Talk:Renaissance

Hi Everyone! I have started this page! Please feel free to add to it. Please reference all of your sources. Cheers! :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew Harward (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Maybe we should make the title Renaissance (European) ? Anyway, I stated that focus in the introduction. Nancy Sculerati 20:27, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I've downgraded this to a stub. There's enough of an outline that can be built on to create a good article, so it's not really a candidate for deletion, but it hasn't developed in a while. Anthony Argyriou 13:27, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Nomenclature

I think that "Renaissance" is now somewhat controversial, or just old-hat, in much academic discourse, with "early modern" being a preferred substitute; the idea being, as I understand it, tat "Renaissance" describes what was going on among the privileged classes, while "early modern" is more class-neutral. Perhaps someone with more immersion in this issue could add some text on this question? Bruce M. Tindall 04:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did a little bit on this, based mainly on Leah Marcus's 1992 article. Anybody with more to say on this, please have at it! Bruce M. Tindall 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Organisation of the article

I think there is a problem with the article being organised around two distinct concepts: geographical regions, and topics. Either is fine. As it is, at the moment we have quite a lot said about art under the various regional headings, with the result that, although someone has put in the heading "Art", there is nothing under it. The relatively long discussion of Machiavelli rather unbalances the whole thing. And I wonder whether the bit about civic humanism might not go under Italy? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)