Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The lede is inaccurate and unsupported by the first 2 citations

"The "Dark Ages" is a historical periodization traditionally referring to the Middle Ages (c. 5th–15th century)...[1][2]" The first citation is a)broken and b)the purported OED definition "a term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages to mark the intellectual darkness characteristic of the time; often restricted to the early period of the Middle Ages, between the time of the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular written documents." appears to be a circular reference originating on this page.

Some additional digging sources this quote from an essay written by Eric Stanley, who cites it from the 1972 OED (not the 1989 2cnd ed) which cites a *reference not a definition* to the term "the dark ages" in this quote, from Henry Hallam writing in 1837.

The second citation directly contradicts the lede by defining the Dark Ages as the period from *"a.d. 476 to about 1000"*.

There appears to be a considerable leavening of "original research" and/or very sloppy scholarship right from the jump on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8200:CFF0:5975:297E:3CC3:CA56 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

appears to be a circular reference originating on this page. The OED volume being cited was published in 1989. Wikipedia didn't exist until the 21st century so it would be impossible to have a circular reference. The cite link now works and the quote verifies. The 1000 end period is typical of those who use the Early Middle Ages as a definition for the period, which is discussed in this article - there is no singular correct definition of this contested term, but the definitions in OED and Webster are neutral starting points which this article explains the many issues involved. Wikipedia does not require a single definition for any topic there can be multiple POVs which is not the same as OR. -- GreenC 22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The citation link now works but still does not support the assertion in the first sentence that the Dark Ages constituted a period from the 5th-15th c. The OED reference notes that Hellam says the period ended with "the appearance of vernacular written documents" which very far from a neatly delineated date. Most historians would place that vague occurrence in the 10th century with the rise of both cathedral schools and original secular manuscripts. At the very latest it could charitably said be the beginning of the 12th century by which time a thriving trade in and authorship of widely distributed manuscripts was seen across the continent and in England. This article is still fronted by an assertion of fact directly contradicted by the citations accompanying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8200:CFF0:9179:89EB:E64:F213 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OED starts off by saying Dark Ages is "a term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages", which is 500-1500. Clearly the High and Late Middle Ages were not dark at all.. but that doesn't matter because sometimes people refer to the entire MA as being a "Dark Ages", which OED correctly acknowledges. -- GreenC 05:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's be a little more precise. the 1989 OED (2cnd ed.) says, "c. Specialized comb. or phrases: dark ages (often with capital initials), (a) a term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages to mark the intellectual darkness characteristic of the time; often restricted to the early period of the Middle Ages, between the time of the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular written documents;...". Recognizing that standard American English language and grammar has not changed in construction or interpretation appreciably since 1989, each of the four clauses is modified by the one following it, and should be read thus: There is a term: "dark ages"; It is applied to a specific period of the Middle Ages, of which intellectual darkness was characteristic, and that period (the early one) is generally (but not always) noted between the fall of Rome and the emergence of the written vernacular. The only thing to quibble about is the exact end date of the Dark Ages, be it in the 900s or 1100s but it unequivocally did not extend to the 15th century.

sometimes people refer to the entire MA as being a "Dark Ages" Then find a reliable source that shows that, because these citations don't and this page remains misleading and inaccurate right from the hop.

I understand what you are saying and how you are reading it, but I disagree it is correct. The reason it says "often restricted" which tells us there is more than one way to interpret the period, often this way, but sometimes another way ie. at least two ways. But your interpretation only allows for one way which is a contradiction. Thus the correct reading (paraphrasing as you have done) is that the period of the Middle Ages (ie. period as in a term of periodization separate from other periods like Classical and Modern) is sometimes called the Dark Ages which is often restricted to the sub-period of the Early Middle Ages. As for finding sources that confirm this that shouldn't be a problem as I have come across many of them before, probably already in the article, but I don't see the value in loading the lead section up with cites when the OED already says the correct thing. it unequivocally did not extend to the 15th century. Our article does not unequivocally say it did. Read the entire lead section to the last paragraph. And note the qualifying word "traditionally" in the first sentence, and how the lead and article are structured chronologically showing changing usage through both time and context of use. -- GreenC 21:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the usage which restricts the term to the early period is more common and have edited the lead accordingly. BTW I have just watched a TV programme on the history of chemistry which describes the first moves towards replacing alchemy with science in the sixteenth century as the end of the Dark Ages. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Our article already discusses the differences between these two further into the lead section. Also note it says "traditional" as when people first started using the term. As a historiography article we are looking at its changing usage over time and start out with the traditional and move through time into more current usage, which is how both the lead section and article are structured. Also this article is not about the Greek Dark Ages, the term Dark Ages has many meanings at Dark Ages. -- GreenC 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is misleading as it only mentions the definition covering the whole of the Middle Ages. Both Merriam Webster and The Oxford Dictionary of English only mention the periodisation up to the 11th century, and as the second paragraph makes clear this was the original definition, for example by Petrarch, who would hardly have defined it as in the lead paragraph as he wrote in the 1330s. The lead says that the wider definition dates to the eighteenth century, so it should not be the primary definition. The usage referring to the Greek Dark Ages should be mentioned in an article about Dark Ages (historiography) as it is one of the two historiography definitions in dictionaries. Dictionary meanings are relevant, not Wikipedia ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about the Greek Dark Ages there is a separate article. Greek is not discussed anywhere in the article because we have two separate articles and finding a connection between these two on historiographical grounds I've never seen that. The OED includes the entire Middle Ages, this has been in place for over a decade, has had dozens of expert editors involved, and millions of people have read this article and not a single one has raised this before and suddenly we have two editors showing up at the same time giving the same incorrect reading of OED. The lead section is carefully thought out and structured showing change of meaning over time up to the present in the last paragraph which is unambigious about it being restricted to the early period. The entire lead section is the defintion read it as a whole and not limiting to certain words, sentences or sources. -- GreenC 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Implying that anyone is acting in bad faith is impolite. The concurrence of others means that there is a preponderance of agreement that this is flawed. The citations do not match the lede to which they are appended; It should be short work to find one that does if it is factual. Or use the 2018 version, which accurately captures what the citations state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8200:CFF0:E9A9:1058:F77C:245D (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Implying that I am implying bad faith is also impolite. Back to the subject: Many source support what OED says, even other editors here agree that during the Enlightenment, Dark Ages referred to the entire Middle Ages which is why it says "traditionally". It's interesting you support the 2018 version since it says exactly what the current version does, the only difference being placement. I am here daily, hourly, and look forward to working with you and others for the following days, weeks and months ahead of us so I suggest we back off from any personal attacks and stick to the subject matter. -- GreenC 03:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"suddenly we have two editors showing up at the same time giving the same incorrect reading" prima facie that is an accusation of bad faith in all but name. How can you refute this? And why can't you see the plain fact that the lede is contradicted by the sources used to cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8200:CFF0:B14C:8C89:7941:C67A (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You started the thread under a (mistaken) reading of OED that it says one period, the Early Middle Ages. What I found strange were two people, yourself and Dudley Miles, making the same unusual mistake, I had never seen such a distinct mistaken reading of OED before. This turns out to be my mistake because Miles was actually referring to "Oxford Dictionary of English" and I was misreading his words as "Oxford English Diction", my mistake. The question now is have you also changed your position or do you continue to maintain OED only refers to one period, or are you also referring to the ODE like Miles? So you know, Miles says OED refers to two periods which is the correct reading, at this point you would be alone if maintaining OED refers to one period. -- GreenC 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"a (mistaken) reading of OED that it says one period, the Early Middle Ages." I did not make any mistake in reading the OED definition. It (correctly) refers to a segment of the Middle Ages (which is identifiable as the Early Middle Ages if not mentioned) being known as the Dark Ages, as do several other reliable sources brought up in this discussion, although it does not bring an explicit end date as those do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8200:CFF0:2491:9598:71A9:DABE (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• We had a much better start back in 2018 - was it ever agreed to change it, & if so, why? If not, we should go back to it. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the 2018 version is better, but the statement that the usage covering the whole of the Middle Ages is traditional is contradicted by the second paragraph, which states that the original usage by Petrarch and Caesar Baronius covers up to the 11th century, and that the wider timescale became especially popular in the eighteenth century. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Petrarch brought it up to his own time, 14th century. The "especially popular" of the Enlightenment is why the first paragraph says "traditionally" for the opening meaning. -- GreenC 23:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The 2018 version in the first and last paragraph are repeating nearly word for word. Repetition is often seen as a sign of insecurity and/or POV pushing and will result in problems (perhaps why it didn't last?). Everything about the current wording is accurate, precise and non-repetitive. It says "traditional" is the entire Middle Ages, which cam about during the Englightenment and from which most modern understandings derive with the rise of modern scholarship. It was then pared down to the early period. Baronius's period of 10th and 11th is something of an outlier no one has since embraced that timeframe. -- GreenC 23:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's highly misleading unless the current restriction to the Early Middle Ages is in the first para, preferably the first sentence. You've probably lost 90% of the readers by the last lead para. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard that and such a stat is unsupportable. We don't write articles with the idea people are not reading them. We write them for people who read them. -- GreenC 03:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we do, so let's do that! I take it you haven't delved much into the foundation's readership research, wherever that lives. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD has it. A couple minutes average. It's assumed they read the full lead. The first sentences are supposed to focus on reasons for notability. Then definitions. How to structure the definition is the question. Dark Ages definition changes over time and context which is the majority of the article. Thus it requires a fair amount of explanatory text. The neutral approach is start with a "classic" or "traditional" definition most widely known including popular culture and historical, then narrow and branch revisions over time leading to the most common understanding at the end. The end is actually as important as the beginning, the final words. Why the 2018 edition has repetition at the start and end, it can't decide which location is more important so it takes both prime spots! Normally do one or the other. Anyway it comes across as heavy handed POV pushing, something this article has had trouble with belaboring the point. -- GreenC 06:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No WP:LEAD has a figure from Alexa: "As of March 2020}}, Alexa's entry for wikipedia.org reports that the average Wikipedia user spends 3 minutes and 52 seconds on the site per day." (my bold) "wikipedia.org Competitive Analysis, Marketing Mix and Traffic". And they squeeze an avge 3.03 pages into that 3 minutes and 52 seconds! The WMF research is far more specific and detailed. I don't think WP:LEAD "assumes" people read the whole lead, and if it does, it's just wrong (depending a good deal on lead length). Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't what what WMF research you are talking about. Anyway this is a derail as there is nothing in our guidelines or policies that says to write as if readers stop after the first paragraph, such an assertion is completely unsupported and unsupportable. LEAD says: "lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." It doesn't say they stop after the first paragraph, it says the lead portion of the article. -- GreenC 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I know you don't know; that was my original point! "unsupported and unsupportable" - sounds very like "I don't like that" - in fact such research is perfectly do-able and I have done some myself. The WMF have done quite a bit, though I can't remember where it lives. The claim that it doesn't matter if the first sentence or para is misleading, if the 4th para is more accurate, is unimpressive. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, statistics are easily misconstrued and can have multiple meanings so unless I can see what research you saw there is no way I am going to believe the very surprising assertion that 90% of readers stop after the first paragraph. -- GreenC 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Oxford Dictionary of English gives 5th to 11th centuries as the sole definition of Dark Ages, Merriam Webster and Collins as the main one, OED as sometimes the whole Middle Ages and often to the appearance of vernacular written documents, which would be to the mid-seventh century in England. Wikipedia works by consensus and four out of five editors think that the article should start with the main definition in most dictionaries. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The OED does not say that, it is an incorrect reading. I'm happy to start an RfC and bring in the wider Wikipedia community as I am confident in what it says. In fact if it didn't say that the OED has a serious problem because so many other sources confirm it to be a meaning of Dark Ages. -- GreenC 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what you think the OED is not saying, but I am also happy for you to start an RfC. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It gives multiple meanings for Dark Ages, just as the other dictionaries and sources do. -- GreenC 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries are pretty poor sources; there are far better ones used (often with fairly long quotes) used lower down. Of course there is a difficulty in that the main message of modern historians is "Don't use Dark Ages!", with understandably less on "If you do use it, use it for the Early Middle Ages only!", though it is clear enough that they think that, and the last uses by historians in book titles (now over 50 years ago) had that meaning exclusively, as do the contemporary uses by tv historians. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, this article is the historiography of the term. Dictionaries like OED are good at establishing a baseline definition that is commonly agreeable, common meanings, from which the article builds and expands on. -- GreenC 18:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GreenC are you taking this to RfC? If so, I think further comments are better reserved for it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, you maintain the OED is defining a single meaning for Dark Ages (Early Middle Ages ca. 500-1000) and not two meanings (all of the Middle Ages and/or Early Middle Ages). And you wish to have an RfC to settle this question. Is this correct? -- GreenC 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. I did not say that the OED has a single meaning. I wrote above: "OED as sometimes the whole Middle Ages and often to the appearance of vernacular written documents". This reflects the quote from the OED in the footnote: "a term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages to mark the intellectual darkness characteristic of the time; often restricted to the early period of the Middle Ages, between the time of the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular written documents." The OED does not mention Early Middle Ages and I did not say that it does. You may be confusing the OED with the Oxford Dictionary of English, which does only mention the Early Middle Ages (and the end of the Greek Bronze Age).

However, what the OED says is a side issue. The lead paragraph states that the Dark Ages refers to the Middle Ages and gives no other meaning. I altered it to state that it covers the early Middle Ages, but also mentioned the two other common historiographical usages, the whole Middle Ages and the Greek Dark Ages. You reverted to the previous version. The RfC would be on your reversion of a lead paragraph which includes the most common usages of the term in favour of one which only mentions the less common definition as the whole Middle Ages. (I think the Greek definition should be mentioned for the benefit of readers who come across it, but it is not a major issue and is probably better in the hatnote.) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with the first sentence mentioning both the EMA as the usual modern sense, and the whole MA as sometimes the sense, in that order. Not mentioning the EMA in the first sentence is unacceptable, & does not reflect the more detailed & more sourced account lower down. Before a general Rfc, we should notify this to the MA wkiproject for other informed comments. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I can live with a mention of EMA in the lead paragraph. My main concern is not to overdo it or belabor the point because it's also discussed in the last paragraph, which is just as important placement wise. This article has at least 4 POVs that have to be balanced with the correct weight, but really more than that. Readers have unexamined biases that are triggered when they feel their POV is not given enough weight, or too much towards another. The lead section has been a slippery pole, many take it on, but the proof is how long it lasts. -- GreenC 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is really bad

This article is really bad. It's an over-long essay on why one should never use the term dark ages. It's not really ABOUT the dark ages at all.

Yes, modern historians do not use the term ... but normal people do and it has an actual meaning.

This article should be about three paragraphs long: (1) The dark ages means the early middle ages (see early middle ages) (2) Modern historians don't use this term much (3) People argue about how bad the early middle ages actually were.

Note that the current article was actively removed from the good article list .. because it's bad.

I understand that if I changed the article like this there are at least two authors that would revert it. How can I get a vote to see if people would prefer this version? Kitplane01 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the denial of a dark age is too broad. No one disputes that Britain experienced a much more drastic decline in living standards after the collapse of the roman empire than mainland Europe, the latin language and christianity itself even died out and historians also dispute if there were any towns at that time due to massive depopulation. the time 400-700ad in britan cant be considered anything but a dark age. However I agree it may be wrong to apply it to the entire middle ages a time when Lincoln cathedral was built which was taller than any roman building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a terrible article. The edit history is a sea of trolling and unscrupulous additions that get reverted. The language in some places reads like a poorly educated 9th grader home schooled by a moronic zealot. I suggest the article should be locked and then fixed. As it stands, its un-encyclopedic. IcehouseCover (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Uropean Art history, tells a different story. The free expression of the Human Spirit was subjected to much inhumane treatment. And it is seen in many authoritarian regimented religious works. A very dark time indeed. This article is a edit of the truth. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I've only read the introduction but so far I agree and if anything the introduction should be the most balanced and for a general audience. As far as I know there is no question that scholarship was forbidden during this time (with punishment for disobedience being torture and death) unless it was church approved (hence practically nothing that is still remembered was created in contrast to the classical and Renaissance periods that came after) and that the people we associate with the beginning of the Renaissance (Copernicus, Galileo) had to be very careful what they published for fear of being branded as heretics and killed. Also, that torture was routinely used, not against people who tried to subvert the state as in Roman times but for anyone who was perceived to offer ideas that challenged the church. That seems worth mentioning as to why it was called dark. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If it were true, which it isn't. "As far as I know" doesn't seem to go very far.... Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

And "if it were true which it isn't" doesn't go very far either. In fact I think it goes much less far than my statement. It is an opinion with absolutely no argument behind it. In case I wasn't clear I was acknowledging that I'm not an expert in the field. But I made some concrete statements of fact which you completely ignored. I also want to point out that the fact that there are several books that argue that the Dark Ages weren't that Dark doesn't mean they weren't times when (compared to the times before and after) relatively little progress was made in learning and people often lived in fear of the Church. For one thing it is a lot harder to get a book published that says "the accepted wisdom about this time is true and here is why" than to get some revisionist history that says the accepted wisdom is all wrong. For another, people often publish things that say "well it wasn't quite as bad as the accepted wisdom" which doesn't mean it still wasn't bad. I think at a bare minimum the article should acknowledge why the Dark Ages are called that and then offer evidence that the accepted wisdom isn't true. It doesn't do that. If I had time I would research some of those references and also find some additional references but as of now I have a million other things that are a higher priority. But I think I made a legitimate criticism of the article which other responsible editors should address with reason and facts if they think I'm wrong or by changing the article if they agree with me. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

May I ask what your source is for the claim that "scholarship was forbidden during this time (with punishment for disobedience being torture and death)"? It depends what period you are talking about, and what scholarship, but across the board I doubt if the freedom to think and speak was more limited in the Middle Ages than, say, under Communism or Fascism. Besides, I doubt if lack of academic freedom is what is meant by "dark ages". --Doric Loon (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Education was more widespread and available in the Middle Ages than during the Greek and Roman period. Including women. Not so much in the EMA but there was strong oral culture that became the languages we speak, the countries and cultures we inhabit. -- GreenC 03:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a terrible article. It reads as a Dark Ages apologist brochure that attempts to convey the dark ages weren’t so dark after all. It makes a point that people didn’t think the Earth was flat for instance.

But what readers really come to this article for is an explanation as to why no progress was made during the thousand prior to the Dark Ages when Eratosthenes in 300BC not only knew the world was round but calculated its circumference to within 2% of the actual figure using just two shadows.

To gloat with the fact that one thousand years later western society should be proud because they realized the Earth was round seems ridiculous.

Progress stopped. The age WAS dark and readers want to know why. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We could ague about that ("no progress was made for 1000 years"). You ignore many positive developments that occurred during this period in art, language, politics, architecture, clothing, machinery and technology, boat building, took making, husbandry, farming, etc... Otherwise it is cherry picking certain things and ignoring others. When you look at all the evidence, a pejorative description like Dark Ages comes across as biased and narrow minded. Anyway this is what professional historians say, don't take my word for it, read the sources in this article. -- GreenC 02:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

I have reverted the change back to the old version of the lead sentence. 1. Dark Ages is a term not a periodization, which is a process. 2. "Traditionally" is vague and meaningless, 3. A periodization asserting is ungrammatical. 4. One of the references is a bad link and the other does not support the sentence. 5. "Demographic" is not supported in the article or the references. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

1) That is your POV. Dark Ages is clearly a term of periodization for the (early) middle ages indeed where the term middle ages originated from example: [1] 2) Traditionally is not vague and meaningless, it is explained in the article how it's meaning has changed over time. This is the lead section, it has to balance concise with summary, traditionally is a useful tool when dealing with changing meanings over time. 3) Possibly but it can be easily fixed without deleting. 4) You don't delete a citation to the Oxford English Dictionary because of a bad link, you replace the link. It's the OED! The second source does support the sentence. 5) It should be in the sources, and should be in the article - are you suggesting there was no demographic decline, or you don't know? -- GreenC 15:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Dudley asked me to comment here. The two versions, for easy reference, are:

The "Dark Ages" is a historical periodization traditionally referring to the Early Middle Ages or Middle Ages, that asserts that a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.

and

The "Dark Ages" is a term for the Early Middle Ages or Middle Ages in the area of the Roman Empire in Europe, after its fall in the fifth century, characterizing it as marked by economic, intellectual and cultural decline.

Some comments on the above:

• 1) I can't see the OED citation, but I don't think a general reference is the best wasy to establish usage in a specialist field like medieval historiography. If we do need an OED citation I think I have the compact hardcopy downstairs and can provide a printed page reference.
• 2) The lead should quickly clarify to the reader that it's a term that is no longer in established scholarly use. "Periodization", which is technical, isn't the best way to convey that; it makes it sound like a term of art. Just saying "term" as the other version doesn't isn't ideal either. Perhaps an "outmoded" term?
• 3) Rather than "traditionally", can we give a range of dates for its scholarly use? I know sources for that may not be easy to find. Yes, we can qualify "traditionally" later in the article, but I don't think it tells the reader that this is a term that was once scholarly and is now regarded as actively misleading.
• 4) I assume that "demographic deterioration" means falling population? I was unaware of that meaning too. Again I see it's a general reference supporting it. I'll pull some specialist refs from my shelves and see if I can find more specific definitions that might be useful here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

1) OED is a useful because it's easy to dismiss a monologue or paper or specialist document as singular opinions, but if you are trying to establish a general socially agreed upon consensus (not total agreement), OED is a good standard. At least on Wikipedia.

2) We see many editors convinced the period was retrograde, one user even said the skies were literally dark. Saying "term" doesn't do it justice IMO, Dark Ages is an intellectual construct with an origin, history, intended purpose, etc.. Periodization doesn't give it any special weight, but is an objective description of what it is, for better and worse, all periodizations are problematic.

3) Well it used to say "traditionally referring to the Middle Ages" (no "Early Middle Ages") ie. the entire middle Ages ala Petrarch's usage. Then someone(s) inserted "Early Middle Ages" into the sentence, which I strongly opposed, but was overriden. Now the sentence is less clear since Early Middle Ages is a more recent scholarly term, thus it can't be traditional. The lead was structured like the article chronologically, starting with Petrarch's understanding and moving forward in time to the modern scholarly understanding at the end. Inserting "Early Middle Ages" into the first sentence broke the structure. There is no range of dates because the term is still in currency even among some scholars who should know better.

4) Medieval demography is an art, but the general understanding is that population peaked in Late Antiquity, and with the Plague of Justinian dropped sharply and stayed low or gradual uptick until the High Middle Ages 11th century when it rapidly increased until the crisis of the 14th century brought it to an end. -- GreenC 02:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What is most pertinent to this discussion is that Dark ages is an outmoded term that is not used anymore by scholars who study Antiquity and the early, high and late Middle ages - the actual terms for the periods supposedly being referred to here. The term "Dark ages" was invented in the Enlightenment era as a condescension. These were the people who invented the "Grand narrative" that, to quote Peter Brown, "begins with the "infinite superiority" of the Roman Empire based on an "idealized image" of it, then proceeds to vivid accounts of its unpleasant, ignorant, and violent enemies (the barbarians and the Christians), which is all intended to frame a "grandiose theory of catastrophe from which there would be no return for half a millennia" [i.e. the dark ages.] The problem with this, according to Brown, is that "much of this 'Grand Narrative' is wrong; it is a two dimensional history". ("Peter Brown; Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD. pages 4, and xxxii".) There is only – maybe – a single century that the term could arguably be applied to, but even so, nobody does, because they know it is a term that was intended as an insult. Honestly guys. Explain up front that "Dark ages" is a dated and outmoded term. That's a must. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: It seems like the term induces a negative emotional response in you/most people who have read that book, and I think if you can find multiple sources backing up your viewpoint (other than just Peter Brown, whom you are referring to) that your argument will have more credibility.

Deedman22 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Well let's see Deedman22. Really, the second and third paragraphs of the lead of this article are quite good, but that lead sentence isn't consistent with its following paragraphs, and as a result, it is misleading. You say it's a term for the middle ages, then you explain that it isn't. It's just one sentence. Any sentence can be rewritten. It isn't a big deal.

Here is a journal article with a good discussion of what I said here about the term:

Roy T. Matthews and F. DeWitt Platt wrote The Western Humanities and they use the term "Dark ages" – but only to refer to the period of 1100-800 BC of the Greeks.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Periodization links to an article which defines it as "the process or study of categorizing the past into discrete, quantified named blocks of time". It means a method of study and it is inaccurate to define a period as a method of study. Expanding it to "term of periodization" does not tell the reader anything helpful.

2. Online OED defines dark ages (lower case) as "a term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages to mark the intellectual darkness characteristic of the time; often restricted to the early period of the Middle Ages, between the time of the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular written documents". This is copied unchanged from the 19C OED and is outdated. Merriam-Webster defines Dark Ages as "the European historical period from about a.d. 476 to about 1000". This is the usual modern definition but only supports a small part of the sentence as a whole. It is acceptable (indeed preferred at FAC) for the lead not to have references but to accurately summarise referenced main text. It is misleading to supply references which only support part of the text.

3. I have no objection to "demographic" provided it is supported by a reference. My point was that it is not currently supported. An editor who wants to add text should provide a reference, not include it and tell other editors that it can be supported.

4. The Matthews article cited above is about the Greek Dark Ages, which is the subject of another article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Dudley Miles, it's nice to meet you. I just want to say it is obvious that everyone here cares about this article, about WP, and the quality of the work we do. You wouldn't be involved in this disagreement if you didn't. I respect that. Please keep that in mind as you read.

1. Periodization is as you define it, I agree. However, most periodizations are argued over: different scholars have different dates and often even different labels. All we can do with that is say so and reference accordingly. We don't get to decide which term we prefer.

2.a Merriam-Webster defines Dark Ages as "the European historical period from about a.d. 476 to about 1000". This is the usual modern definition I disagree. Finding something in a dictionary - since dictionaries all reflect common use and the term is still commonly used despite its misrepresentation - is not at all the same as identifying what terms scholars in the field use. Dictionaries are not good sources for scholarship it turns out. They are only good sources for common language uses.

2b. I have nothing to do with referencing in this article. The reference I provided here was about the linguistic history of the term dark ages, that's it. It is good not to have references in the lead, I do agree with that. They should be in the body.

3. demographic is not in the lead; I agree with the need for references that actually say what we claim they do. No one is arguing anything else as near as I can tell.

4.You're right, the Matthews article is about the Greeks, and if you look, you will see I did say that. The point was, that is the only time this long-time classic many times reprinted set of textbooks uses the term dark ages. These historians do not ever use it to refer to the western middle ages. It is not a term used by scholars anymore Dudley, yet it will no doubt be in dictionaries for decades to come as the concept of a dark and ignorant time before we all progressed into enlightenment continues to have popular appeal. One of the articles I found was about the use of that very concept in modern media - no matter how unscholarly - it persists.

5. We all - clearly - want what is best for WP content. So, in that vein of thought, imho, it does not add to the quality of the encyclopedia to contribute to the ongoing misuse of a term. When scholarship changes, it is on us to reflect that. Right now this says The "Dark Ages" is a term for the Early Middle Ages or Middle Ages and that statement is only half right; and this characterizing it as marked by economic, intellectual and cultural decline is an oversimplification that is also only half right; and a half right sentence is also half wrong. That does not promote the good of the encyclopedia.

6. Perhaps something along the lines of: "The "Dark Ages" is a commonly used popular term for the Early Middle Ages, or Middle Ages, no longer used by twenty-first century scholars. The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s ... blah blah Age of Enlightenment". Some of the Theodore Momsen article, a well known dependable scholar, could be used to beef up and clarify that third paragraph a bit. This article would benefit from a discussion of the linguistics and the evolution of the term and an explanation of why it is no longer used.

You will of course do what you see as best for this article. I wish you well Dudley. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: are you sure your argument isn't "i am unhappy with the term 'dark ages' and would love if "modern scholars" and people in general did not use it'.."? because last time I checked (21st century modern scholars included, since we are so intent on categorizing people as being either scholarly or non-scholarly) do still use the term. the Greek reference that you, (for some reason), brought up only serves to support the fact that academics continue to use the phrase to refer to a historic period of time. please argue that the term is no longer recognized and that the term is no longer being used (not simply why it shouldn't be used) and maybe your argument will have more substance. Deedman22 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jenhawk777 for your comments. I agree that we are all just trying to improve Wikipedia and hopefully we can find a wording that everyone is happy with. I do not see why you think that the first half of my wording is only half right but I accept that the second half is an over-simplification. How about "The Dark Ages is a term for the Early Middle Ages or the Middle Ages as a whole, most commonly in the area of the former Western Roman Empire. It is rejected by most modern historians of the period as unfairly pejorative, but still used as a description of the Early Middle Ages by a few scholars and in popular usage." So far as I know it is no longer used by anyone as a term for the whole Middle Ages but if anyone points out recent examples then the wording will need to be amended. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Current academic opinion on usage is already discussed in the third paragraph. Look, this article is a history of the concept. Academic opinion on usage is important, and discussed, but is not the majority of the article or even its purpose. The lead is simple: follow the chronological order of the article, write a mini version of the article per WP:LEAD with the same weights. This is what it does. It starts with Petrarch's traditional usage of the entire middle ages, moves forward in time to modern academic/popular usage. Otherwise, it reads like an opinionated essay trying obnoxiously hard to make a point, which experience has shown readers reject as overt POV pushing. -- GreenC 16:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "a history of the concept" is exactly right -- the "historiography" indicates to me that the article is about the term itself, and one of the reasons the term is historiographically interesting is because of the change in usage. Having said that, a quick look in Google Scholar does find quite a few continued usages of the term, somewhat to my surprise, so there's no absolute transition that has taken place. I'd like to see a couple more sources specifically discussing the historiography, rather than just the period, in order to help figure out what the article should contain. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"historiography" was chosen to differentiate it from being an article about the history itself, which is in Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages. It's not a literal indication that the article is limited to only discussing the specific term "Dark Ages" versus the broader concept first invented by Petrach, who did not even give it a name. -- GreenC 17:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Deedman22 I know I wrote too much for anyone to read it all, but I never argued that the term is no longer used or recognized. In fact I think I said, it will no doubt be in dictionaries for decades to come I do claim that, for the most part, Dark ages is no longer used to describe the western middle ages by those who study these periods of history - those we reference and quote. Its use for the Greeks was a demonstration that, since it is still used to describe that period, it could still be used for the west if it were still considered a valid periodization; it isn't. "In the latest (the fourteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the term 'Dark Ages' is no longer used. On the contrary, it is explicitly stated that 'the contrast, once so fashionable, between the ages of darkness and the ages of light has no more truth in it than have the idealistic fancies which underlie attempts at mediaeval revivalism". (Mommsen page 226) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Dudley Miles! That's a lot of verbiage to say basically the same thing I said in half a sentence. You know what I really think you should do? Throw out that first sentence entirely; it's never going to be anything but problematic. Begin with The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s and the second paragraph. It's a good paragraph and it already says what you are trying to here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Green I am thinking you are right that the summary of the body actually begins with the second paragraph, so you might agree with what I just wrote to Dudley. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie it's so lovely to run into you! Isn't this fun?! :-) I think you will find those continued uses are connected to recognition of the term's popular use and its scholarly refutation. Like Mommsen's article which has Dark ages in the title but not because he is actually using it to define a period of history. He uses it more to describe a common attitude toward history: "In the monograph Das Schlagwort vom 'finsteren Mittelalter' (Vienna-Leipzig) 1932 by Lucie Varga, Momsen says: "Miss Varga has shown very clearly that the expression 'Dark Ages' was never primarily a scientific term, but rather a battle-cry, 'a denunciation of the mediaeval conception of the world, of the mediaeval attitude toward life, and of the culture of the Middle Ages. The slogan attained its greatest currency in the age of the Enlightenment, and the very name of that period was a manifest declaration of war against the era of 'darkness' and its scale of values." (Mommsen, page 227).

Mommsen follows the historiography of the term beginning with Petrarch on pages 230-237: "Petrarch's invention of the concept of the "Dark Ages" was a result of his great love of Rome: "What else, then, is all history, if not the praise of Rome?" Petrarch divided history into two sharply separated periods: Rome and not Rome. Mediaeval historiography was based on different principles: mediaeval historians "almost without exception wrote universal history". Petrarch stopped his history precisely at the point where, in his opinion, the 'decline' of the Empire began. The mediaeval historians, on the other hand, continued history straight through to their own time. Petrarch introduced a new chronological demarcation in history implicitly anticipating the ideas of the fifteenth-century Italian humanists. Petrarch stands at the very fountainhead of Renaissance thought. It is logical that the 'Father of Humanism' is also the father of the concept or attitude which regards the Middle Ages as the 'Dark Ages'."

Here is a totally fascinating article on the use of the concept of "Dark ages" (as it is in Petrarch's view) "a specific, coherent and recurring construct of the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages in feature films." What this article proves is that the term will never go away completely. All I have claimed here is that the term represents a particular point of view, and as a result, most scholars no longer use it. That is absolutely without debate. In an article like this one, that should be right up front imho.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777:You said "[Its use for the Greeks was a demonstration that, since it is still used to describe that period, it could still be used for the west if it were still considered a valid periodization; it isn't.]" Please explain why it is no longer considered a valid periodization for the west. Is it because the term hurts your feelings? Is it because Mommsen (your favorite source) said so? Because you seem to be referencing him a lot like his paper is the gospel or something and superior to all others, and his (and Brown's) viewpoints seem to align with your hurt feelings. So I am asking you to please explain why (in your own words) the term is no longer considered a valid term for the west, but is for some reason applicable when referring to a (characteristically) similar period in ancient greek history.

Thank you.

Deedman22 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you read the article, there are two ways people use Dark Ages. One is with a pejorative bias ie. anti-Christian, anti-Medieval, pro-Classical etc... The other is in a neutral manner, such as the period is dark to us because we lack records. One is an opinion about the period itself, the other about our own understanding of the period. This second meaning is why it's still sometimes used, legitimately, in references to the Early Middle Ages. But also why that usage is going out of fashion because of the confusion it causes, as this conversation attests. BTW I'm a little uncomfortable with your saying "the term hurts your feelings" and "the term induces a negative emotional response in you", because I am not seeing that, it looks like a personal attack. What Jen is saying is accurate and supportable by the many sources used in this article, gathered over 15 years by many editors - Jen added more with Brown and Mommsen, both top-tier scholars. -- GreenC

Thank you Green you are a scholar and a gentleman. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for making you uncomfortable. I understand that the term may have negative connotations. The point I'm trying to make is that the term is still being used and is understood by modern scholars, and it would be misleading and inappropriate to suggest otherwise by saying "modern scholars no longer use the term".

Deedman22 (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Deedman22 I know it's bad form to go back and insert later replies in a previous discussion but I failed to address your legitimate concerns here. The term is still being used but in a very limited capacity, and when you say it is understood by scholars, that is misleading because it is understood differently. As Green correctly answers your query directly above here, it is therefore confusing to scholars and everyone else. :::It was never a "scientific" term with any kind of definitive time frame. It has been used by different people in different ways to define different time periods - not all uses are negative either - for some it has had a positive use, but those very differences are exactly why it is falling out of fashion. There are other better clearer terms with more defined periodization, for better reasons, that are now being used instead. This article should reflect that. That is the current state of scholarship.

I have offered multiple references so far supporting that. Your argument is based on popular use - which I don't deny. So how would you rewrite that lead sentence to reflect that it is a popular term that is fading from use in scholarly material because it had a political definition more than a scientific one? What do you think of just dropping that first sentence altogether? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Deedman22 Please desist referring to my feelings or my comfort level. They have nothing to do with any aspect of this discussion. Why do scholars use the term for the Greeks? I have no idea, and I can't see that it matters. All that matters is that it is a dated term that is no longer used to refer to the European Middle Ages except in some English histories of the Anglo-Saxons.

My response to you is taken from "Perhaps 'the Middle Ages', and 'medieval', are now too convenient to discard; and perhaps, in that case, utilitarian gains outweigh some obvious drawbacks. But not even a utilitarian argument can sustain 'the Dark Ages'. History in practice is better off without a Schlagwort that began and largely continued as the war-cry of the enemy. Anyway, we can do without war cries, for we are not an army but a guild, and though we may participate in cultural contests, we should be equipped with a banner as for a gala, not a battle. The earlier medievalists' sub-section, reflecting 'the variety and versatility' of the worlds they study, would argue long about what to put on the banner: 'A new history for a new Europe' might well win the day. But there should be no votes for 'The Dark Ages'." This applies to us as well.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The title of the article is Dark Ages (historiography). OED defines historiography as 1. The writing of history; written history. 2. The study of history-writing, esp. as an academic discipline. The primary subject of the article according to its name should be its use by historians, especially academic historians. Popular usage is a separate subject which is worth its own article, if anyone is interested in writing it. It should be briefly referred to in this article, but only as a minor side issue. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dudley Miles As far as I am concerned you have hit the nail on the head, are right on target, and every other metaphor I can think for - yeah! What you said! That completes that discussion imo. Now, how to apply that to that first sentence? What about just eliminating it Dudley and beginning with the second paragraph? I think it was an attempt to summarize the entire article in one sentence and that's unnecessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think it is helpful to the reader to start with a definition, but if we cannot agree on a wording it is better to delete it, which I will do in a couple of days if no one objects. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

First sentence redo

Regarding this recent addition. I see what the IP is getting at, though at the same time, I question this term is used precisely. Most people refer to the Middle Ages, or Early Middle Ages, without really honing in on western vs eastern europe, though some might. My sense is we should not try to make such a precise definition in the lead, but at the same time, it does link to the fall of the western empire which provides some suggestion as to the area under question. The lead should be general and encompassing based on usage realities. -- GreenC 19:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)