Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

'Modern popular use' section

This section is a defence of Christianity against unspecified critics. It does not appear to be about modern popular use. None of the critics are stated to have used the term dark ages, except in the first sentence, in which David C. Lindberg criticises "the public use" of the term to describe the entire Middle Ages. The term "public use" is so vague as to convey nothing useful to the reader. Does any modern popular writer describe the entire Middle Ages as a dark age? If so, the authors should be specified. Lindberg is citing as denying that the medieval Christians "placed religious authority over personal experience and rational activity". Many but not all medieval Christians did put religious authority above any evidence. Lindberg is also cited as saying that classical texts mainly survived in the Byzantine and Moslem world but not western Christendom because of the migration period, but this does not explain why orthodox Christian texts survived on a large scale in the early medieval west. I do not have access to the source and Lindberg may have not been correctly cited.

The second paragraph defends Christianity against charges made by unspecified critics in the nineteenth century. It is not about modern popular usage and does not refer to the term dark ages.

The whole section is a one-sided POV defence of Christianity, ignoring critics such as Catherine Nixey in The Darkening Age. It is unclear what the relevance is to modern popular usage, who Lindberg is attacking and whether the critics used the term dark ages. I suggest that the section should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote it but I'm not reading it as a "defense of Christianity". I'm not Christian myself, but do have a degree in History and am interested in Medieval history. I think we need to be careful not to let this article turn into a polemic attacking Christianity as there is a strain of "scholarship" that exists like that, who have latched onto this concept of a Dark Age to attack the Middle Ages and Christianity as a failure. This is precisely what this article is trying to convey, how people use this term in biased ways, and The Darkening Age looks like a pretty good example of bias in the title alone. -- GreenC 16:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that the section is a defence of Christianity in general, but a defence against unspecified critics. I do not see how you can read it any other way. It starts "Science historian David C. Lindberg criticised the public use of 'dark ages' to describe the entire Middle Ages as "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition" for which "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church, which is alleged to have placed religious authority over personal experience and rational activity"." The whole section continues in the same vein. I agree that the article should not be an attack on Christianity, but neither should it be an uncritical defence of it. I have just read the first volume of the Cambridge History of Christianity and it frequently mentions the difficulty of understanding the views of opponents and heretics in the late Roman period because their works have been suppressed. The Darkening Age documents the suppression of classical culture in the same period. I would not cite either work in this article because I do not remember either discussing the term dark ages, but neither do I think that a vague defence against unspecified critics, who may or may not be modern popular writers and may or may not use the term dark ages, have a place in this article. Some of the claims in the section are obviously correct, such as that the Middle Ages were unfairly denigrated in the 18th and 19th centuries, but that has nothing to do with modern popular culture. Some are wrong, such as the claim that classical learning was not suppressed by Christians in the late Roman and early medieval periods. The claim that the church is falsely accused of suppressing human dissections is absurd. This was not specifically Christian. It was forbidden in pagan Rome and discouraged in Europe until the nineteenth century.

The article should not be "trying to convey, how people use this term in biased ways", but describing the modern academic consensus without bias. This vague and irrelevant section does not do that. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"there is a strain of "scholarship" that exists like that, who have latched onto this concept of a Dark Age to attack the Middle Ages and Christianity" Do we have any examples, or are we using them as straw men? By the way, Christianity's negative influence did not magically disappear in the Renaissance and the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the witch trials in the early modern period seem more obvious examples of Christianity's failures than anything in the Middle Ages. Dimadick (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"mentions the difficulty of understanding the views of opponents and heretics in the late Roman period because their works have been suppressed" Quite an understatement. We have only samples of texts from Gnosticism, Arianism, and Neoplatonism, because their adherents were actively persecuted. And these were widespread ideas, not minor strains of thought. How about Pelagianism or Mithraism, where very little survives concerning their faith systems? Dimadick (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To suggest that Christianity has "negative influences" (wars) presupposes the world would have been less war-like without Christianity, which is a counter-factual; and the magic of natural experiments (cultures without Christianity) actually suggest the opposite: death rates in many pre-Christian cultures were significantly high and quite bloody (Aztecs). But then we get into more biases, was Christianity better then Aztecs? It's a bad road to go down, one historians try to avoid as it requires value judgements - just as Dark Age is a loaded term containing a value judgement, in most cases. -- GreenC 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, I think I understand what you are saying. It seems like the article is mostly about how the Dark Ages were not actually dark, the term is a bias, and the modern section is giving some examples debunking some dark ages myths in popular culture eg. flat earth. What do you think a pop culture section should look like? -- GreenC 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Some first rate articles do have popular culture sections. An example is John, King of England#Popular representation. The concept of dark ages in popular culture, citing literary critics and cultural historians, is probably worth a separate article if anyone is interested in taking it on, but it does not belong in an article about the historiography, which is a separate subject. BTW modern belief in a flat earth is a pseudoscientific cult, not popular culture. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No I strongly disagree. The lead section says "Petrarch's pejorative meaning remains in use, typically in popular culture which often mischaracterises the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness". We don't need a "In popular culture" section of trivia, that's not what this is about, it's about documenting the continued usage of Dark Ages - which BTW is covered by academic historiography, there is an entire field of study medievalism that looks at how the middle ages are portrayed in society (it doesn't draw such neat non-existent lines as "popular culture" and "academia"). Something needs to be said about how this term, the subject of the article, has continued currency in broader society otherwise the article is strangely incomplete. Current usage is part of a the history of the term, which is all this article is about, and is part of its historiography. The term "historiography" should not dictate its removal, and I disagree it's a valid rationale, historiography most certainly includes cultural history. The determination to expunge any mention that this term has usage outside of academia, is weird, particularly when that popular usage often conflicts with academic understanding. -- GreenC 16:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of such a current usage. If the charges are not being made against straw men, as Dimadick suggested, then who are the writers who claim the Middle Ages were dark ages and blame the church? If we know who they are with full citations of what they say then editors can check the sources and see whether the the charges are justified, but we should not publish attacks on shadow enemies. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Look I checked the source and even added a link to it. It's the POV of this author who is a reliable academic. We don't exclude sources because we disagree with it or disbelieve it. In any case, yeah absolutely some people blame Christianity for the so-called Dark Ages, start with Gibbon and it goes on from there. Our article even discusses it further up in the history section. It's a big part of the history of this term that still exists to this day. I've even encountered it in Wikipedia editors who have flat out told me as much. -- GreenC 20:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Gibbon is not current popular usage. If the author you are quoting says people are now saying that the Middle Ages were dark ages due to Christianity presumably he gives examples. Who are they? We should quote them and then your source in reply, not just give replies to unknown writers. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That would be nice but it's not necessary to include a POV in the article. Your basically saying you are incredulous with the POV, and if the author can't prove his POV it should be removed. That's not how Wikipedia works. We are reporting Lindberg's POV and it's framed as such, as a POV/opinion. He is an historian, a specialist in religious and science topics, it's in a reliable sources, and he's not saying anything particularly surprising as I noted above (popular biases don't just magically disappear because of age). Also, the paragraph has a footnote but is not accessible with the free version. -- GreenC 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

What I am saying is that citing only one side of an argument is POV and bias. You cannot know whether the other side is POV or being unfairly attacked unless you know who they are. If he is attacking other authors and you have access to the source then you presumably know who he is attacking. If he is making an attack on unspecified unnamed people we should not cite him. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is framed as an opinion and POV, not as fact, furthermore balance is not require in order to cite a POV. He is not "attacking" anyone, it is an observation of a perceived systemic bias. -- GreenC 17:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1. The last sentence of the previous section, which is by three experts on Anglo-Saxon history, is "The days when archaeologists and historians referred to the fifth to the tenth centuries as the 'Dark Ages' are long gone, and the material culture produced during that period demonstrates a high degree of sophistication." The next sentence is "recent cultural use of 'dark ages' incorrectly frames the entire Middle Ages as "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition", for which he asserts "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church"". This directly contradicts the previous sentence and it is by Lindberg, an expert on the history of medieval and early modern science. A statement directly contradicting the views of experts by someone who appears to be going outside his field is a doubtful reliable source and at the very least needs some explanation of who "incorrectly frames the entire Middle Ages". 2. The Tainter quote appears (judging from the first two pages of the article which is what I have access to) to be about the neglect of historians for the Greek Dark Ages due to distaste for the period. This is not relevant to the Wiki article, which is about western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. 3. You have changed the subject of the section by changing 'Modern popular use' to 'Modern cultural use'. The previous section is 'Modern academic use' and it does not make sense to distinguish between academic and cultural use. 4. There may be writers who contradict (or more likely are ignorant of) the views of experts and see the Middle Ages as dark ages. If they are significant they may be worth covering, but only if it is clarified who they are and whether they are being correctly quoted. Mike Christie do you have any views on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, was out of town when you pinged me and just got back last night. I am following this discussion but after looking through my sources I don't have enough information to be very much help with this discussion. I will say that I have been assuming that this article should cover the way the term has been used in historiography, and the reaction against that term. My (possibly unreliable) recollection is that the reaction came from academe; I would think the term has persisted in lay use from inertia but have nothing I can cite for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of the previous section concerns academics while the current section is everyone else more broadly. That's why it say specifies "archaeologists and historians". Lindberg is certainly qualified to comment on his observations of cultural trends concerning medieval topics he's not outside his wheelhouse it's called medievalism. Tainter is not limiting himself to the Greek Dark ages he is talking about all so-called dark ages including this one. Changed from "popular culture" because that term has a bad reputation on Wikipedia (trivia, low brow, etc) - do you have other ideas. I don't care what you do so long as it follows Wikipedia policy and isn't biased. And BTW Lindberg is not alone, there are other sources that say the same thing, he's not saying anything new. -- GreenC 01:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"everyone else more broadly" is nonsense. It is not you and me. Who is it? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Usage outside academia. Popular culture is not the right term. This article would be pretty strange if it didn't include it because the contrast between academic usage and non-academic are sometimes in conflict and is a notable part of the history of the term and its changing usage. Also since you are in the UK (I think?) every source I found concerning this neo-Gibbonish view blaming Christianity originates in non-UK-based sources/people so it might be the idea has disappeared in some places and still alive elsewhere. Which could explain why you are skeptical this idea still has currency, but just a guess. -- GreenC 15:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am neither sceptical nor not sceptical. I do not think that any article should ever carry criticism of views without giving readers the chance to see who is being criticised and they actually said. I would also like to know where they are as you say that your sources are non-UK and that would be of interest if it also applies to the writers being criticised. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am able to read it on Google Books, maybe you can also. He says "According to widespread popular belief.." ie. not academia or specific authors, but a systemic widespread popular belief. He says "The epitaph 'Dark Ages' often applied to it [this negative barbarian violent image of the middle ages] nicely captures this opinion", ie. the opinion held by widespread popular belief. He goes on to say this opinion (a widespread popular belief) often also includes blaming the Christian Church for causing it, as quoted in our article. This is followed by a footnote, which I am unable to read in the limited view of Google Books. -- GreenC 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The reference for Tainter cites page 988 of his article. This is about historians' portrayal of dark ages, so it does not make sense to put his comments under cultural use as opposed to academic use. He refers to "texts that portray such periods as times of disorder, poverty, and unrelieved bleakness". Also "Post-collapse societies are to many scholars and annoying interlude, their study a chore necessary to understand the renaissance that followed." The only examples he cites are about the Greek Dark Ages and I do not believe that any modern scholar characterises the European Middle Ages or any part of it in that way. He refers in passing to "so called 'Dark Ages", but his article (at least in the page cited as a reference) is about the nature of post-collapse societies, not the term 'dark ages'. The page cited as a reference is not relevant to this article. BTW the last comment in the lead "typically in popular culture which often mischaracterises the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness" cites Tainter and Nelson. Neither is referring to popular culture.

As to Lindberg, I will comment further when I have been able to visit a library which has a copy of the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Texts" is not limited to academic scholarship, much less popular history scholarship which often falls in the popular culture category. And other sources such as Lindberg confirm that "popular belief" includes this outlook on the medieval dark ages so he is not saying anything new or surprising. The source is most certainly relevant to this topic. -- GreenC 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Read page 988 again. He is discussing theories about post-collapse societies. He characterises the view he opposes as "times of disorder, poverty, and unrelieved bleakness" and "an annoying interlude, their study a chore necessary to understand the renaissance that followed". No one takes that view of the European Middle Ages. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

As Lantier says, popular belief is the European Middle Ages were "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition". I can find other similar examples. -- GreenC 18:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not say "popular belief" or "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition" in the source cited in the article, page 988 of 'Post Collapse Societies'. You have to justify edits by the sources cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You just said, 'He characterises the view he opposes as "times of disorder, poverty, and unrelieved bleakness" . No one takes that view of the European Middle Ages' and I just gave you an example of that view. Furthermore he does not differentiate between academic and popular he is speaking generally not specific to academic. -- GreenC 19:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

He does not say "popular belief" or "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition". As Wikipedia editors we have to cite accurately, not put our own spin on what authors say. In 15 years editing Wikipedia I have never gone to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but in view of the our different views I think I will have to make this the first time and I will start one tomorrow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on it's the same basic understanding. Obviously they will not use exactly the same words to describe the dark ages but the wording is close enough to understand they are saying the same thing in terms of a negative stereotype, which is what matters for this conversation. I've added Peter S. Wells to continue adding to what is well known and well documented. And working on additional sources, that may or maybe be included in the article but would be part of the RfC. -- GreenC 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me when you have finished your changes as there is no point having an RfC on an unstable version. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear what an RfC would be about. The mere existence of a popular use section? The Christianity stuff? -- GreenC 15:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That will depend on the final wording of the section. At present I see it as 1. Citing authors as criticising use of the term dark ages without full citation of the authors and works being criticised. 2. Inclusion of Tainter in the popular use section. 3. Relevance of Tainter to the article. 4. Relevance of Williams after the first sentence to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

For 1) The citations actually provide some of that information in some cases, and in other cases they are observing systemic trends not specific authors and works. For 4) If you just say it plagues popular culture and leave it there, what does that mean? Requires more detailed explanation what he is getting at. Further, finding its usage "rife outside of academic literature" is precisely what you questioned, above, for days ("I am not aware of such current usage") - so a source has been provided - and now you want to delete it from the article as "irrelevant"? -- GreenC 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources in progress: Medievalism, Politics and Mass Media contains a ton of relevant information on the subject of Dark Ages usage and popular culture, there is no free version, so I am investigating how to get a copy. It has been cited by other sources used in the article. Likewise The Middle Ages in Modern Culture is due to be published Oct 2 and looks promising as a source for popular use of Dark Ages. Other sources might also still be found. -- GreenC 21:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Scholars Cringe at the Term ‘Dark Ages.’ Dan Jones Explains Why."

As reviewed in The New York Times. Dan Jones's book Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages "reminds us why modern scholars cringe at any reference to the term 'Dark Ages.' The idea that the early Middle Ages were an era of barbarism and ignorance is refuted by Jones’s vast array of evidence to the contrary. He illustrates the sophisticated culture of the Germanic tribes that produced the Carolingian Empire, the enduring legacy of the Roman Empire in Byzantium and the scholarly contributions of Muslim writers throughout the Mediterranean basin." -- GreenC 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Long-term sock puppetry on this talk page

This article talk has been subjected to a long-term sock puppet master User:Kauffner. See the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. They recently used the sock account User:ThuDauMot, now blocked, for creating the article Dark Ages (Europe) soon to be deleted at AfD. There are probably other accounts or IPs who have posted here that are also socks. I have not done much in-depth checking yet but plan to do so. Whatever the case of old stale socks, going forward, regular and trusted users of this page should be cautious of a long campaign by one of the more well known and determined sock masters in Wikipedia history. The odds of them returning at quite high, based on their 15 years history here. GreenC 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh joy. Thank you for leaving a note here, that is very useful context. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Straight–forwardness is a virtue here. Who would that be?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jen, if you're asking what I think you're asking, GreenC is referring to Kauffner, the sockmaster he mentions at the start of his post. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie Thanx Mike - should have read the whole thing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Dark ages has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dark ages, which is related to this page, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

TSventon I looked at this and all it is about is capitalization. Can someone explain to me why we need two or more articles on a term that is defunct and no longer used? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, the discussion is about renaming a category, but deletion or merging could be alternatives. I think the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Ages (Europe) decided we don't need two articles on the concept of the Dark Ages in European history. TSventon (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TSventon. I appreciate your response. Dark Ages (Europe) actually makes three articles on this defunct term that is only valid as an article on the history of the methodology of studying the history of the Middle Ages. A history of history - how much of that needs repetition? I mean really! Two need deleting or they should all be merged and heavily edited. Where do I vote on that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, which are/were the three pages? "Dark Ages (Europe)" has been deleted. I am new to this page, so I may not be the best person to advise, but you could start a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Merging discussion. It might be worth starting an informal discussion here to see whether either alternative has support first. TSventon (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

TSventon Now that Europe has been deleted, what's left is:

• Dark Ages (historiography),
• Byzantine Dark Ages
• Greek Dark Ages
• Irish Dark Age
• Parthian Dark Age and finally
• Dark Age of Khmer / Cambodia, or the Post-Angkor Period starting early 15th century

And you are right of course. I should start a discussion, but it all just annoys me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the other Dark Ages have more tactic scholarly support probably because they are not so tied up in modern-day prejudices and myths related to nationalism, religion and racism like the Medieval variant. Or popular cultural banalities concerning progress. -- GreenC 23:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

MfD: Dark Ages in Europe drafts

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dark Ages in Europe -- GreenC 16:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I lend you my support for this deletion? Or didn't you say it has already been deleted? I'm lost. Is Dark Ages up for deltion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to support go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dark Ages in Europe and add to the bottom the page * '''Support''' per nominator. ~~~~ . You could optionally add more reasons why you support. The pages being deleted are in User: space. -- GreenC 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there were not enough knowledgeable participants to delete the pages, but I guess page blank is better than nothing. -- GreenC 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Restore lead

The recent change in the lead went too far in the direction of emphasizing present-day usage of the term. The article includes present-day usage, it's very important, but the article's primary purpose is a history of usage. Per WP:LEAD the section is meant to be a summary of the article and thus include, mostly, a history of usage. It's a terminology history article, not an essay concerning present-day usage. The original lead is in chronological order mirroring the structure of the article itself - a summarized mini-version of the article. -- GreenC 21:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Green thank you or coming here and explaining what you have already done, but I can't agree that your edit is a good one.

In the first four words it says "is" not "was". This isn't an article about a literary work, so there is no reason to use "is" when referring to the past. "The "Dark Ages" is a term" implies it is still active. If this is simply history, it should say it was a term commonly used from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries. It should be clear when use of the term began and when it ended.

A history of terminology article should say up front that's what it is. Right now it begins as if it is going to talk about the Middle Ages and "characterizing it". It's misleading and confusing: is this about the term or the period or what?

The first sentence is not good, by your own terms and definitions, and that is only highlighted by making it stand alone.

Please rewrite the lead sentence to reflect the characteristics you describe. Make it clear this is a history of a term used in the past that is no longer accepted as valid. A short summary of why would also be nice to include in the lead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What I did was revert the bold edit you had made (without an discussion), it's WP:BRD. The article concerns a term, we speak of a term in the present tense. It does not imply the Dark are still active, your conflating the term with the period in history. It most clearly says "a term", and the article title is "historiography". That it is no longer valid is already spelled out in the lead section. The first sentence describes what the term means, a definition. Later in the lead it discusses current-day usage, just as later in the article it discusses current-day usage. The lead is chronological mirroring the articles which is chronological. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." -- GreenC 03:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Green So we both made edits without getting agreement ahead of time. It isn't really necessary to do so - except it's smart when reverting someone which I did not do. Now we have the opportunity to come to a consensus.

Yes, do that with the lead, and do so accurately and within the rules of good grammar. There is no rule exempting a history of terminology from the use of the past tense. History is history. Buy a "Brief English Handbook", it has all the grammar rules neatly organized and easily accessible. Or just look online. Here: "The tense of the verb in a sentence reflects the time at which the action is set."[[1]] Look it up anywhere. If it's a history, the action is in the past - by definition - which uses the past simple or the past perfect verb tense.

The exceptions that allow for the use of the present tense when discussing something historical are literature, the telling of stories, or when the author is drawing a conclusion, since "the opinion exists now and should be stated as such". That would be OR, and unless you want to argue you are putting forth your own views, story telling, or that this has suddenly become an article about a piece of literature, the rule is "past-tense verbs should dominate history papers".

One more exception: "Present-tense verbs are appropriate in historical argumentation, so long as the writer is discussing the current nature of research and modern ways of approaching historical data. In other words, "Homer composed (past tense) poetry long ago, but we today interpret (present tense) it along certain lines." The only place a use of present tense is appropriate in this article is in the discussion you removed.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a term of periodization. One does not discuss terms of periodization in the past tense, it makes no sense eg. "The Early Modern era was a term for .." I suppose one could argue it is no longer in use thus past tense, but that is not accurate as it is still used, if a minority. And popular culture usage is actually increasing over time, it's a current and widely used term, Google it. While it would be nice to say the term is not used anymore, it is not true in reality. The article discusses the terms history, present-day usage and present-day proscriptions to usage (which is a POV). -- GreenC 04:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Green Au contraire mon frère. One would in fact say "The Early Modern era was a term for .." if it was a term that had been used in the past, that is no longer used in the present, and one were writing the history of it. That's exactly how one goes about writing history. "Is" implies current status. It's just the way language works.

We don't go by what's popular, we go by what scholars say. But I don't have a problem if you want to write that the term is used popularly, but not by scholars, and say why. It is absolutely true that it is not used by current scholars outside of those scholars of English history when referring to a specific time period of their own (that is actually much later). It is a defunct word. No medievalist would use it.

At any rate, you can't have it both ways. This is a history of a term or it isn't. If this is an actual discussion of periodization - or the changes in periodization - or the current state of periodization - or any other aspect of periodization and all the many theories surrounding that can of worms, well then, the scope is no longer simply the history of a past term, is it? This would turn it into something else entirely.

Make up your mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a defunct word. No medievalist would use it. That is not accurate. The issue is more nuanced not so binary. I truly wish it was that easy. In any case, the article covers popular usage, also, so you can't say "was a term" when it's still being actively used. I actually find popular usage as interesting (from a scholarly perspective) as the old debates about scholarly usage; popular usage is an academic area of interest. Not sure what "an actual discussion of periodization" would entail that doesn't comprise this article. -- GreenC 06:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Green Sorry it has taken so long to get back here, I had other obligations yesterday.

• Pages xiii - xiv: Peter Wells writes that the term "Dark Ages" is a 'historical relic' from a time when texts were the only source of information about the past. Archaeology, art history, anthropology and more have fully demonstrated that the fifth through the eighth centuries were anything but dark.

• Page 285: "the so-called Dark Ages to the Renaissance is undergoing a considerable modification, for we are realizing that the Dark Ages were not dark" Page 285 of

• On page 9: "there was no such thing as a Dark Age as historical research constantly demonstrates"

• This is an old book yet it says: "medieval has generally lost its meaning of "dark" ... then followed naturally a new division of history ... Dark ceased to be the popular term" on page 4. I could go on of course, but why?

• • If you are going to say this is a history of a term, and say that includes its popular usage, you will need to add in all of this:

Definition of dark age:[2]

1. a time during which a civilization undergoes a decline
2. "Dark Ages" plural : the European historical period from about a.d. 476 to about 1000 broadly : middle ages
3. or Dark Age : the Greek historical period of three to four centuries from about 1100 b.c. — often plural
4. or Dark Age : the primitive period in the development of something — usually plural as "in the dark ages of medicine"
5. a state of stagnation or decline — usually plural – in any circumstance

• • Let me offer a compromise instead. How about turning your first sentence into "The "Dark Ages" is a disputed term for the Western European historical period, either from about 476 to the 700s or from 476 to the 1400s, characterizing it as marked by economic, intellectual, and cultural decline".? Would you be okay with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

References

• To be honest, I think it makes little difference, but I slightly prefer the old version, which unfolded more logically (and linked Petrarch at 1st, not 2nd mention). I don't like the alternative first sentence just above either. As the article says, the term is not used by professional historians, but still often is by non-historians, even academic ones (especially scientists). I don't call that "disputed". Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Right agreed on the quotes. Check the AfD I made a list of similar/same quotes. There is no question the tide has turned against Dark Ages it's no longer fashionable. Nevertheless, you are arguing something specific, It is a defunct word. No medievalist would use it. That is not true, it is easy to show, reliable sources sometimes still use it (which I prefer not to list if possible). It's not a totally defunct phrase. The compromise solution disputed term will probably trigger editors to start adding material in support of Dark Ages. The problem with disputed it's not really disputed in the sense there are people arguing in favor of usage. More accurate it is deprecated by medieval historians, with deprecated defined as follows (comments added in green): "the discouragement of use of some terminology (Dark Ages).. typically because it has been superseded (Early Middle Ages) or is no longer considered safe (biased term), without completely removing it or prohibiting its use (still sees occasional usage often with irony or explanation)". With that said, the lead section already makes this point of deprecation quite nicely, it would be repeating and comes across a bit strong repeating the point. It also breaks the chronology of the lead section mirroring the article. -- GreenC 20:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with GreenC and Johnbod. There are some WP articles on historical phrases in which both the entity and the historiography and populist commentary should be presented as past tense (and so we do use "was"). But this is not one of them. User Jenhawk777's argument is flawed and presented in a condescending way - User GreenC is not the one who needs to "buy a Brief English Handbook" - and, in my view, is owed an apology. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • All right then. I bow to consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is one-sided to a fault

I'm talking here specifically about the usage of the term to denote "cultural decline", not about the usage referring to lack of sources: Right now, the article lists only reasons why denoting the Early Middle Ages as Dark Ages in this respect is all wrong, while listing none of the reasons for why someone might be inclined to use that term in the first place. We only find out that arrogant Enlightenment thinkers liked the term because it elevated their own time period, but that's about it. I'm not into history at all, but after searching around a bit I found this article which lists some of those reasons:

• "relative lack of monumental architecture [ , ... ] [t]owns and cities no longer built large new stone structures"
• "the slow deterioration of Roman infrastructure such as aqueducts likely had an effect on quality of life in cities"
• "Populations of major cities like Rome and Constantinople shrank in this period"
• "By 450, the evidence of simple day-to-day items such as new coins, pottery or roof tiles largely disappeared in many parts of Europe, and wasn’t found again until roughly 700."

Now even that article explains why all of these don't necessarily indicate lower quality of life or cultural stagnation, but at least it lists them in the first place. Not mentioning any of these points here also plainly contradicts information in other related Wikipedia articles, e.g. Fall of the Western Roman Empire, where it is stated:

[The Roman Empire] included manufacture, trade, and architecture, widespread secular literacy, written law, and an international language of science and literature. The Western barbarians lost much of these higher cultural practices, but their redevelopment in the Middle Ages by polities aware of the Roman achievement formed the basis for the later development of Europe.

So on the whole, this article reads much like one of those sensationalist "Why Everything You Know About The Middle Ages Is Wrong" things on some virtual tabloid (and I had to wade through dozens of them to find the more balanced one I linked) and leaves out crucial information that would give the reader a more complete picture of history. --92.209.33.232 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The sensationalist pieces are those that you linked to, the popular press. This article relies on academic sources. You readily admit to not being "into history at all" and I would suggest the first place to begin is by reading history written by historians who have made it their life mission to understand, and not these sorts of light journalism pieces written by generalist writers with no academic credentials and essentially repeating the same sorts of popular biases already discussed in the article. -- GreenC 17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you disputing anything in the list above? I wasn't asking to have that particular web page as the source, but the items listed are presumably either factual or based on outdated understanding. Either way, academic sources for such points should be found and mentioned in the article. --46.223.163.192 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also convenient that you skipped over my mention of Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which cites an academic source for the claim that certain "higher cultural practices" (examples ibid.) were lost. --46.223.163.192 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The article concerns 'Dark Ages' (historiography) ie. the concept not the period. Reading the article, particularly the section on modern academic usage, just about every quote is discussing the name itself. Modern academic sources exist to support the idea of a decline (see Early Middle Ages), but none IMO argue for usage of 'Dark Ages', which is what this article is about. -- GreenC 09:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying that the EMA retained the level of urban culture (in particular) of the peak of the Roman Empire, though it is arguable that the cultural level was more widely spread, and longer-lasting. One doubts the descendants of rural Roman slaves longed for the good old days. Once the Roman army was gone, the lack of appetite in most areas for keeping Roman ways going tells you something. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"No one is saying that the EMA retained the level of urban culture" - well this article implies it by omission, not mentioning with a word which parts of society and culture actually experienced a "decline" from whichever perspective. That this represented an improvement for the majority of the population could be mentioned, there is no contradiction. --46.223.163.192 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not the role of this article - try Early Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Replying here avoid creating a a new thread. Considering that the first couple of threads of the talk page archives straight up call the article "propaganda by bible-bangers" (strong words and I myself would never use them, but I understand why someone would), I'd say one-sidedness has been an issue with the article for at least 15 years. The "Modern Scholarly Use" section doesn't cite any scholars that still use the term in it's original sense, while the "Modern Non-Scholarly Use" section consists exclusively of scholars trying to discredit any portrayal of the early middle ages as undeveloped, backwards, violent and superstitious.

To make matters worse, Howard Williams' study on the modern nationalists appropriating historical myths, is somehow presented as an explanation for these supposedly flase negative perceptions of the middle ages, which is simply wrong. Medievalism, which has always been a nationalist invention, is the idealization and whitewashing of the Middle Ages, not the perpetuation of Dark Age "stereotypes", which this artivcle is trying to argue are false. It's hard to believe there hasn't been a single notable modern day historian who argues that the Dark ages were indeed "Dark".

The final paragraph strikes me as particularly strange. David C. Lindberg, a science and religion historian, says the 'Dark Ages' are "according to wide-spread popular belief" portrayed as "a time ofignorance, barbarism and superstition", for which he asserts "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church". Medieval historian Matthew Gabriele echoes this view as a myth of popular culture. Andrew B. R. Elliott notes the extent to which "Middle Ages/Dark Ages have come to be synonymous with religious persecution, witch hunts and scientific ignorance". The only argument cited from these historians as to why these perceptions of the Dark Ages are false is the simple assertion that they are, and no historians are cited arguing in favor of these perceptions and pointing out that they were indeed grounded in reality. Surely if I were to search this term on the RationalWiki, they would have a drastically different opinion. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)