Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 5

Lead edit
. Makes it sound like there was no vernacular literature during the entire period which is inaccurate, the original definition is more nuanced. The source given is somewhat old and is about the early modern period not specially on the middle ages and appears to be paraphrasing (if not outright copying) OED. -- Green  C  19:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your revert ignores the problem outlined in the edit summary: the lede would like to insinuate that the entire era did not exist, but this article is about the usage of the 'dark ages' term. Since it was used to indicate an intellectual lacking during that period, whether there was or not is not the topic of this article, so make the lede reflect this, please. My edit was founded and sources, so there was no call for reverting it... and, once again, the reverted-to sources do not support the reverted-to claim. T P  ✎ ✓ 19:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I assume that this was reverted by the 'owner' of this phrase, as it was reverted down to its hidden-text 'remove this and I will revert' threat: this is strictly forbidden and quite disruptive. T P  ✎ ✓ 19:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is historiography, a history of history and meta discussion of history. Not sure what you mean "owner" I restored what was there because there has been a long-term problem as you can see in the talk page archives involving many other editors, the wikicomment has been useful. The lead doesn't say the entire era didn't exist and the source support the lead. If there is a problem with the lead please explain in more detail which words are a problem and why. Also like I said your proposed text is basically a copyvio of OED without attributing OED.  --  Green  C  20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If they do cite the dictionary, what of it? That's exactly what the lede does now... and the lede as it was does refer to the entire middle ages, whereas my change limited that to the beginning of the same period. The 'meta' comes later in the article, but the lede makes it seem the whole thing (and casts doubt on the actual period existing). I don't think much was examined (or addressed) before reverting, and nothing I said (now twice repeated) is being addressed now. T P  ✎ ✓ 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't paraphrase OED that closely it's a copyright violation, and the OED definition is terse enough (as a dict def) that it leaves some ambiguity that can be resolved with a more nuanced explanation based on the article body. - because that is 'traditionally' what it meant when it was first defined, as explained in the article body which the lead section summarizes per WP:LEAD. As for the lead  ..  Historians call it "middle ages" or "dark ages" or "migration period" or "time of troubles" or anything they want, they are labels added after the fact, some subjective and others objective, but the time period itself actually existed (whatever it is called). The article doesn't say the period didn't exist it cites sources which call into question the usefulness of calling the period the Dark Ages, which is standard among most medieval historians these days. --  Green  C  20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations? Hardly. But, again, to the initial point: "...the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe"... hello? That's addressing the existence of the deterioration, not the term itself, and anyone who can read can see that... which is most likely why it's there (and so 'protected'). T P  ✎ ✓ 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I wouldn't mind at all bringing outside attention to this. T P  ✎ ✓ 21:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote you give addresses the definition of the term and how historians believe if its accurate or not, this is a historiography article. It sounds like you are unhappy with the word "supposedly". This is because most medieval historians say no, the period was not a "deterioration", but other popular historians, older historians and pop culture says otherwise -- so we have conflicting POVs. But Wikipedia favors scholarship so we give more credibility to medieval historians, thus the nuanced wording "supposedly". This is all explained in painstaking detail in the article which is required reading. As for outside attention no problem., look through talk page history there are many editors involved in creating this article, it's not just me if that's what you were thinking. -- Green  C  04:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That phrase's meaning is evident, and no amount of talk-page (purposeful?) point-missing explanations can change that. To resume:
 * This article is about the usage of the term 'dark ages', yet the lede phrase claims that a period of decline might not have existed.
 * The source purporting to support the above claim doesn't support it at all.
 * Both the above are 'protected' by a 'if you touch this, it will be reverted' hidden-text threat. This is both disruptive and goes against Wikipedia protocol.
 * It's rather simple to reformulate that phrase using the existing text to reflect the term's usage and to find a claim supporting it. I don't see how this can be contested, let alone revert-worthy (as the points above are), so if the above aren't adressed in the coming days, I will make those changes, and if they are again reverted, I will be bringing outside attention to this. T P  ✎ ✓ 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase's meaning is not at all "evident". The terms "usage", what does that mean? In the `18th century? By Hollywood? By modern Academics? By popular historians? By 19th C historians? By French historians? It's widely different. So we give the traditional classic meaning with a nuance that not everyone agrees with it. Simple first sentence then go into details in the next paragraph and body of article. The lead sets off the rest of the article and if you are proposing there was no period of decline then we will need to scrap and rewrite large portions of the article, in the process deleting many reliable sources. There is no consensus for that sort of disruptive change. From what I can tell, you have either not read the article, don't understand it, or simply disagree there was no period of decline. It's telling that your fixated on a single sentence in the lead but apparently have no problem with the rest of the article which supports that sentence with a variety of sources. Your bad-faith accusations of "protectionism" is also disruptive and unhelpful, this article has been arrived at by consensus by many editors over many years. -  Green  C  13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who cares 'how many people' or 'how long' it took to tailor that phrase: it's wrong, not even on-topic, and unsupported, and the threat's still there, too... and the fact that it's being defended by someone very concerned about keeping that exact same phrasing (who knows about its 'long history') doesn't look very good, either. I'm only concerned with WP:V, but all that was said and done speaks for itself in the end. T P  ✎ ✓ 17:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong, it's on-topic and is supported, nor is there a "threat". I didn't write that note but just changed it so it isn't misinterpreted. -- Green  C  18:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's wrong - for the last time, this is an article about the use of the term. That phrase suggests that there might not have been a period of decline in northwestern Europe... there was, no matter what one 'calls' it, so shining doubt on the actual period of decline in this article is both the promotion of a WP:FRINGE POV and non sequitur.
 * I see that you and a few others have been 'squatting' that particular phrase (and 'warning' ) since 2011. There's been no shortage of attempts to remove the 'supposed' (amidst other attempts to correct that phrase), all reverted to the exact same form as before. There's protest through the talk-pages, too, answered with nothing substantial (or nothing at all)... no, nothing wrong here at all. T P   ✎ ✓ 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the phrase suggests there is some controversy over the degree and significance of the decline, and thus usefulness of the term. It does not come down squarely on one side or another. You are trying to do that, to eliminate one of the POVs, which makes you appear biased. -- Green  C  19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, although I know full well you understood me perfectly all along: only a few would try to pretend that there was no period of decline in western Europe, yet the stated (not 'suggested') point of view of these 'doubters' is the only one presented here (and that is not at all 'useful'). And about your POV accusation against me: if someone presents a claim that the earth is flat, another pointing to the overwhelming body of evidence that it is round is 'biased' and 'pushing a POV'?
 * I really don't see what more I can add here: either address the 'supposedly' claim (and the lack of a source supporting it), or others can decide who's pushing POV here. I'm probably going to go that route, anyway. T P  ✎ ✓ 20:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is inconsistent with the MoS and the use of "supposedly" is pejorative, therefore not neutral. It is fine for an introductory section to mention a popular or academic debate around the use of a term, but that should be towards the end (i.e. the last line as we already have here), not in the second sentence. I don't think a compromise is terribly difficult; the sentence structure is the problem. Instead of "It emphasizes the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following..." we change and remove a few words so that "It asserts that a demographic, cultural and economic deterioration occurred in Western Europe following..." The use of "assert" is neutral - an assertion can be right or wrong but we don't say either way, allowing the article to cover the debate in proper detail at the appropriate point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I appreciate the objective thinking and rewording. The Google definition of supposedly: according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement) which is exactly what is being communicated - there is a general belief what Dark Ages means - the popular culture and historical meaning - but this is doubtful because academic sourcing runs contrary. Since Wikipedia attempts to be an academic-source oriented encyclopedia that is the voice we are writing in and from. Another way to put it is "It emphasizes the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that some perceive to have occurred in Western Europe following..." .. however this won't mollify anything because as noted above, there are some editors who refuse to see it as a POV issue, they maintain the period was a Dark Age -- end of story. The use of assert I'm concerned is fairly ambiguous because an assertion doesn't have to imply there are multiple POVs, it could mean there is a singular POV that is strongly held. Assert according to Google: state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully, making the view "confidently" held when it's really the opposite. Maybe changing "supposedly" to "perceived" would help in cases where some people read supposedly as being too heavy handed, but honestly I doubt it. It's been tried before with same result. -- Green  C  19:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing 'supposed' 'doesn't work' only because, according to the article edit history and talk-page archives (that have no discussion about using the word 'supposed' in the lede at all), the same few contributors keep reverting any attempt to remove it since the better part of six years now (and answering protests at this (and article quality in general) with (non-)replies like the above).
 * Again, this article should be about the usage of term used to describe an era, not about the era itself. Wiki-Ed is correct in their description of the (intended) use of 'supposedly', and their ""It asserts that a demographic, cultural and economic deterioration occurred in Western Europe following..."" suggestion is most certainly the best solution. T P  ✎ ✓ 20:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as already noted, the word "assert" is ambiguous and can actually re-reinforce s POV as being forcefully believed. -- Green  C  21:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As you already noted (claimed), and that doesn't even make any sense.
 * We are now two to have demonstrated multiple reasons why the lede is wrong and against policy (and non sequitur in this article), but this seems not to 'matter'. T P  ✎ ✓ 22:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the meaning of the word. Look it up in a dictionary. In fact the sense given by Wiki-Ed (as one of multiple POVs) I can't even find in a dictionary, but maybe it's one of the rarer ones found in the OED. -- Green  C  23:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We all know full well what meaning supposed conveys, and our concerns are, in addition to its being non sequitur in this article, because it defies WP:NPOV.
 * Wiki-Ed's suggestion is demonstrably neutral and brings the lede propos back into line with the article title. If it is reverted again, this is one for the NPOV noticeboard. T P  ✎ ✓ 04:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the right course of action. I see that User:GreenC has conceded that his use of "supposedly" is intended to convey a non-neutral perspective. Comparable articles (e.g. on the Enlightenment) don't mention historiographic disputes until much later in the body text; and even articles on fringe theories (e.g. Flat Earth) adopt a more neutral stance. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since we've identified the problem(s), it's time to fix and move on. I think you'll find that much of this article is dedicated to 'discrediting' historical consensus that there was a period of regression, no matter what one calls it (and the apologist position on this is odd, because the reasons for this regression were many, and not even religious, really (its purveyors mostly 'filled the void' after the fact)), but one step at a time. T P  ✎ ✓ 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing's been resolved I just don't feel like repeating and edit warring 2:1, there are plenty of other editors who could step in any time. Your statement is revealing because it shows you to have some kind of belief editors are defending a religious view (I think?), it would explain your somewhat hostile and bad faith attitude. Nevertheless, I'm not religious. This is about reliable sources and what modern academic sourcing says. The article also doesn't do what you claim . It's about the terms history and why modern historians have mostly given up on using the pejorative term over more neutral ones like Early Middle Ages. That doesn't mean there was no 'regressions' as you claim.   --  Green  C  21:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You were the one reverting ad literam to a contested and counter-policy version (outlined in the edit summary): that is the very definition of edit-warring.
 * We have been two to patiently repeatedly demonstrate (myself, too many times) these problems; most of your answers (like the above) were a sort of 'rationalisation' that did not at all reflect the meaning of the phrase in question (nor would it change reader understanding of the same).
 * How is anything I've said or done here in 'bad faith'?
 * Apologist talking-points are a common source of that claim, and I'm sure we both know this. I don't understand why (else) someone would be so hell-bent on denying that a period of decline even existed, especially when historical consensus (and evidence) demonstrates that there was one, but yes, this is not really the place for such ruminations. But, again, this article's role is to indicate such opinions, not to make a case for them in the lede (without mentioning any other). T P  ✎ ✓ 22:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No one was "hell bent on denying that a period of decline existed" that is your fantasy strawman, bad faith #1. Your accusation of edit warring, it was a normal Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, bad faith #2. There was nothing "demonstrated", neither of you addressed the points about the appropriateness of supposed in context.
 * That Christian website they get facts wrong and distort the evidence. You've been reading propaganda from fringe Christian blogs, meanwhile ignoring mainstream secular sources. You are seriously confused. Maybe some Christians will cherry pick aspects from professional historians and distort it to fit their agenda. So what? Look I am a professionally trained historian degree from a secular university no religious affiliation or background. You are reading way too much into it and not examining the sources or the article in good faith, you have a bad faith perspective of it being Christian propaganda. It is not. You can't see subtleties, nuances etc.. only black and white Christian propaganda which this article is certainly not. --  Green  C  03:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your attempting to take a 'personal' angle against me (for lack of any other argument?) doesn't change anything in what the lede related, and it doesn't matter 'where' such theories come from (my hypothesis was but one possibility): their preponderance in the greater field of historical consensus should be mentioned later in the article (if this article was about that!), but not in the lede, and the lede as it was, since it presented the 'doubter' POV (without evidence or suitable citation), didn't even do that. T P  ✎ ✓ 05:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: a trained professional should know better than to do/support that, as they know even better where (their) claims stand in the field of historical consensus. T P  ✎ ✓ 06:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your the one making bad faith accusations that I and other editors are Christian apologists, or something. Just ask yourself: why is our article Early Middle Ages not called Dark Ages? Because historians by and large no longer use the term for reasons explained in this article. It's an out of fashion, pejorative term that has little meaning when examined in detail. For example, mass chattel slavery went down during this period a major social advancement. Road building when down, but there were advancements in farming technology. The Roman Empire collapsed, but the modern nation states began to form. It goes on like that back and forth. It's purely subjective to conclude it was a "Dark" age, a pejorative.
 * Dark Ages is in the end a term of propaganda invented by Humanists that's been abused for centuries by Humanists, Christians, Enlightenment era writers and popular culture for their own ends. This is all explained in detail in the article. If you attempt to do what your suggesting you can count on RfCs and posts throughout Wikipedia to bring in dozens of editors. The sources are crystal clear while your arguments are based in conspiracy theory and misunderstanding of how this term is used in the English speaking world. -- Green  C  12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your accusation that I'm making an accusation is yet another ad-hominem strawman... but anyone reading this can decide that for themselves.
 * What follows is an explanation of why the the term 'dark ages' is no longer used much today: yes, it is a perjorative 'facile' quasi-childish blanket-assumption term, but the fact that the term is no longer used doesn't mean that the period of regression that it was used to describe didn't exist, either, as the lede as it was would have us believe. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: But thanks for making your POV clear. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the POV of professional historians, what Wikipedia uses and reports on. I don't know what a 'period of regression' means, do you? Like I said, for every example of a 'regression' a counter-example can be given of progression. At what point does the exercise break down and you have to be more specific (regression of written documents, regression of road building etc) rather than giving blanket statements like 'period of regression' which is just as useless as 'Dark Ages'. -- Green  C  13:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the POV of some historians. Contributors attempting to advertise selective opinions as 'the whole truth' is the very reason WP:NPOV exists. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P   ✎ ✓ 14:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is more nuanced than you are portraying. -- Green  C  14:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of it is nuanced and balanced (i.e. the main body of the history section), but "Modern academic use" and "Modern popular use" look a bit questionable, both in terms of neutrality and verifiability (e.g. pinning the crucial sentence on 20th century historiographical scholarship on to a single source... on archaeology. And without a page number.). I pick this in particular because it seems to be inferring that the early Anglo Saxon England period is well understood. Where is the body of 20th century literature that has "exploded" our understanding? It is still very, very obscure. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It clearly states:, recognizing the nature of this period and place. When you say "where is the body of 20th century literature" .. obviously we know much more about the period now then in 1899, when medieval history was nationalistic story telling by pipe-smoking aristocrats like Winston Churchill. Today there are professional historians, academic institutions, multiple lines and fields of study etc.. times change and our understanding of history does too. The source for that statement is the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, one of the biggest efforts to date to create a comprehensive academic encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Like any encyclopedia it's representative of how the scholarship views things today. -- Green  C  21:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It does say that, but then it later goes on to suggest that 20th century scholarship has (increased) understanding - I agree of course - but referencing this statement with a book on early Anglo Saxon England is a rather odd choice. Our 21st century level of awareness of how people lived (mostly down to archaeology) doesn't rectify the paucity of historical sources that would tell us who they were or what they did, or why. Anyway, maybe I'm nitpicking. My specific interest is/was in this period of English history, so I find it odd when I read an article which suggests it was anything other than obscure (historically) or civilised (subjective or otherwise); 'dark' seems appropriate in both senses. Of course the term goes wider than that and I would agree it's not appropriate in many ways, but in writing and presenting an article on the historiography of the term we have to accept that it has been used for centuries, rightly or wrongly, and should be presented neutrally, even if critically. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS. Fairly certain Winston smoked cigars, not pipes, but that really would be nitpicking. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source for the "two reasons" is the DMA not the Anglo-Saxon book which someone added later without a page number of quote. Maybe there is something in it discussing the term. Could track down the editor who added it for more info. Your right about Churchill and cigars. -- Green  C  00:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also finding sources do not match their claims., for example, is supported by a source that is the opinion of one author (the page indicated says "many scholars are wrong", and denotes a still unexplained lack of documentation (from the period))... this is not a demonstration of, or mention of, the general 'understanding' the claim suggests, nor does it say that archaeology aids that understanding (and actually, archaeology is cited as being the reason behind the use of the term... for describing the Greek dark age (the claim is referring to the Medieval period)).
 * The first use of this source (to denote bias) is correct (although it is but this author's opinion), though, but it would help if the exact phrase cited was indicated when the book is not available.<span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 18:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't add this source (Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology) but I have access to it. Skimmed through and there is relevant material beyond the first page.. probably the original cite page was for the whole essay. The article does portray the period as 'post-collapse' and gives reasons why it was coined a Dark Age (p. 1002), but also has positive things to say and considers it a biased pejorative term. For example it points out the political entities that came after Rome did a better job than Rome protecting borders from outside invaders (Huns and Arabs). The article talks a lot of about archaeological evidence which supports the sentence "archaeology .. offers a more nuanced view" (it's an Archaeology encyclopedia). For example on page 1029 it discusses 'post-collapse archaeology' and says "much of what we know of these societies comes from graves". There's more on archaeology in the following pages and References section. --  Green  C  20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I suggest that you were the author of that ; )
 * I don't understand, though, the 'creative interpretation' tendency in many of your replies. You completely ignored most of my points (the archaeology passage about the Greek dark ages supporting a claim about the Medieval dark age, (and the 'archeology' still isn't the same context as the claim), one author's opinion is not a 'general' better understanding), then you move on to 'otherthings' as though they somehow justify those (ignored) points... they don't. The source does not at all echo (even remotely) the claim, period.
 * By what I can see, this article was built around a premise, and since it is a doubtful one, the sources supporting it (seemingly chosen 'because right words' and nothing more) often do not.
 * I would suggest a total rewrite, around a more comprehensible, fact(-not-opinion)-based demonstration of the term's usage, divided into first area-and-period-specific sections (Greek dark age, Western-Europe Medieval dark age, then perhaps lesser-important 'other' uses of the term); each then could be divided into sub-sections.
 * The middle-ages one would be the longest, of course. It might be useful that it be subdivided into:
 * Its earliest use (by historians!)
 * Popularisation of the term (namely Renaissance, Enlightenment and thereafter 'lumières')
 * Rejection of the term (the Catholic Church did not consider the early middle ages as 'dark' or 'negative' (it was rather good for it, actually))
 * Historians re-defining (early middle ages), then abandoning the term (namely because of its perjorative popular misconception/misuse)
 * Perhaps a mention of recent apologist/evangelist 'dark age denial' (that may have been an 'opportune' move based on the previous trend (but if no sources support this, forget it)), and the against-historical consensus 'alternate-history' secular side-trend that rode on the coattails of/parallel to that.
 * There is all of the above throughout the article, but it is arranged in a rather chaotic way (going back and forth between ages and contexts from section to section), and it's set to a 'why everyone (but us) is wrong' theme that, according to the talk-page archives, hass p*ssed off more than a few (myself included, almost three years ago - I had forgotten about that).<span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: Was this article in another namespace previously? <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 22:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation might be "creative" if I hadn't also given you direct quotes and page numbers to verify. Which you have not done since you don't have access to the source, apparently. But even then I'm beginning to question your ability to comprehend English correctly. I've seen it repeatedly but one example: - what are you talking about? Quote what I said that gave you that impression. But this is the worst part:  .. the article of course doesn't do that.. And who is "us" according to you? Namely "the 'alternate-history' secular side-trend" - now you're making things up as you go. You can't win on the sourcing so you create a conspiracy. --  Green  C  00:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to post the entire essay (that is not a reflection of general historical consensus)? Your reply was 'creative' because it did not address the points raised and went into 'they probably meant' hypothesis instead (and how is that evidence for anything?), and one does not cite an entire (assuredly inaccessible?) essay/book to support a single claim. was an answer to your . Since this article takes a seeming minority-view stance against historical consensus (which is most certainly a 'side-trend' (to historical consensus)) in many places, it's very 'us and them'-sounding, thus . Plus, according to the talk-page archives and article edit-history (and your own admitted familiarity with the page/claim authors), you seem to be a few working to 'maintain' (against all complaint) this article in its present state.
 * I understand your POV that the effects of societal collapse should not be viewed as a 'darkness', but this article is not about that, and it is not a WP:ESSAY. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 05:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you didn't read the source but dismiss it. That's not credible. It's not my POV it's what modern scholars say, as sourced in the article -- sources you have not read. The article describes in chronological order how the Dark Ages have been viewed over time starting from the concepts origin to the present day. It's a simple article. Removing present-day scholarship because you disagree with it is also not credible. I've read widely in medieval historiography they all say the same thing. Every day your complaint changes, first you said it's the POV of wikipedia editors, earlier you said it was a FRINGE view, and before that you said it was an 'alternative history' view (ie. not history at all), now your saying it's a real view by historians but a minority one. But you never source those claims, why? Meanwhile the article has many sources to support what it says. Look if you can't start producing sources to support your assertions don't waste our time. If you continue to challenge sources without having read them, it's a waste of time. --  Green  C  14:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your obtuseness must be purposeful, as how can I have 'not read the source' yet be able to point out exactly how it doesn't support the claim it purports to support (down to the page number)? Again, 'it's in there somewhere' isn't a 'citation', and again again, selecting a source and claiming that it represents a majority (or 'growing number' or whatever weasel description) without demonstrating it as fact by a reliable source claiming exactly that speaks for itself... if the claim 'what (most? some? who?) modern scholars say' were indeed so widely-accepted, finding a source stating that would be a simple thing, non? And again again again, 'the dark ages weren't dark' argument-essay is non sequitur in this article, yet this article is built around it, so no, my complaint is not changing. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: modern scholars no longer use the term 'dark ages', but they do not claim 'there was no period of regression' (as this article tries (unsuccessfully) to do). That 'switcharoo' is why it is so difficult for this article's authors to find valid sources for their 'no period of regression' claims. As for the 'shifting the burden' asking me for sources (about modern historical consensus?), the Early middle ages article is chock full of 'em. Hey, maybe that was where I saw all this before... and your 'don't waste our time' is revealing. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 17:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PPS: the above concerns only a few passages, but this with the lack of time-specifity of other passages denoting a scholarly 'revisiting' the period leads the reader to believe that earlier historians were 'wrong' about the entire period. I'm sure a re-organisation would also help waylay that possible misunderstanding. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bring this back up so late, but I restored one small change to the lead. That wording had been decided after many previous discussions and should not have been removed without a much clearer consensus than is apparent in this discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Talk pages
The talk pages are a bit disjointed.

This proposal is to merge the following pages:
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/February
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/March
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/April
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/May
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/August
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/November
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2010/December
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2011/February
 * Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archives/2011/March

Into: Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 2

This creates a natural break at April 2011 when the article was renamed from Dark Ages --> Dark Ages (historiography). So "Archive 1" and "Archive 2" will be for the "Dark Ages" period (no pun intended), and "Archive 3" will be for Dark Ages (historiography). This should be uncontroversial but need administrator help merging histories. -- Green  C  15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea - I was thinking of doing that, but am too lazy. But it might be better to roll them into a new archive 2.5 or something. Whatever. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a 2.5 might throw off the display of which expects sequential whole numbers, but not sure. --  Green  C  16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where you ask through History merge. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The archive pages listed above: none of them is a plain complete cut-and-paste from the page before. They were started separately, each as a partial cut-and-paste from the original active talk page Talk:Dark Ages (historiography). Any merge between these archive pages will have to be a text-merge, not a history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like Mizabot left a notice that it was archived from "Talk:Dark Ages" which predates April 2011 when it was renamed to the current title so looks safe to copy-paste into "Archive 2", where the original history probably resides anyway. -- Green  C  22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of hatnote
A hatnote *fully* explaining the scope of this article (with some links to other articles) was removed way back in late 2008/early 2009, possible due to template limitations at the time. I've restored the hatnote so readers will get some clue up front that this article is NOT about the period commonly referred to as The Dark Ages, but is actually about the term itself as used by historians and lay people.
 * The disam at Dark Ages also had an incorrect entry stating that this article was about the period itself, which I'm correcting.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 02:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations in the lead
A very able editor has pointed to WP:LEAD. This states the following:

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

So it's not that clear cut is it.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What are you challenging? Have you read the rest of the article? seems pretty clear. Rather than making a point about fact tags=, won't do you work out what it is you're having issue with, specifically. --  Green  C  14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Finish the sentence "...nor prohibited in any article". Two statements were inserted into the lead. I want them cited in the lead. Under guidance I am perfectly entitled to ask for this. Also please avoid making threats on my use talk page - I wasn't clear what aspect of the 3RR rule with regards to "reverting two people" you were referring to. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right not prohibited, but you also can't physically push them in when there is no consensus for it. Simply citing the rule and demanding satisfaction won't get you anywhere without consensus. Rather than making a point about fact tags, won't do you work out what it is you're having issue with, specifically. -- Green  C  14:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Both points are cited in the lead - the first one by both the next following refs (1 and 2, OED and Merriam-Webster), not to mention refs 6, 7 and 8, and the other by the current refs 9,10 and 11. All in the lead. It would be pointless to repeat them in the summary first sentence. I should point out that this is just a wikihounding edit by Contaldo - see recent sections at Talk:Sandro_Botticelli and the ones below. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hounding is a terrible thing and is looked down on because it causes collateral damage like a bomb going off. If you ever need ANI support, let me know. BTW I tend to agree that "private life" can be an appropriate term. It does have Victorian usage, actually some older. But it's also used by recent historians. See for example At Home: A Short History of Private Life and the multi-volume A History of Private Life including A History of Private Life, Volume 3: Passions of the Renaissance (1985), specific to the time period of Sandro Botticelli. -- Green  C  20:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was perfectly happy to go to "Personal life" - I can't remember if the "private" came from me at all. But C began by changing the whole section to "sexuality", despite the money and family stuff. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I see "Private Life" was the header before I started my expansion last year. Your views on "boy angels" and "girl angels" would be welcome, btw. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

While I recognise one editor is trying to make a point for the sake of it... there is probably something to be said for moving the first citation back a line to support the assertion it relates to. Verifiability is a core policy so it trumps MOS guidelines: he's challenging the statement - and others are likely to do so in future - so you have to provide a reference. There is no requirement for him to seek consensus. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Post-classical history
I was hoping some attention could be directed this way. It's related to Dark Ages. I'm not sure the article should even exist. More on the talk page. -- Green  C  16:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 08:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

– I am proposing to move this over the disambiguation page. It is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When people refer to the dark ages, they refer to this period in history. The impact of the article is significantly higher than the rest of the pages.
 * Dark Ages (historiography) → Dark Ages
 * Dark Ages → Dark Ages (disambiguation)

In regards to the other items listed in Dark Ages, the arts and entertainment section is more well-known among aficionados and fans of their respective circles. The other "events" are important, but do not stack up in terms of scale to the European Dark Ages, that is this page.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 14:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose When people refer to the dark ages, they refer to the Early Middle Ages, not the subject of this page, which is not "a period in history", but the history of a now very out-of-favour concept of that period. Really Dark Ages should redirect straight to Early Middle Ages, as I think it used to. See Talk:Dark_Ages_(historiography)/Archive_3 for the well-attended original move discussion. Though this may be the most popular next move from the disam page, that would need demonstrating. Logically Early Middle Ages should be the main one. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the explanation in this article is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ??Sufficient for what? Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain usage of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I should hope so, but what has that to do with the nom, which seems unclear that this is an articles about a name for a thing, rather than the thing itself? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Contrary to the rationale, this article isn't about a period of history per se, but about the history of a concept covering either the Middle Ages or parts of it like the Early Middle Ages. There's too much ambiguity between the phrase itself and the historical periods that we cover separately at Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages for any one article to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It used to be called Dark Ages, but was RM'd in 2011: Talk:Dark_Ages_(historiography)/Archive_3 --  Green  C  15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have a "living experiment" of what happens when the article was called Dark Ages. The talk page shows up to 2011 a constant stream of complaints from users who expected the term refers to a real thing, the actual history. It was incredibly tiresome for everyone involved to explain it because many users have no idea what historiography is or appreciate its value - they see it as a POV screed. Moving it to the historiography dab slowed that down considerably (except for a handful of users who repeatedly attacked it over the past couple years). The historiography title avoids a lot of problems with ambiguity. And it is accurate. -- Green  C  15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it is nonetheless rather concerning that this page gets a bit over 2k views a day, almost twice as many as EMA. I can't believe all those readers are finding what they are looking for. Above there is a suggestion for a more explicit hatnote pointing people to EMA for actual history. This might be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why can't you believe they're finding what they're looking for? I should think they are. Most people wanting an introduction to the history of, say, 8th century Europe will not begin by putting in the phrase "Dark ages". I think that phrase is most likely to be the first search criterion when people have encountered the phrase used metaphorically, or want to know the scope of the phrase or whether it is good to use it, or have heard that there's a controversy and want to know about it. They come here and find all that in the lead. If they did want to know about the 8th century, they would click on from here to Early Middle Ages, which is linked in the hatnote, and if that were what the average visitor here were actually looking for, then that would be reflected in the number of hits over there. So if it is true that this page gets twice as many hits as EMA, that would suggest the users are finding what they want. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are enough popular uses of "Dark Ages" for the period to cast doubt on your first assertion. Also, you are assuming (as WP tends to do) that readers doggedly follow a chain of links until they get to exactly the page with what they were looking for.  All research into web browsing habits suggests the opposite (I have spent some hours watching research subjects pursue a requested search myself).  Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh come on! Even allowing for some truth in what you say, are you seriously telling me you think that for every three people who want to read EMA, one finds it and two come here by mistake and get lost? Why is it so hard to belive that people come here because this is a very interesting page? Do bear in mind that the title is "Dark Ages (historiography)" - that extra word in brackets means that nobody who just vaguely looks for the Dark Ages will be brought straight here. You can only get here by clicking on a link, and the disambiguation page is pretty clear about what is to be found here. So, no, I don't find your figure of 2k visitors a day to be in the least a matter of concern.--Doric Loon (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be two come here by mistake and lose interest, or even get interested in what this page is actually about. That is exactly how web-browsing works. 2K views pd is well out of whack with other pages on historiographical subjects, I'd suggest. Medievalism only gets 123 views pd, and Historiography of the Crusades 40 for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A bit off topic, this article has 499 backlinks to mainspace pages, while Early Middle Ages has 2080. Yet the later is half the traffic of the former. That is unusual - must be an external site driving the traffic. A Google search of "Dark Ages" brings up this page as the first result. Mystery solved :) -- Green  C  00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that must be the explanation. But when they get here, is it what they want? the new hatnote will help. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of this article explains the current status of the term quite clearly. We don't write Wikipedia for morons. We do expect a certain amount of intelligence and ability to read and understand the English language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you think so - I thought it rather unclear 90 minutes ago, and edited accordingly. Actually we do, or should, write WP for the widest possible audience, which certainly includes large numbers of morons, who I suspect form a large part of our most faithful readers, even if they rarely get to the bottom of the page, or even lead. Far too many editors neglect this part of our audience, imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem moronic right? But we know what happens when the article is called Dark Ages it's not hypothetical. Users can read, but they still don't like it, they see it as a trick or something to push a (what they believe) Original Research or Minority POV - because the Dark Ages were real man everyone knows that duh /s -- Green  C  16:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * what is /s? Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * /sarcasm tag so it isn't interpreted literally ("I don't actually believe it"). More commonly used in forums like Reddit and elsewhere, but useful to avoid misunderstanding since tone of voice doesn't carry over in text. Lazy I know :) -- Green  C  17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article is not about the Dark Ages themselves, that would be located at the Early Middle Ages article. ElKabong888 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps there should be some sort of hatnote at the top to quickly redirect users to the Early Middle Ages article? That's what most people are looking for when they go to the Dark Ages article. ElKabong888 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "Dark Ages" are not a historic era in their own right, just a largely abandoned historiographic term. Removing the "(historiography)" clarification will mislead readers. Dimadick (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In an ideal world I would support, because this article is about the primary topic that modern scholarship associates with the phrase, but we've been through all this before, and the compromise we've reached seems to be satisfying most people. However, under no circumstances may DA become simply a redirect to EMA without readers interested in this material being given a choice to come here instead. This IS the primary topic. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if you accept the assertion that the primary topic of the article at Dark Ages is about the period in history circa Early Middle Ages, it makes no sense to move this article (Dark Ages (historiography) to that location because this article in not about that period in history. This article is about the use of the term by historians and lay people.
 * Did you mistakenly think that this article was about the historical period when you opened this move request (as many others have in th past)? If so, it would be best for you to withdraw this move request.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 07:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article does not have primacy for Dark Ages. It is debatable whether the history of the Early Middle Ages should instead be called 'Dark Ages' because I think most people searching 'Dark Ages' are looking for a history of that period but that is a different discussion. Shadow007 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

actually dark?
Some say a meteor hit near Sri Lanka, there was actual darkness, no sun, hard to grow plants.

Oh "englightment", I think this wikipedia is way more perverted and damaging to the human condition than pornography.

If I were dying and had some final words tomorrow, I would speak of wikipedia as something I truly hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.16.16 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * They were called the 'Dark Ages' because not only did Western Europe lose the education and knowledge it had possessed under the Roman Empire, it also lost the Classical Greek writings of people who typified 'civilisation' and learning such as Aristotle, Plato, Homer, et. al.


 * BTW, it's termed 'Western Civilisation' because it was western in relation to Jerusalem - then regarded by Christians as the centre of the world.


 * The lost writings of such Greek philosophers were later re-discovered in Middle Eastern monasteries by crusaders during the Crusades, and by travellers to Constantinople where the manuscripts had been preserved by the Moslems, and brought back to Europe, which marked the beginning of the end of the 'Dark Ages'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.241 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Black Death
The Black Death Epidemic which killed 30-60% of the European population in the 13-14t Century, the prosecution of Jews thought tbe involved in the spread of the disease, the use of the bodies of the dead by soldiers as weapons of bio warfare by Mongols and other cults was a significant part of the dark age. I am surprised there is no information here at all about one of the most significant phenomenon of the dark age, Black Death. 103.230.105.23 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't that sort of article, and all these are well after the "DA" period. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Science in the EMA
I do not have ready access to the source. Can you describe what the source says? I'm surprised there was slow 'scientific progress in the EMA. No serious historian frames it that way it is anachronistic. And Byzantine Art, Carolingian Art, illuminated manuscripts etc -- Green  C  16:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Green  C  16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)Not sure what you are arguing here - I don't think you specialize in EMA art as I do, but if you do actually know anything about it, you'll know it developed at a pretty slow pace, and was often very narrowly based in society. Vague hand-waving about "Byzantine Art, Carolingian Art, illuminated manuscripts etc" (the first of these pretty much outside the scope here) don't impress. There was indeed slow scientific progress in the EMA - to a large extent things went backward. Do you have any sources that claim differently?  Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Byzantine Art is not outside the scope of Medieval art, and saying progress was "slow" is a bias based on a 19th belief in unilineal progress, and a 20th century belief in evolution towards greater complexity being a mark of progress and lower complexity societies as not progressing and thus "slow". It was not 'slow', it just is what it is, we don't cast judgements on history or cultures, the very thing this article concerns. -- Green  C  15:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguably it is, but I meant that the Byzantine Empire is outside the normal scope of the term "Dark Ages" - see the article. Phooey to the rest of your comment. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also that sentence concerns pop culture pejorative mischaracterizations of the period, through the use of the term 'Dark Ages', as being backward such as in modern movies and games. Adding in the very real issues of medieval art and science, which one can arguably say is accurate and not a mischaracterization, confuses the sentence and what it is trying communicate ie. about modern interpretations. -- Green  C  16:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? If you don't have access to the sources, it's a pity you took it upon yourself to change the material referenced to it here. The other editor understandably wanted to remove your "unchecked". I suggest we go back to the old, stable, version: "and popular culture often employs it as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope." Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I said "ready" access. I have access to Tainter, and an abstract of Nelson and can get it in full from REX. Tainter says it clearly enough and that source is reflected in the current wording (btw it says nothing about science). The emphasis is being placed on the word "backwards", which ends the sentence, a stylistic technique used to emphasize the key word/concept in a sentence. Tacking on things like "extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope" is vague and dilutes. What does "expanding its scope" mean, and how does one extend a pejorative usage of Dark Ages? There is nothing like that in Tainter. So I ask again, what in the sources are you referring to, shall I dig up the Janet Nelson source if you are adverse for some reason about describing. --  Green  C  15:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A dead link to a video source
''Ronald Numbers (Lecturer) (May 11, 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective (Video Lecture). University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.'' Can the dead link be corrected?--Adûnâi (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * here -- Green  C  02:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Only addresses arguments in academic terminology
I think people coming to the Dark Ages page are looking for actual information about the period popularly known as the Dark Ages. There's a popular association of the Dark Ages with attacks on reason and science (Galileo, Copernicus), religious intolerance (the Inquisition), papal corruption, etc. There is a clear break between the common understanding of the term and the academic application and the two ideas should be dealt with separately, if not on different pages. 216.115.239.51 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There is only 1 article for any topic, not separate articles for an academic version vs. popular version. So for example there is only 1 history article for this period (Middle Ages). There isn't Middle Ages (academic) and Middle Ages (popular). This is known as a WP:POVSPLIT. Also Wikipedia by design uses academic sources, an article that rejected those sources would go against policy. Terms like Dark Ages in many ways keep people in a Dark Ages of ignorance concerning the period. As for attacks on reason and science, that unfortunately has not stopped. And it might surprise many to learn how much technological advance occurred after the Fall of Rome, we are not unique in that sense either. This and many other reasons are why academics reject the term as obscuring the Middle Ages. --  Green  C  21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no break between popular culture and Art history. The writing is on the wall and in the windows of the cathedrals of these times. The Spirit of the period is in this art and the mind of the acidemia is in the books that there so so few of. Shenqijing (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)