User talk:Mcorazao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Mcorazao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Neo-Jay 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Christianity page

Hey, I believe it was you who added "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two [Eastern and Oriental Orthodox] Churches collectively has little meaning."

I'm curious about your sources for this. While there are factions within both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox communions who would agree that the churches have nothing to do with each other, it's my impression (and certainly my experience) that the mainstream of each communion regards the other as extremely close or identical in doctrine, worship and spirit. I've heard stories of frequent intercommunion among the two churches, chiefly in Syria and Lebanon.

So, what's the source of your statement? Buddhagazelle 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your statement on Orthodox Christianity that "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively has little meaning". The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches typically refer to their division as "a split within Orthodoxy," rather than as the one being Orthodox and the other not. In many parts of the world, especially Lebanon and Syria, intercommunion between the two churches is authorized and frequent. Check also the "Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches" on this page, which states that "the official view of both families of Churches was clearly expressed at the 1989 meeting: 'As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other, we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the apostolic faith of the undivided Church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed.' ".
While there is a substantial minority within both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions that holds the other to be completely non-Orthodox, this is a minority position on both sides. Most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians regard the other to be also Orthodox. Removing the "Note" does not imply that the two Churches have no differences-- the differences between the two is quite clearly stated (that the one accepts seven councils and the other three). A note to clarify that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions are not (yet) in full communion with one another might be in order. But the "Note" as it stands is really very POV. Don't accuse me of making "uninformed" edits without sourcing your own claims. --Buddhagazelle 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your prompt and courteous reply. As I understand it, your worry is that the following text:

is insufficiently clear on its own, and requires a clarifying note. I have POV concerns with the note as you've written it. However, I would not have POV concerns with the following note: The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are not in communion and do not represent a unified religious tradition. As such, the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively refers more to a common Byzantine influence than to doctrinal matters.

On the principle of be bold, I'm going to go ahead and make this edit with the full expectation that you will tweak (or rewrite) it.

I apologize for turning this into a doctrinal debate, when it's really only an issue of formatting. While you and I have differing opinions on the extent of the difference between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (and I'm prepared to provide further resources and arguments to back my claims, if it's a conversation you'd like to pursue), we agree that the two Churches are separated by a 1500-year-old schism. The issue, it seems, is whether this schism is as deep as it is old, and how best the article can present neutral facts without leading naive readers into mistaken assumptions. Again, I thank you for your swift and reasonable reply, and am truly sorry for having been eager to take offense.
--Buddhagazelle 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with your rewrite, at least for now. It is a little more vague than I would like but, after all, we're talking about a clarification on a disambig page. Thanks for your efforts.
And I thank you. Perhaps a page titled Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Ecumenical Relations might eventually be in order? I think I found your note too strongly worded with regard to the amount of information it contained.
To explain further, though, they key thing is the cultural differences vs. the doctrinal differences. One can cynically state that the doctrinal differences were really excuses for politics and therefore they didn't matter. Maybe that is true and maybe it isn't but it is obviously POV. If we treat these religious traditions as legitimate, as we should, then we have to treat the schisms and the importance that they historically placed on these differences as important. You can similarly point to all sorts of interactions between these churches just as you can point to various interactions between Christians, Jews, and Muslims at various times depending on the tolerance of their political and spiritual leaders but that isn't really relevant. Ultimately a faith is a faith and regardless of cultural affiliations or "tolerance" one faith has toward another one has to respect the fact that it is their faith that defines their religion. It may be that the various Eastern faiths are truly on the verge of reuniting which would change all of this but the reconciliatory statements by themselves do not mean we trivialize the fact that they maintain their differences or treat those differences as less consequential than differences with others simply because of cultural affiliation (which, again, is not relevant if we are being truly fair to the religion and not treating the doctrine as political excuses).
--Mcorazao 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; though I wouldn't be so quick to claim that doctrine and culture are separate animals. If bishops, priests, monastics and laity of each tradition speak of the others as equally Orthodox-- as has overwhelmingly been my observation and experience everywhere I've been-- and if members of one church are communed in or received into the other without any formality or the blinking of an eye-- as again has been my experience in every Eastern Orthodox parish I've belonged to and Coptic and Indian Orthodox parish I've had friends in-- does one look at this and say "the churches are betraying their own identities"? Or does one take the words & deeds of the faithful at face value? Quite admittedly, I'm giving you anecdotal evidence and nothing scholarly. And quite admittedly there are parts of the world where the boundaries between the two communions are much less fuzzy than they are where I've lived. So all this is to say that to claim the two traditions have "nothing in common" is to claim that the words & deeds of many folks in each tradition are mistaken. Which may be true, but is certainly POV - as of course would be the claim that the differences between the two communions are inconsequential.

--Buddhagazelle 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas myths article

While of course you're welcome to request deletion of this page, especially given that you created it, I'd encourage you to reconsider. I think the improvements made to the article qualify it as encyclopedic enough to remain, and it is quite interesting (I've heard many of those myself, the facts on the "right to secede" one are especially interesting.) Thanks for the contribution and welcome, and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask on my talk or at the Help Desk. Seraphimblade 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

First, we had a pleasant exchange on Talk:History of Christianity about your POV concerns followed by my inserting a few edits on your behalf. I note that your position on early Christian heresies matches mine and I only noted the controversial nature of your proposed edits because (1) well, they are AFAIK a minority opinion among Christian theologians and pastors and (2) I had just recently debated this issue with two other editors who felt that the orthodox POV should dominate.

Understood and I agree. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So... after that exchange, I had developed a modicum of respect for you as an open-minded, progressive thinker and also a Wikipedian who was willing to show restraint in deference to other editors and in an effort to avoid conflict. I had you pegged as a reasonable although somewhat unorthodox thinker like me

Thanks I guess. :-) --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, then, let's bury the hatchet and talk substance not emotion. If I was insulting, I meant to insult a general attitude on the part of the Christian orthodoxy and not you in particular.
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you made the edit about the "uniqueness" of Christianity. That edit struck me as the sort of orthodox teaching that is fed to Sunday School kids. (um, did I forget to say "pablum"?)

I think you are thinking of something somebody said to you some time and trying to lump me in with them. Every religion is "unique" in some way. If the argument is that religions are not "unique" then we might as well not have different names for them. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I do think that Christianity is unique. I just thought that your characterization of it in contrast to Judaism was off-the-mark. --Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be insulting when I wrote my first critique of your edit. I will be a little less restrained now so that we can have an honest discussion to "clear the air". The lack of sophistication and "hewing to the party line" in your "uniqueness" edit surprised me and seemed strange to be coming from the same guy who had just excoriated the History of Christianity article for hewing to the party line on early Christian heresies.

My concern was that you attributed things to my comments that I didn't say and subtlely implied that I was anti-semetic. I don't mind when somebody says "Dude, you're not making sense." but I tend to get offended by "strawman" arguments. Your arguments really had little to do with anything I said (again, I think your argument is with somebody else that you are trying to lump me with). --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, it was what you wrote that suggested that you should be lumped with "those other guys". Maybe I over-extrapolated but it seemed to make sense to make the leap based on what you wrote.
Once again, let's talk substance not personal emotion about what was meant and what was not.
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to reread what you've just written and think about how you'd feel. --Mcorazao 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit that there was a tinge of insult in what I wrote in suggesting that your "uniqueness" lacked sophistication. However, if you can get past your emotional response to what I wrote, perhaps you can agree that it is probably not accurate to argue that Christianity was "unique" because it proselytized while Jews "kept to themselves".

I've never claimed to be a sophisticated guy. Regardless, the argument was not intended to be sophisticated. I was just suggesting a general direction (and in fact deliberately overstating to make the direction clear) and asking if anybody was going to freak if I explored it or if somebody else explored it (apparently I got my answer). --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my sense of it is that you're right about the History of Christianity not talking enough about the persecution of the Christians and the reasons for their success. I just thought that the theory you expounded of why they succeeded while the Jews didn't were off-the-mark. To tell the truth, I don't know what the experts think are the reasons why they succeeded. Let's do some research and fill in the gap.
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My argument was that both traditional Jews and Christians were proselytizing and that traditional Judaism was doing a good job of proselytizing before the Christians came along and started "perverting" (in the eyes of the Jews) the product that the Jews were selling. This, in my opinion, is the real reason that Christians like Paul of Tarsus were persecuted by the Jews. It's not just that they were sects with strange ideas (there were lots of those). It's the fact that the Christians were competing in the synagogues throughout Asia Minor and starting to make headway. (This is my personal opinion. I think it jives with what Elaine Pagels has written. I'd love to hear about any other scholars who have formed similar opinions.)

The basic point to your argument is "there is more that unites us than divides us."
Um, no. I don't think so. I think that's what Pagels thinks. I think that there was a lot of bitter internecine feuding between traditional Jews and Christians and I have to say that I don't fully know why the Christians won. My personal speculation is that it was the greater openness to cross-fertilization with other cultures.
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can say that about anything. Ultimately if you want to be perfectly fair and not make any generalizations that could be even slight oversimplifications then you simply cannot write about history at all. Setting aside that every Jew is different and every Christian is different and nobody fits any particular mould, there were and are some differences on how Jews and Christians approach things, some based on the fundamentals of the religions and some just based on arbitrary traditions.

As a practical matter the Jewish community historically tied ethnicity and religion very closely together. This has varied greatly at various times and certainly today the connection is not nearly as great for most Jews as it was in ages past. In Roman times, though, the Jews typically did tie the two pretty closely (that is, ethnicity but not necessarily race; a non-ethnic-Jew could "become" an ethnic Jew but it was not simply a matter of adopting the faith, at least, not in general).

I believe the "tying to ethnicity bit" to some extent but I'm not fully convinced that it was much more than getting circumcised and agreeing to obey the Law. Can you provide evidence to support your statement? (I don't mean as a description of modern Judaism but of Judaaism in the beginning of the Common Era).
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A major factor in the rapid spread of Christianity was that the Christians were not as "closed" in how they accepted new people into the faith. There is no moral implication to that it is simply fact. There are a lot of caveats to all of that as you have brought up but it does not mean this is not a worthwhile topic to discuss in the article. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I think the difference is not that the Jews "kept to themselves" as the fact that they said "Here is our religion. Take it or leave it." whereas the Christians said "Ho! You got your ways, we got ours. Let's see what middle ground we can come to."
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is still trying to fit history into a modern mould. The Jews generally did not look at things as their trying to reach out to outsiders. The practical reality, of course, is that they did but still that is not how they looked at it. The Christian viewpoint was different. The "kept to themselves" viewpoint, although an oversimplification, is a correct viewpoint in that it was one part of how the Jews saw their community. "Evangelism" in the way that became common in Christianity would run counter to the Jewish ethnic identity. Again, from the modern perspective, we look back at all of this and observe that both Judaism and Christianity expanded so neither was really "closed". But that is really imposing our modern viewpoint on ancient values. --Mcorazao 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the Christian "brand" of Judaism won out, not just because of its openness to Gentiles (that's the Christian revisionist version) but because Christians were more willing to adapt to the Gentile customs, rituals, culture and even beliefs.

Well, I'll turn the tables on you and say that this is somewhat of a "revisionist" interpretation of history. You are viewing history through modern interpretation which is different from how people saw things in this age. The "customs, rituals, culture," etc. that you are brushing over were part of the issue as to what the Jews regarded as part of their ethnic identity. From the Jewish perspective if you fully embraced these customs, rituals, etc. and to one degree or another separated yourself from your former community in favor of the Jewish community then you "became" an ethnic Jew (and by extension a person of the Jewish faith). That didn't mean, of course, that you couldn't speak to non-Jews but still you had to choose which side you were really on. The "degree" to which all that was true in any individual Jewish community varied (and I'm sure there were cases in some communities where it was no harder to become a Jew than a Christian). In general the Christian community saw it differently. While you were expected to renounce beliefs in other gods and such, your identity otherwise could mostly stay intact. As a Christian you could still call yourself an Armenian or an Egyptian or a Spaniard or a Gaul (granted, again, as the Jewish diaspora spread the attitudes about nationality/ethnicity varied but still there was always "some" distinction made). In today's culture (at least in the U.S.) we tend to see this accepting and rejecting of ethnic/cultural identities as not a big deal but in ages past such things were considered extremely important. --Mcorazao 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm out of time. Gotta run. I haven't read the last bit of your message thoroughly but I think we are both agreeing that the apostle Paul said "neither Greek nor Jew" whereas the Jews tended to say "Greek or Jew, take your pick".
Talk to you later.
--Richard 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Church

I don't think the original version of OHCAC can now be seen can it? Johnbod 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just go to this link. Basically you just have to look at the history for that page and you can get at any of the old versions. --Mcorazao 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Church discussion

Hi Mcorazao,

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I think you've done a noble job of patiently working to thoughtfully improve the article, and I think your proposal makes a lot of sense in the micro and the macro context of Christianity. Thanks for laying it all out there for us. I think the straw poll is a good idea, and if you haven't been already, please think about contacting some other prominent members of the WP Christianity personally to come comment. Pastor David is one guy in particular that I'd suggest contacting. Until there is another proposal, I'll just continue to observe. I'd like to hear out Johnbod and see exactly what he's proposing - he may have some good points to bring up. Obviously the article can just sit as it is until he or someone else makes another proposal, the burden is on others at this point to propose an attractive change to the article and work within consensus. Nice work so far. Thanks for your contributions :) Nswinton\talk 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback request

I have responded to your request for feedback on the article's talk page. Pastordavid 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation proposal

Firstly, thanks for all your hard work proposing compromise alternatives - much appreciated.

It seems that the most latest one has consensus (see my comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Final call on resolution one), so if you could introduce it into the article that'd be great (as it is your work).

Cheers, Daniel 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

he/she can't; because the article is locked.--Pejman47 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I have unprotected it :) Cheers, Daniel 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Smb did it for us. Thanks once again for your helpful proposals :) Cheers, Daniel 07:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire: Fundamentalism

Hi, sorry but you seem to have the wrong impression here - I was not aiming my comment at any particular user. I just thought the whole discussion was going nowhere. We discuss to improve the article, with a conclusion allowing for edits. This discussion was not going to end as such so I wanted it to end. That is all. I have nothing against you, or Javits, or Adrianco or whoever else participated.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decline of Byzantium

I changed a little of what you said. Arab conquest of Egypt did give Byzantium's arab enemies great wealth but the Fatimid was never a threat to Byzantine Asia Minor, being regularly beaten by Nikephoros, John Tzimiskes and Basil II - the Fatimids were powerful enough to challenge Byzantium, but it was the Umayyads who did the Asian raiding, the Abassids less so and the Fatimids for the most part did not even get past Antioch - check out Byzantine-Arab Wars (780 - 1180).Tourskin (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julian the Apostate article renaming

I have recently filed a request to have the page moved so that 'the Apostate' will be removed. If you support (or oppose) the removal of this descriptor, please voice your opinion at Talk:Julian the Apostate Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Roman Empire

I think you agree with me when I change the date of the Fall of Rome from 1453 to 476. Many say that the de jure end of Roman Empire (although such term can be said about such an empire) was not until the fall of Constantinople by the Turks. But it's not only the "official end" but the whole change of the mentality and of the general view: another language, other civilisation, other people with whom the Byzantines got in touch. After the fall of Rome the kings were not again Romans and the next "Roman Empire" was the "holy" one ruled by Germans. After all I please you to support me when I change the date of the end. Also many historitians say that the Roman Empire ended then. Dimboukas (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really thank you. But there was a period that the user Kurt Leyman used to change the date within 2 hours after I had changed it. Dimboukas (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just opened a new discussion upon the end of the Empire. Have a look: Talk:Roman Empire Dimboukas (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian the Apostate

Ok go put in your opinion ASAP Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I reverted the poll closure; you need to put in your opinion before the admin closes it again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I removed your comment ([1]) from Talk:Julian the Apostate. The reason is that the poll has closed and should not be modified. If you would like to make a comment, please do so by starting a new section at the bottom of the talk page. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vlachs: were are they from ?

19:08, 22 February 2008 163.181.251.9 wrote: "Undid revision 193318723 by Spiridon MANOLIU: Not clear that this is accurate; relationship between Latin groups in early Middle Ages and Vlachs of later Middle Ages not proven".

Well: if the Vlachs of later Middle Ages are not the result of the evolution of the Latin groups in early Middle Ages, were are they from ? From Dacia (opinion of the south-slavic and some romanian historians) ? But the german, hungarian and russian historians have another opinion: the ancestors of the Romanians came from the balkan area, their ancestors are the early latin groups from the Byzantine empire... Who's right ? Who's wrong ?

It is a political incidence in history when some historians wrote a nomadic history about the Latin groups : germans, hungarians and russians historians support the south-north migration idea against the romanian arguments about their ancient history in Transylvania and east-Moldavia (Bessarabia), but south-slavic and greek historians support the north-south migration idea against the aromanian arguments about their ancient history in the Balkans; some romanian historians support this thesis because that's good for the romanian thesis about Transylvania... Oh, boy !

The answer is in the languages. Why are the Romanian and Aromanian languages so different ? (in Aromanian: no hungarian and very few slavic words, but many greek words from the early Middle Age; in Romanian: many slavic and hungarian words, and the greek words are all in their slavonic version).

Mystery, mystery... if we refuse to consider that the early Latin groups in the lower Danube have a different evolution in the north and the south side, as the gallo-romanic groups who given a Langue d'Oïl in the north of France and a Lengua d'Oc in the south...

Vishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He basicly whants to show that romanians-like people(romanians,aromanians,magelo-romaninas,etc...) formed both north and south of the Danube...Sipridon has some problems with english(even grater then myself! :) ) so be patient with him. He also told me an interesting note(I know it`s OR but I still think it`s worth mentioning): he said that despite the fact that he speaks greek, he understands italian better then armoanian...(himself being a native form Constanta)(East of the Danube). 86.120.79.51 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire's lead, please take a look at the talk page. I know you haven't participated much in discussion for this, but I think it would be a good idea to alert all notable editors Tourskin (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arab conquest

I reverted your change from "Arab Conquest" to "Foreign invasions", for numerous reasons. The first being that the plague devastated the eatsern realms which were more heavily populated than the western ones. Secondly the scholars that were infered in this context talk about Arab invasions, no? Foreign invasions is ambiguous. Yes Byzantium suffered invasions, but it was the Arab one in the 7th century that had a help from plague. Tourskin (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Even so, many scholars would unanimously agree that the magnitude of the threat of Barbarians across the Danube, or Lombards who can only expand so far before reaching a sea was nothing compared to that of a centralized, zealous Arab state with hundreds of thousands of potential recruits and ample resources. Even the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne was not of the same calibre as the Caliphate. Time and time again, Byzantium proved to be the only Christian power capable of defeating the Arabs in southern Italy, Illyria and Asia Minor, were else the only strong state in the Dark Ages, the Holy Roman Empire was not adequate, one could say. If you want kep it to foreign invasions, you have a fair point to do so, but the Arab invasions constituted the majority of Byzantium's foreign wars. Tourskin (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation of Byzantine Science debate

Sorry for the long wait! Lol, I knew at least about the astrolab, algebra and compass, I just forgot about them sorry! However I`m not sure about "Modern" Surgery, as I pointed out anatomy was not totaly unknowned, and gliding isn`t the same to flying!(Otherwise we could have saftly considerd human flying to have comenced millenia ago).

Back to communications:

  • About China-ERE relations: Are you referring to that hole Daqin thing. Come on! When you can`t call the Name of the Country right how can you assume that there were more then "contact"(and maybe slik road-ish) communications in place? No, there were no active relations with China. There was a mutual acknoledgment of exsistence, but that`s a different story.
  • About ERE-Muslim relations: Back to that Creed, well it`s not about being roman or not, accepted(witch it was) or not...it`s about being accepted or rejected, it`s about the extent of it`s reach and the time it took to reach Persia! Trade, however influencial as it may be can not be cosidered as a method of comunication simply because it`s extent was still limited and it`s purpose economic. The embassies you are talking about; are they the ones established by Harun al-Rashid?! Cos` they were mearly a ceremonial way to pay tribute(by the ERE), if you know about others, then please inform me!

But I asked you if you would agree with my version. So? AdrianCo (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those references, however I am forced into a wiki break for an indefinitive term by grave personal problems...I`m realy sorry, but for the time being I realy can`t effectivly contribute for the project for the time being. AdrianCo (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, about Vlachs, the actual formulation about languages (with the right reference) is OK, isn't ? --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PROD Science in Medieval Western Europe

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Science in Medieval Western Europe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on Talk:Science in the Middle Ages.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Science in Medieval Western Europe. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I ask only if you are agree with the present formulation...

...in the article. I think YOUR theory is right, and I have not another theory.

In another side, I say and repeat: "Even without historic texts for proved it, the East-romanic languages (so, the Vlachs) can't come from another origin that the people's latin language spoken in the eastern side of the Roman empire. But we HAVE a prove: Theophanes and Simocattas attest in the VIth century than the autochtons of Haemos (today Balkans) speak latin... If we have doubts about THIS origin, logically we must suppose an Italian or Rhaetian origin for these poor Vlachs ! !"

Vishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)