Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

History

There seems to be a strong desire by people to deny many facts of history. During the Dark ages, it was a common practice to destroy the words works and writings of opposing points of view. This resulted in the destruction of one of the fastest rising technological thrusts in human history. To allow this to happen again by letting those opposed to any view other than their own would be an inhumane act. I realize you do not like the history of the Dark ages, but it is as it is and you cannot hide it. You are allowed to present your view of this period in history based on the facts favorable to you're view of the world, but you are not allowed to present half truths and lies as unchallenged facts. When you can prove something I have written is wrong, I will personally remove it. But quite honestly your definition of a reliable source is seriously lacking in many cases! So I don't think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia that YOU decide who is reliable - prove them unreliable or accept them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Your reference doesn't actually contain the claim you made in the article (and the claim itself reads too much like an opinion piece). See the policy against original research or synthesis. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


IP has exceeded 3RR. I've warned them. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Obviously inappropriate for the reasons stated above. It needs to stay out.Cúchullain t/c 21:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Opening Has No Dates

It's like you have to already know when the Roman empire declined to understand this article. That's terrible writing.

Never assume the audience knows what you are talking about, help the audience understand what you are talking about.

There may not be exact dates, but there was certainly an approximate range of time from century X to century Y. What was it? Since this is an historical article, this date range should be in the opening.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Re dates added by Reddit. Other Wikipedia articles can't be used as a source, they are also problematic in some cases. If we are going to set specific date years for the periods in this article (ie. 476-1000), sources will be needed. However keep in mind there is no standard set of dates for these periods - historians will use different dates depending on which aspect that want to emphasize, it is fluid, one can find different sources saying different things, and they are all "correct", in context. The better arrangement in cases like this is to use general dates, centuries, and not specific years, which tend to emphasize specific events, and are thus POV. Also some of the dates are redundant with the text in the article and are not needed, like with the Renaissance. It says "the Renaissance or rebirth from the 14th century onwards", no need to put 14th C twice, or define the end of it since we're also talking about the start of it. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We could do better than at present. The "when" depends on "where" among other things. In Britain the departure of the Romans in 408 or thereabouts marks a sharp break in terms of information, & also the actual life of the country, as the Anglo-Saxons seem to have moved in with little delay. Elsewhere the dates are different. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget, was this BC or AD? Sarujo (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Worth/POV

Whoever deleted my entry - The web site is a well known source for the Helenes culture. If you are unaware of this culture I would STRONGLY recommend you find out about it before declaring it questionable.
And please justify your POV statement. I merely summarized the works of a well known Helenes author. He has many books on Greek and Helenestic cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You can visit his sight at http://www.rassias.gr/6ENGLISH.html.

It's a source for a minority fringe view Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism but I see no evidence it meets our criteria at WP:RS - more importantly, it's pretty clear there is no agreement by other editors to have it in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Your etymology is not given in the source, your calculations of how many/how often atrocities occurred is both WP:OR and deeply naive, your citation is incorrect (and you are confused about the number of "reviews" that you are using), and there is no evidence that either Rassias or ethnikoi.org are reliable sources for late antiquity/the medieval period. Oh, and the silly sputtering threats you left on my Talk page are like sweet candy to me. Ergative rlt (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done Gone. Doc talk 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Foundation Wiki Feedback

diff of complaint by 174.45.18.232 (talk · contribs) - Please note that the IP user requested a response here.

Please note the similarities between this edit [1] by 66.175.205.171 (talk · contribs) and this one [2] by 174.45.18.232 (talk · contribs), as well and the various reverts, especially on 9 April 2011 which may well violate the "three revert rule". Given the existence of such technologies as proxy servers, it can't be disproven by IP evidence alone that you're not the same person behind both edits. Regardless, the aforementioned 3RR policy would be enough to justify a block by local administrators for repeatedly re-inserting text rather than discussing the matter with the users first.

Please consider that rather than an attempt to oppress a minority religion, as you say, that you may merely not be fully conversant in the policies on the site, and we've instead failed to sufficiently explain them. To this end, you may wish to consider reading the policies that the users in question have provided.

Thank you for your feedback. Starfallen 19:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I also note that the IP did not exercise their right to appeal. I have no idea why they think they would have to provide their email address to appeal. I wouldn't be bothered if another Administrator had unblocked them. But if they try to continue edit-warring their way rather than seek consensus, he/she or they can expect to be reblocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there was sufficent rationale to block. Whether or not they were the same person, they were edit warring the same material into the article while neglecting to discuss on the talk page or consider the input of other users. It was clear they had no intention of stopping, so a block was the only way short of protecting the article to prevent disruption to the article. Hopefully they've gotten the message and won't continue after the block expires.--Cúchullain t/c 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sufficient 174.45.18.232 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not sufficient" doesn't properly enlighten us as to what is deficient. Also, please note that the standards for what constitutes proper material to add to articles is not set by the Foundation, but instead by the consensus of the users who edit Wikipedia. It's the community that edits regularly which determines standards such as the verifiability policy, the policy on reliable sources, and the policy on keeping a neutral point of view. A declaration that these policies are inherently flawed may even be correct, but compared to trying to fight an infinite uphill battle changing such policies might be better spent (and result in far less stress) enjoying other sites on the web. Further, given the nature of the content and your suggestion that the removals comprise an attempt to oppress a minority religion, it may well be that you're editing subject matter in which you have significant personal interest, which could well be a conflict of interest on your part. While I'm sure you've read the various policy pages that have been linked for your perusal, the conflict of interest page is one that merits special attention. Again, thank you for your feedback, and I hope this answers some questions for you on this matter. Starfallen 03:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize that the initial personal attack on me the first day came about by the natural reaction of most people and organizations to defend themselves when something is pointed out that they think is threatening. Based on that, your first attack on me is a "gimmie" as it is a natural human reaction. This continued attack against me to justify Wiki's actions is now ad hominem. It does not address the concerns I expressed, just attacks me and as such is contrary to Wiki's own policy of don't attack the person, address the problem. Based on this I have no intention of responding to these personal attacks. Please see the following for my concerns:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_site_feedback 'Regarding Talk:Home'
And if you do not yet understand my concern, consider the comments on Wikimedia on your actions in the light of Claudette Colvin. This may be a stretch, but it may be enough of a stretch to finally make you understand my concerns.
174.45.18.232 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you refer to the assertion that the other IP editing may have been you as a personal attack, I'd suggest that it's less that than merely a justifiable guess based on editing patterns, considering you re-added the exact material previously removed. The issue of being the second user or not is simply unimportant considering the repeated reinsertion of material without discussion, which certainly isn't ad hominem in the least. You still haven't addressed the original question regarding the insufficiency, so aren't giving us enough information to reliably resolve your grievance. As I've not made any actions regarding Claudette Colvin at all, I truly have no idea to what this refers; If you're meaning "Wikipedia people" in general, the inclusive pronoun is too wide a scope, as there are likely few (if any) people editing the same material between these pages: At any given time, there are roughly 150,000 different active editors, not including those not signed-in such as yourself. Given that the reply here is in response to your section on the Site Feedback page, it's reasonable to infer that I've already read that section. Please elucidate.
Also, in the future, please consider using a section title more aligned with the nature of the issue in question. Talk:Home would imply that the issue is with the content on wmf:Talk:Home, whereas you may wish to use en:Dark Ages instead, so the passer-by might more easily understand the issue at hand. If you'd like assistance with our (admittedly convoluted) method of implementing cross-wiki links, let me know. Starfallen 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No entry on your part addressing the issues I have raised, based on that I will not be addressing anything you wrote today.174.45.18.232 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked for clarification of your issues so that they may be addressed appropriately. I apologize if you find my responses unhelpful. Instead of further bothering you with my attempts, I'll leave you to discuss the matters with the editors who you have already been interacting with. Best of luck in your future editing. Starfallen 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to monitor this page for Wikimedias response until the 26th of this month, inclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Checked today no response from WikiMedia.174.45.18.232 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move this page to Dark Ages (historiography) and the page Dark Ages becomes the disambiguation page Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


Dark Ages → Dark Ages (term) — This article discusses how the term "Dark Ages" was used by various historians. I believe it is an easter egg to most of the 60,000 readers a month who come here. These readers are almost certainly expecting a history of either the Middle Ages or the Early Middle Ages, as opposed to a discussion of darkness and lightness analogies. If you do a search for "Dark Ages" on Google books, adding "-Petrarch" and "-Baronius" doesn't have much effect on the hit count. So focusing on these historians is out-of-step with the way published authors typically discuss this issue. Relisting to seek consensus as to disambiguator, see new section below. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd use the phrase ad nauseam, but we passed that stage long since. The arguments advanced by the likes of Michael Grinberg, dab and Srnec in archive 2 seem as good now to me now as they did then, while your argument has not improved with age and repetition. Where, for example, are the frequent drive-by complaints that we should expect if your view were correct? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
People complain about the article ad nauseam, but at the same time there aren't any complaints, or at least not frequent drive-by ones, whatever that means. This would seem to be a contradiction, unless you are suggesting that I am the only who has ever complained about the article. Kauffner (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Since joining this merry-go-round in 2008 I have become more conscious of modern-historians-who-ought-to-know-better using the term in full seriousness, especially on tv, although I have not gone as far as keeping notes. I mean one can expect no better of Niall Ferguson, the History Boy himself, but Robert Bartlett?? Some of the confident assertions made in the debate then about what terms modern historians won't allow to pass their lips do not sound so convincing now. But I still don't see what can be done to improve the situation. A simple redirect is not on, & this article already has a big flashing hatnote. Sending people to a disam page is likely just to shake them off or confuse them. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry about what historians say on TV. The producers of the TV shows write the scripts, and are interested in entertainment and profit, not accuracy. They say "Dark Ages" because that's what the audience will understand. So why do academics agree to say that? Well even professional historians like to make a bit of extra money sometimes :) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support moving this historiography article to Dark Ages (term). The main Dark Ages page could then either be sent to disambiguation or just redirected to Early Middle Ages, which is probably what 90% of visitors are looking for. A hatnote could then be placed on the EMA article - "Dark Ages redirects here, for other uses..." *** Crotalus *** 15:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed title accurately reflects the article's contents (late modern/postmodern analysis of the term) and the subject of the article is not the primary topic. As noted above, the Middle Ages or the Early Middle Ages are the usual manifestations of "Dark Ages" so make it a DAB page. —  AjaxSmack  04:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is not about the term, but about the concept. (Kinda, sorta: it could be better.) A hatnote is sufficient. Moving the DAB page to this title is foolish, since this is the primary meaning of the term. A redirect to Early Middle Ages would have made a better proposal, but still unnecessary. Periodisation is inherently conceptual and arbitrary, and this article gives the inquiring reader what he needs to know to understand what the Dark Ages were. If he wants to know what happened then, he will have the tools to find out. Srnec (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but this isn't the article about Dark Ages (Europe). That would be Early Middle Ages. I think this post is a good example of the confusion that having an article of this type at this location naturally generates. I assume that many, if not most, readers expect a history of the Dark Ages as a period in European history, i.e. they want the EMA article. They might want an explanation of the origin of the term "Dark Ages", but this article doesn't do a good job of that either. Judging from Google trends,[3] the term EMA is not familiar to the general public, which means that the current hat note isn't enough to get lay readers where they want to go. Another problem with the current setup it that it encourages the reader to equate Dark Ages with Middle Ages, a usage that has long been rejected by historians. I certainly have nothing against making this page a redirect to EMA, as several have suggested. But the first step is to move this page out of the way. Kauffner (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DEFINITELY not a redirect to EMA. That would imply to most users that these are synonyms, and leave them with no warning at all that the term they have obviously been using is contentious. That is just sidelining the problematic stuff and doesn't help anyone. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me put that more strongly: if anyone types "Dark ages" into the search field (assuming they are not looking for the Greek Dark ages or a computer game) they are EITHER looking for information on the darkness concept, in which case this is where they want to be, OR they want EMA and are confused about current terminology, in which case what they really need is to be led to EMA via a warning, which is what this article does. Of course, we have no way of knowing how many of those who come here on their way to EMA are lazy, wanting the quickest answers without being bothered by anything challenging, and how many are searching, wanting the full picture. But the redirect you suggest implies to me that we are only trying to help the lazy thinkers. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that this is the correct primary topic, and that the objection is overstated by editors who come back to this article time and time again repeating the same things without adding anything new. When the reliable sources discuss the "Dark Ages" in depth, rather than just using the phrase in passing, this is what they're talking about. However, I would be okay with relocating this article and turning "Dark Ages" into a dab page purely as a matter of disambiguation, and I'm glad this option is finally being discussed. However, I oppose the title Dark Ages (term) (it's not about a term) and I most certainly oppose redirecting "Dark Ages" to "Early Middle Ages".--Cúchullain t/c 14:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (sort of!) The main should be a db page, and this page should be renamed as proposed, the Dark Ages db page would be the place where readers find out that they term is not in use anymore as there is no article on it. To make this correct there should not be a Dark Ages page, that should redirect to the db page. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, strongly. There are many extant applications of the term, nearly all related to either the EMA or the aftermath of other societal collapses. The dab page is the place to take readers when they ask for "Dark Ages". Renaming the current page as "Dark Ages (historiography)" might be more informative than "Dark Ages (term)", but that is a secondary matter. Jmacwiki (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm not sure how to back this up but I think virtually everyone using the term "Dark Ages" is referring to the Early Middle Ages in Europe. I don't think there are any major cultural variations here except in certain countries with their own "Dark Ages". –CWenger (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This is actually a reason for supporting the change instead of opposing it, since this article is not about "the Early Middle Ages in Europe". --Damiens.rf 13:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguator

Relisting - There seems a rough consensus above that a move is desirable, and that some sort of disambiguator is required, but there's no consensus that Dark Ages (term) is the best move destination. Dark Ages (historiography) is suggested, and earlier Dark Ages (Europe) and Dark Ages (Middle Ages) were suggested and initially at least opposed. Do any of these have support, and what other possibilities are there? Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I firmly believe that any search for "Dark age/s" should find a very short "Dark Age" page as the term is in fact a misnomer. This page should then point them in the right direction for the time periods concerned. The historiographical explanation of the term should be a new page though, I believe "Dark Age (historiography)" is the best solution for this article, a Dark Ages page explaining the term in brief should then have lots of links to the correct ages.
It is true that much of the dislike for the term is the "dark" part, and its implied barbarity or lack of intellectual or civilising society. Perhaps the best solution is to move most of this article's text to the new page and leave a "main" link and very short description here, as well as lots of links to the correct articles that cover the time period. Students and persons seeking knowledge about "events during the time period" are more likely than people researching "why it was called that". Chaosdruid (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, I could go along with something like that. I DO think people who type in "dark ages" should in the first instance come to a page which tells them about that phrase, and shows them where to go for whatever more they want. I DO NOT think they should be led straight to somewhere else that we think they ought to be sent to. But the article as it is possibly is too long to serve that need. So, a one-paragraph article, effectively a kind of disambig page but with actual text and brief explanation, might be good. It MUST make clear that the term dark ages is problematic. It must show them where to go for more on the problem. And it must show them where to go for the history of the period. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I could not go along with something like that. If there's any change, "Dark Ages" should be a simple disambiguation page (ie, "Dark Ages (disambiguation)" should be moved. The purpose of this relisting is just to determine where this current article should go.--Cúchullain t/c 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The current page is about "a concept" to be sure, but it's NOT about the general concept that lay readers use. It's only about the narrow sense of "Early Middle Ages", and historiography.
What about the broader concept of the aftermath of a societal collapse, such as the Greek Dark Age? (DON'T point out that we already link that specific one. This is about the general concept, not a laundry list of specifics.)
Why does this phrase even have a broader meaning in society, such as the aftermath of a hypothetical World War 3? It's isn't because people fear that society might leave fewer records, nor because they are focused on a specific time in Western Europe. It's because a societal collapse involves far more losses than merely records, and can apply to any society in the future, not merely a specific one in the past.
The broader culture has defined this term negatively, and broadly. Pretending otherwise perpetrates a fraud on most of our readers.
Evidence: A quick Google search (removing hits on "historians" and "games") turns up examples such as:

-- not to mention lots of sites discussing contemporary societal trends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacwiki (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are going to be problems with literally any name we pick. But "Dark Ages (term)" is the most objectionable, as the article isn't on any one term at all. It is about a concept, and historiography, so "Dark Ages (concept)" or "Dark Ages (historiographer)" are workable titles.--Cúchullain t/c 13:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Concur. "Dark Ages (historiography)" seems like the most helpful and most appropriate. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I need you contributors to help sort out the inbound links. I am sure many of them were wrong to start with, but now there are heaps pointing to a redirect page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, Graeme Bartlett has now made this move, and although we clearly have different views on it, it's probably good that the thing has been decided. However, the only way that there was any consensus for this was on the condition that the main Dark Ages article contain a warning that historians are uncomfortable with this terminology. And I think that getting that warning in place and keeping it there might involve as protracted a battle as we have had here. I am going to add a wording now. Please help with this, but please make sure that any substantive changes to the wording I add is discussed at Talk: Dark Ages. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Okay, I think I've moved all the talk page archives to the new article title. However, only two are showing up in the archive box. Can anyone figure out how to fix this? There are probably 10 archive pages that are inaccessible.--Cúchullain t/c 13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Auto-archiving may still be an issue, but my previous edit[4] to this adds the missing archives to the archive-box. Starfallen 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what "Starfallen" is saying.
However, the most recent archives are still missing. I see only the links: "Archives: 1, 2," above. I see there that the last post archived is dated 1 January of last year. Is there another way to read them, or were they "accidently" destroyed too? Thanks, --71.137.156.229 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

You can also click the "history" tab at the top of the page (depending on the skin used, it may be buried under a pull-down menu, so you can use this direct link if you'd like) and select the revision you wish to read. You can also check at Archive 1 history, which contains revisions back to 13:29, 21 February 2003. If there's a specific conversation you're looking for, you could always ask for help, rather than be snarky about it. Starfallen 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotations/Credentials

Jacques Le Goff, from what I can see, is a qualified historian. Morris Bishop, from what I can see, is a qualified historian. Lynn Townsend, from what I can see, is a qualified historian. Who is Howard Pyle? Yeah, exactly. I'm deleting the quote. How did it even survive so long? Look who posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.37.75 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean 'look who posted it' -- seems to have been an IP: [5]. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Howard Pyle was an author, mainly of books for children. The quote gives a nicely fruity example of one 19th received idea about the period & I see no reason to remove it, so I have restored it. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect please

The discussion about light and dark in this article is frightfully interesting, and I wish I was a member of the clique it appeals to. However, I came here looking for historical information about the Dark Ages - the causes, what went on and how Europe emerged from this period. Does Wikipedia actually have an article that addresses these issues? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.135.113 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The introduction links to several articles on the history of Europe in this period, specifically Middle Ages and Early Middle Ages. There's also Dark Ages (disambiguation) for other uses of the term.--Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
sigh! Not very user-friendly then. I just hope the Middle Ages article is not just a dull discussion about whether "Center Ages" would be a beter term as "historians" (who I presume these articles are written for) don't like "middle" because it is too judgemental... Whatever happened to Wikipedia being an easy-to-access library of information? 113.22.135.113 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's perfectly user-friendly as it is. If you typed in the term "Dark Ages" you'd be taken to a disambiguation page listing the various articles. Even if you somehow came to this page without meaning to, the articles on history are linked in the intuitive places in the text.--Cúchullain t/c 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of "Dark" ages rm from ref

A ref once read <ref>{{Cite book|last=Snyder|first=Christopher A.|author-link=Christopher Snyder|year=1998|contribution=|contribution-url=|title=An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press|publication-date=1998|publication-place=University Park|pages=xiii–xiv|isbn=0-271-01780-5|postscript=<!--None-->}}, for example. This work contains over 100 pages of footnoted citations to source material and bibliographic references (pp. 263–387). In explaining his approach to writing the work, he refers to the "so-called Dark Ages", noting that "Historians and archaeologists have never liked the label Dark Ages ... there are numerous indicators that these centuries were neither "dark" nor "barbarous" in comparison with other eras."</ref>. The comment about "never liked the label Dark Ages... neither dark nor barbarous" was rm. Not sure why. Student7 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

What's the point of quotes that don't use the phrase "Dark Ages"? In particular, there is Morris Bishop: "The Middle Ages is an unfortunate term. It was not invented until the age was long past." Aside from being wrong, this sends the reader off on a tangent unrelated to "Dark Ages". The earliest recorded example of "Middle Ages" is from 1469. Bruni developed the concept even earlier, in the 1440s. Kauffner (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Guardian report

An interesting citation from the press, since we noted in earlier discussions that press and TV seem to hang on to the "dark ages" terminology long after scholars have abandoned it. Today's Guardian has this report [6] on an archeological discovery in England. The headline puts the phrase "Dark Ages" in inverted commas, and further down explains: "The find sheds further light on a period once known dismissively as the dark ages, now being revealed by archaeology as a time of superb craftsmanship and complex international trade routes." --Doric Loon (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Medieval manuscripts

The article has a chart of quantities of medieval manuscripts by date, from which is concluded that the early Middle Ages was a period when not much was copied. Two comments here. First, to be useful the chart would have to go back to the Roman period to show whether there was a decline at the end of the classical period or not. In fact,the number of manuscripts surviving from the classical period is lower still. So all the chart shows is that manuscript production gradually increased across the centuries. Second, the chart gives an exaggerated picture of this, because it shows what survives, not what was written, and of course far more has been lost from the earlier centuries. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Books are always going "out of print." A chart would be needed to show (I'm sure) something about "originals lost." A lot was lost with the Library at Alexandria having nothing to do with the Dark Ages. It may be that more of the Greek classics perished there long before the "Dark Ages," than perished later for want of copiers or copies, as the case may be.
Note that Europe would tend to "lose" more documents than the Near East because of higher humidity, given equal attention otherwise. Student7 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Western Europe

I've changed Europe to Western Europe in the opening paragraph, as the opening paragraph predicates the geography on the concept of the 'decline of the roman empire' and the 'cultural and economic deterioration' that it led to (supposedly). Given that most of northern and eastern europe were never in the Roman Empire, it can hardly apply to those areas, nor can it be applied to those parts of southern and eastern europe still ruled by the (Eastern) Roman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phocas321 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Supposedly"

Regarding this recent spate of edit warring, the factuality or otherwise of the "Dark Ages" concept has been discussed repeatedly. As the article makes clear later, the "Dark Ages" is a fairly subjective concept. As such the caveat is necessary. Please stop revert warring.Cúchullain t/c 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"The "Dark Ages" is a historical periodization emphasizing the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire." Is the statement, it is not relevant whether the term "Dark Ages" is subjective, what is being questioned/qualified with the term "supposedly" is that "cultural and economic deterioration" occurred after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Both citations describe it straightforwardly as "intellectual darkness" and "decline" respectively, with no caveats present. The later information about historians avoiding the term all relates to avoiding value judgements in general, this caveat suggests it is debatable whether there was any economic decline in Europe following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, which sounds like nonsense considering the emptying of cities and large reduction in population. What if we removed the term "supposedly" and placed the term "subjective" before "historical"? Or some other restructuring which doesn't suggest there might have been no economic decline after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.--90.199.141.196 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Good points; this could be an improvement though I'd rather just see it rewritten. Don't forget that a decline in population will almost inevitably see a decline in gross GDP, but might well see an increase in per capita GDP, and I think it is possible to argue that much of the European Dark Ages, by time and by place, was not badly off in per capita terms, though in a less developed economy than at the height of the Roman Empire, when say 35% of the population were slaves, & plenty more very poor in a crowded world. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
But I don't think anyone has ever used the term "Dark Ages" to refer to a fourth-century drop in GDP. I think you would have difficulty finding a historian who uses the term with economic aspects in the foreground. When the term is applied to the post-Roman period, it suggests intellectual or cultural darkness. Those of us who specialize in the medieval period are very sceptical about this indeed. But we've had this argument before, at very great length. --Doric Loon (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There are some good points there, but the "supposedly" is a necessary caveat that reflects several of the subsequent sources. For instance no one can seriously argue that the "Dark Ages" were much "darker" than the decades before the "fall of Rome".--Cúchullain t/c 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hypatia Comparison Entry

What happened to the entry comparing the pre dark ages and dark ages entries on Hypatia? No entries in the history section as to why it was removed either? Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.3.11 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another use of the completely, completely wrong term "Dark Ages"

'As the cosmic expanses were completely empty of stars at the time, scientists talk of the "dark ages" of the universe.' http://phys.org/news/2015-05-message-dark-ages.html You people should begin beating that article to death, because Petrarca was wrong, and because of the unauthorized use of the "Dark Ages" term. As we know, only some people are allowed to use this completely wrong term. And moreover, the (Western) European Middle Ages were not dark. 67.87.145.157 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Phrase needs help IMO

A lead sentence includes the phrase " following the conversion of the Roman Republic to an Empire Julius Caesar, resulting in the Empire's decay," The Roman hegemony lasted for about 800 years, from, roughly 400 753 BC to 400 AD, give or take a decade or two. Caesar ended the Republic, which started the official Empire. But it was about halfway two-thirds the way through the Roman "hegemony." I appreciate the need for word economy here, but it seems to me that the phrase is sufficiently inaccurate to need reworking. Caesar may have triggered the demise of the Republic but it hadn't looked too healthy for some time. With the advantage of hindsight, the ancient Roman republican political/governmental/constitutional structure was truly awful! Amazing that it worked as well and as long as it did!

Also, the current phrase doesn't make sense anyway. Student7 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A recent cack-handed rewrite. I've gone back to ".. that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire." No need for JC. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.
(Little off in my dating. Caesar's arrival, which is mercifully no longer germane, was more like 2/3 the way through the "Roman hegemony"). Student7 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


No mention of the wars between Europe and Islam and the multiple battles in Spain, nor the Mediterranean Trade routes being closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.54.191 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Modern popular use" needs work

"Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are all cited by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research." You can't cite a video lecture as a valid source, least of all one from The Faraday Institute (backed by Church money / pro-religion funds). This entire section needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.83.167 (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science" is true. If you haven't been brain washed by the chrisitian history distorters, read the story of Hypatia from its original Greek. This article is so biased it is worse than Fox News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.3.11 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"backed by Church money / pro-religion funds", "chrisitian history distorters", "so biased it is worse than Fox News", "Christianity killed off ancient science is true"

The above comments are good examples of where the crux of the issue with the Dark Ages here lies; in that it has become an article of faith, 'evidence' of Christian malfeasance and a Casus belli for certain anti-theist groups. They need it to be true in order to justify their beliefs and worldview, despite all or any evidence to the contrary (Anti-theist creationism in a sense). Philip72 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarify Hatnote

I know this has been mentioned before, but i think the hatnote would be much clearer if it was something like:

This page is about the use of the term Dark Ages. For the events in this period, see Early Middle Ages. For other uses, see Dark Ages.

Or some variation of it, but i arrived at the DAB page and this article seemed to be the obvious choice so i think that EMA should definitely be in the hatnote.WikiWisePowder (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

European "Dark Ages" as a British concept

I speak both English and French, and have noticed that generally French historians do not refer to the Dark Ages. In French histories, they go straight from the Roman period to the Middle Ages. I think British and other English-speakers like the concept of the "Dark Ages" because civilization truly did collapse in Roman Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, whereas the Frankish and Gothic invasions of Gaul were far less disruptive. For one thing, the Franks and Goths were Christian, whereas the Angles and Saxons were not, so the church as an organized institution disppeared from much of Britain.

In Gaul, on the other hand, a portion of the Roman Empire actually continued to exist for a while in the Paris region of France, long enough for them to be allied with the Franks to defeat the Huns. This was *after* the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

The Franks allied with the Romans to defeat the Huns around AD 451-452. This was *before* the official collapse of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476. --Æðel (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I can appreciate that this pov would be hard to document in the article, but probably worthwhile if anyone runs across an actual reference. Student7 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"L'expression « Âge sombre » est employée par l'historiographie, en particulier par l'historiographie anglo-saxonneN 1 au travers de l'expression anglaise Dark Ages..." says French WP (no useful refs), but the term has some currency in German I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Henry Hallam popularized the term in View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages (1860). His view was that the Catholic church was responsible for widespread ignorance. So I doubt if it went over big in Catholic countries. Kauffner (talk)
This is consistent with Edward Gibbon, in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (late 18th century), attributing the "great loss" of Roman civilization to the malign influence of the early church. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to dispute the idea presented above that the barbarians invasions were responsible for onset of the Dark Ages. The Roman Empire peaked around 150 AD and was well into decline before the barbarians came along. I put the blame on climate change myself, i.e. so called Dark Ages Cold Period. Civilization certainly collapsed in France as well. Alcuin of York, an adviser to Charlemagne, was considered a genius because he could read without moving his lips — I doubt this would have been considered much of an accomplishment in classical times. Kauffner (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
On the reading point, I would be cautious. There are indeed similar remarks in classical times, and they are easily misunderstood. It isn't necessarily that it was considered an accomplishment to be able to read silently. It's that reading wasn't divorced from orality, and the idea that you would want to read silently was strange, since a great deal of the pleasure was felt to reside in the sound of the words. I would have to see the passage about Alcuin, but these kinds of remarks are sometimes about scholars who are reading or researching for informational purposes—hence they would be considered intellectuals or antiquarians. In antiquity, people who had the resources to own books often employed readers, so they could listen to reading as they ate or bathed or whatever, as we might listen to music. And anyway, the Carolingian Renaissance is a peculiar example to cite in support of the "Dark Ages"—it rather supports the view of cultural continuity in Gaul, with low points. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

saeculum obscurum is not "dark ages"

The lead section third paragraph contains the totally bogus sentence

The actual term "Dark Age" derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries...[Dwyer]

"The term saeculum obscurum refers to the period in the history of the Papacy during the first half of the 10th century, beginning with the..." (This is a quote from Wikipedia article Saeculum Obscurum and is essentially correct).

It does not refer to the general period in Europe starting after the fall of Rome to the approximate Invasion of England, which is presently referred to as the Dark Ages.

The term saeculum obscurum as cited from Dwyer in 1996 and is a dubious reference to begin with, and in any event only attempts to cover the obscure period of the papacy of the Catholic Church, not the quasi-historical period of Europe. It is a false point to start the etymology of the term Dark Ages. And it conflicts with another Wikipedia page that is in fact correct. You cant have both definitions of the same period in the same Wiki! The saeculum obscurum article is correct, this article lead in statement is bogus and should be corrected with the offending line removed. 2601:342:0:E3D0:C5ED:CE03:A9AE:870C (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section contains a summary of the article's contents. There is a lengthy sub-section in this article about Baronius. Not everything has to be exactly about the period as we define it today (500-1500 or 500-1000), the article is titled "dark ages" and different historians throughout history defined that period in different ways. The more important thing is his concept it was defined by a paucity of records, and his use of the term. -- GreenC 15:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dark_Ages_(historiography)/Archive_3&oldid=1136650135"