Talk:European History/The Crises of the Middle Ages

Sources anyone???
Do you not source things in wikibooks? Methinks this is not the best.


 * Agreed and I also think comments should be signed either by the author or by a bot.  Does anyone know why wikibooks has different standards to wikipedia? LookingGlass (discuss • contribs) 06:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Avignon Papacy
I'm thinking this should be split into multiple sections in some fashion... that's a somewhat large lump of text to read.

I'm going to try this format for now, and will be expanding on the papal paragraphs at some point. I also added a bit on the black death and spoke about french control of their land after the 100 years.

Hundred Years War
I expanded the HYW section a little bit.

John Wycliff(e)
I see from some research that there's some debate as to the correct spelling of his name; however, I suggest that the writers of this text pick one, as it's inconsistent within this module and the next. -Byaina 17:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with bias - NPOV
In line with comments above re Sources, I am concerned about how the Neutral Point of View issue (see: NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) is dealt with on Wikibooks. Without a requiremet for both sources and a NPOV I cannot see how these books will not come to merely either reflect one bias or become incoherent.

For instance, in this Introduction it is stated that:
 * "The turn of the first millennium saw renewed growth and activity, as kings and cities consolidated their authority and began to repopulate lands left empty by Rome's decline."

This cause-effect conclusion seems to be belied by the next sentence which notes that over the previous century saw:
 * "Warmer weather after 900 allowed more land to be brought into food production."

It seems reaonable to conclude that the cause of the renewed growth was climatic not political. A further possible interpretation, that this growth and activity was due to technology is then given:
 * "This was aided by the arrival in Europe of the horse collar from Asia, which increased crop yields by allowing plows to be drawn by horse, rather than by slower oxen.". 

We are then informed that:
 * "Despite many local wars and disputes between knights, the High Middle Ages, from 1000-1250, saw growing populations and prosperity"

However I understand that warfare in these times was generally limited, with battles being formal affairs not total warfare involving civilian populations.

I am left with the impression that the narrative of the book is more important than the facts. While the repository of facts provided is helpful in a sense these are available through wikipedia, generally without the interpretative narrative. The result seems to me to be to encourage the distribution and acceptance of a vanilla history that supports the status quo of the culture distributing it. If that is not the objective then I suggest the minimum standards of the sister project be applied here too. LookingGlass (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)