, did not "sprung" only in the Byzantine Empire, but developed within the space from Russia to the Melkite Churches in Siria, hence you can`t hyjack the idea of Byzantium, and confer it only to the lands within a certain borders)... 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- That may well be. But what the article is currently doing is nevertheless a general tour of Romanian history after the Ottoman conquest, and hence a fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to be done with the article. It still seems to be a POV fork, and the title is taken directly from a book, and as far as my google searching has gone, the title is only used in relation to the book. The title of the article needs to be changed at the very least. I don't know if the current merge would work very well, but perhaps it could be reworked into a "Aftermath" section, which could be linked directly from Byzantine_Empire#Aftermath. Radagast83 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Byzantine Empire is overlong as it is. I suggest merge into Culture of Romania or an appropriate section of History of Romania (if such articles exist). --Ghirla -трёп- 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The current merge tag directs to a sub section of the History of Romania articles. I wouldn't be opposed to that merge, but most of it should be in the Romania in the Middle Ages section (which is just one era earlier than what is currently proposed). Radagast83 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, as per what`s already written just above Greier 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, It is clear you're opposed, as you're the one who opposed it above back in July. "Byzantium after Byzantium" is a title of a book. Most of the contents in the article discuss early Romanian history (Wallachia and Moldavia) post-Byzantium only. That alone makes it a fork off of articles with more formal (and accurate) titles. If it is accurate, the scope of the article has yet to be modified (even after the discussion months ago), and still only covers early Romania. At the very best I'd suggest renaming this to something more pratical and accurate (especially not a title based off of a book) and merge in other information, say Byzantine_Empire#Legacy_and_importance into it to give it a better world view of what actually happened after the Byzantine empire fell, not just what happened in Romania. Radagast83 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
