Difference between revisions of "Talk:Middle Ages"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I agree, Dave. I'm editing it away.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:48, 9 March 2007 (EST) | I agree, Dave. I'm editing it away.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:48, 9 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems there may be a pattern of this. We may want to watch this article. Also, how about a more in-depth exploration of the Middle Ages? Right now it's fairly narrow and shallow--just an offhand mention of religion in the era--and some discussion of art, culture, and government would make this a lot more interesting. I'm also not sure it was monolithically religious--consider, for example, the somewhat anti-clerical sentiments in Chaucer. --[[User:John|John]] 22:51, 9 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 03:51, March 10, 2007
"many of today's faithful feel that things should get back to the way they were." - Putting a (citation needed) after a statement that is almost impossible to prove is simply a way to get around replacing fact with opinion. This shouldn't be here. --Dave3172 16:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I agree, Dave. I'm editing it away.--AmesG 22:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)
It seems there may be a pattern of this. We may want to watch this article. Also, how about a more in-depth exploration of the Middle Ages? Right now it's fairly narrow and shallow--just an offhand mention of religion in the era--and some discussion of art, culture, and government would make this a lot more interesting. I'm also not sure it was monolithically religious--consider, for example, the somewhat anti-clerical sentiments in Chaucer. --John 22:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)