Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 1

message: This article should have historical information, not just some random stuff, make it documented in a way that shows a timeline of information, don't scramble the history into different timelines, start from the beginning and to the end at 1000 AD. (Please include Eadric Streona)--24.22.111.99 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STUB!!! 

message: : The content of this article is far from random-- It is deliberate propaganda. The Bible-Bangers who control this article have decided that the purpose of this page is to argue that the Dark Ages weren't really all that dark, because Christian beliefs were widespread.
: The claim that modern scholars don't use the term "Dark Age" is false: Their continued use of that term is precisely what has led me and others to this article.
: Never mind that the period opened with the death of a huge chunk of the population. Never mind that such basic technologies such as paved roads, concrete, plumbing, the mechanical reaper, and even the steam engine, were first invented during the Roman Empire, and had to be re-invented from scratch in modern times because of the Dark Ages. About that aspect of the Dark Ages, the only thing that this article has to say is:
: And also never mind that the period is characterized by brutal religious repression. Witches were burned, courts practiced "trial by ordeal", and let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition!
: "They (the evil, godless humanists) saw history unfolding, not along the religious outline of St. Augustine's Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through the progressive developments of classical ideals, literature, and art..."
: The Christians cop-out by saying that the Early Middle Ages page is the article about the period (reserving this article for their propaganda), but all I see in that article is Visigoths and Saxons
duking it out.
: Any attempt to put real information into the article, or even mark it as POV, results in a revert by a Christian, within minutes. This has been the case for years. It would take a large, organized effort to boot the Christers out and fix the article. 
: Further down this page, you can see where one of the Christians who is guarding this article says that the Dark Ages weren't dark because this was the period when "God ruled." It would seem that these Christians would have liked to have lived in the Dark Ages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.23.105.26 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I wrote a large part of the article and I am not Christian nor do I believe in God. Got any other conspiracy theories?   -- Stbalbach 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liar. The "God ruled" quote comes from you, Saint Balbach! 216.215.128.105 23:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own refutation goes as follows: First, I admit that I have not come to this page until recently, since the term "Dark Ages" generally is not used in the field, as it is considered pejorative.  As a Medieval Studies graduate student, I think I can offer a bit of experience on the matter.  The term that is now typically used is the Early Middle Ages, as distinguished from the Late Antique and High and Later Middle Ages.  "Dark Ages" was, even in its original coinage, a pejorative, POV, judgment-laden term, and thus does not belong as a valid encyclopedic term for a period of history.  Second, many farming inventions were actually invented in the Middle Ages, such as windmills in the late 11th Century.  Certain other farming implements, such as the carruca plow, were actually improved and expanded.  The padded horse collar was also invented.  Why didn't the Romans do these things?  Well, one good reason is that they were expert slave masters, and could just replenish their "stock."  The abolishment of slavery in the Middle Ages (something that had to be "re-invented from scratch" in modern times, to use your terminology) made such techniques more necessary.  Terry Jones actually has a good article here that shows how the Romans did not invent many of the things that people give them credit for, nor were the only ones to use many inventions.  These are just some of my criticisms of your "Great March to the Present" view of history.  As one who has taken history and literature courses covering prehistory through the modern period, I can tell you that the "Dark Ages" weren't really dark at all.  If you look at history with value-laden judgments, then you miss the objective of the discipline in the first place.  Can you really take a period of hundreds of years and say simply, "Nothing happened"?  That is irresponsible as a historian.  All evidence has value, and the Middle Ages actually has a great deal to tell us.  The Medieval period is the genesis of modern Europe, and, in fact, the adjective "modern" (from the Latin "modernus") is a 12th Century coinage.  Lastly, I am not a Christian, so do not attempt to disregard my statements as mere Christian propaganda.  Vincent Valentine 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Ages Denial Still In Full Effect on Wikipedia 

message: Some unnamed author deleted my edit to read that most modern historians claim that Dark Age is a prejudicial term, and therefore reject it.  I have just finished reading Bryan Ward Perkins book on the fall of the Roman Empire and am in no doubt that he, and many of the writers he analyses do think that "dark" is appropriate fro at least the fifth and sixth centuries, if not longer.  We must remember these ages are "dark" because we know so little about them.  And we know so little about them because
1. They are associated with an almost complete loss of literacy
2. There is very little building activity - and what building does occur is usually makeshift squatters settlements
3. There is always evidence of a loss of long distance trade
4. There is always evidence of a major depopulation - from an increase in famine, plague, pestilence and war
In most "dark ages" the previous civilisation collapses, and in many cases the collapse is seen as brutal, especially by the people involved.  For example Rome, during the fifth and sixth centuries went from a population of 800,000 to a population of only 30,000.  To say "this isn't dark", is revisionist post-modernism at the best, and is mistaken at the worst
*Reference?  No, you don't need it on this page, but does the 800,000 figure come from the early 5th C.?  I had understood that that was Rome's population 100 years or more earlier, when it was still the imperial capital.  Also, some of the population loss (my guess: 40%-60%) was caused by the bubonic plague pandemic ("plague of Justinian") that affected every Mediterranean city.  Neither moving the capital nor the outbreak of plague resulted from a collapse of Western European civilization.  (Having said that, I firmly agree about the collapse constituting a Dark Age in Western Europe, REGARDLESS of the quantity of records we have.) Jmacwiki (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, personally, but sadly -- it is a viewpoint that is popular in the now immensely popular in history departments (which seem overly-concerned with 'meta-history' rather than reality) and tech-savvy grad students who are eager to spam their "look what I just learned from some guy with letters after his name!!!" all over wikipedia to feel special. It doesn't really matter, though. The dark ages are still recognized for what they are in popular culture and the effects of the time of plague, ignorance, constant warfare, and hostile migrations still resonate 'til today.24.105.236.66 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinserted my post

message: In Authurian in legend the Pagans were the Celts. Remember Merlyn? I think in reality (In Britain) it was much more of somewhat Romanized, somewhat urban, somewhat pagan Celts being invaded and replaced by mainly pagan Saxons.---[MikeS]
Those familiar with the developments during the "Dark Ages" find the old view obsolete and, to some, even embarrassing. To ignore the developments in science, art and medicine during this period may be a result of focusing only on "Western" Europe and ignoring the developments in Spain (Southwest of France), Sicily and elsewhere. Even John of Salisbury knew better. When he wanted to study philosophy he went to Sicily. 
The books of Aristotle were saved and preserved in the Arab Empire, gratitude may be too much to expect but some acknowledgment seems proper. Two of the great philosophers of the times were Rabbi Moses Maimonides (The greatest Jewish Philosopher. "From Moses to Moses, there is none like Moses") and Judge Ibn Rusd (Averroes). Scholars from Greece, England, Germany and elsewhere had free passage to study in learning and translation centers in Toledo, Sicily and elsewhere. Perhaps it is time to begin to bring light to the dark ages. There is fascinating history in the "Dark Ages", for example, Maimonides was exiled and became the personal physician of the Great Saladin.
The details, implications and consequences makes fascinating reading. To call the times of Alber the Great and Thomas Aquinas the "Dark Ages" seems disrepectful of a philosophy that is the foundation of the largest Christian religion. 
Interesting history was made by King Roger I of Normandy, the land of Normans or "Northsmen", Scandinavian Vikings. The contributions of Abbot Suger and the Gothic Church of St. Denis, the first medical doctor licences by King Roger II, of Sicily, the foundation of the University of Paris, the translation of the books of Aristotle at the Toledo Center of Translation, founded by Bishop Raymond, etc. To ignore the Battle of Hastings, the stirrup and its history from the land of the Mongols, etc. All this information is available in books of history. Then there is the story of the first traveler to China, well before Marco Polo, he was Jewish, knowledge is best to fight prejudices. 
But, maybe it's too soon to acknowledge the Irish contributions to the salvation of Civilization in Europe. Consider the possibility that Civilization may have progressed more outside "Western" Europe in the "Dark Ages." We are all exposed to bias. I will accept your decision without further comment.--MikeS
:The above paragraph is highly biased and therefore not acceptable within the article as per our NPOV guidelines. I am familiar with the developments during the Dark Ages, and I do not find the "old view", held by many modern atheists and humanists, obsolete at all. I am more concerned about recent developments of apologetics regarding the dismal state of culture and science during this period of human history. Yes, cultural development continued at a much slower pace outside Western European civilization, but within Europe, classical discoveries were forgotten or deliberately suppressed, medicine returned to magical thinking, roads and bridges deteriorated (ancient road standards would not be reached until the 19th century), buildings of classical scale could no longer be built, water came out of wells which were frequently contaminated instead of being transported through Rome's elaborate network of aqueducts. Art returned to primitive paintings that can barely compete with those found in Altamira and are no match to even the cheapest standard wall painting found in Pompeii -- Even so, artistic creation was suppressed and often destroyed such as during the great periods of iconoclasm, which are a direct neuropsychological mirror of what would happen more than 1000 years later in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. 
:Even beliefs in a Flat Earth were revived (And despite of what Russell thinks, there is ample evidence that even Augustine may have held such beliefs). The church used and abused its position of power for profit through tricks and forgeries. It was the fuel in the fire that burned ancient libraries, temples and even thinkers, the persecution of pagans in the 4th century being a chapter which is missing from virtually all Christian-influenced history books. No, I don't think the term "Dark Ages" is inappropriate or obsolete. In some areas, such as sexual morality which remains heavily Christian-influenced, the Dark Ages continue until today.---Eloquence 02:16 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Heck, bein' from Scandinavia, I hafta say, we kicked arse in the dark ages.
Enough braggin' about our warriorin'...and explorin'...I bet a flat earth would be better for the churches so it's easier for them to get people into believin' the old stuff need's to be preserved, and they were "right all along".--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MikeS's comments

message: Kenneth Alan added the following two mega paragraphs:
: Descriptions meaning 'plunderer' about vikings are the machinations of medieval Catholic clergy after they suffered from raids on their churches and monasteries.  These largely originated Greek-turned-Roman Christian institutions held money originally siphoned from the local Celtss by these Latin Christians, and the Christians tried to twist it around so that the Northmen would look worse than they-just for setting up at the ports for trade as unconverted heathens, claiming to the Britons that God would forgive them for their sins if they supported the church more, in effect, worming their way out and manipulating the fighting which did occur-a repeat of the former Anglo-Saxon invasion which bribed the Britons into submission, which was a further repeat of the first missionaries who accompanied the Romans during Caesar's annexation of Britannia when the Picts were the first demonised of the Celts on the islands, which obviously was another repeat of how the pagan Roman priests were sanctioned by the Roman leaders to bribe the Roman legions into conscription against the Gauls, to justify the expansion of the Romans into an empire.  The Irish had seen this and willingly converted to Christianity to avoid direct submission to the Romans who took Britain.  They believed that they would hold more direct control over their affairs, despite the later consumption of the Celtic church by the Roman church.  The Christians, no matter how they may have said they hated Romans, actually preferred to be allied with the Romans over the latter Germanic tribes for their own Mediterranean-based sake.  
: The bribed-into-Christian Anglo-Saxons, Frisians and Jutes were not the target of the Viking raids, but met in conflict with at the goading of the Church's bribes and possible loss thereof from Rome(taken from the Celts all over the Roman Empire) to subdue their heathen relatives 'so that the Celts wouldn't try to make war upon them' with the distraction of heathenry's rebirth in the British Isles by the vikings, a faith held by the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes and Frisians themselves, before their bribery by Romans to take Britain and subsequent 'nail-in-the-coffin' bribery with prestigious titles and influence under Christianity(King James would eventually write the Bible in English favor after the Reformation gave power back to the local governments) .  After the vikings were subdued by their own reception of Christian bribery in their homelands, as fascist kings consolidated their power, they too would make crusades throughout the Finns, Balts and Slavs for the Baltic Sea's control.  This is a topic found in most of the Middle ages, and in fact the reason for the term "Dark Ages", is because the Christian power was controlled by Greek and Roman forces in the shadows (using the 'innocence of the baby Jesus' and his mother Mary's "purity" as their front or cover up for their real intents-besides the usual Greek 'superiority complex' when it comes to philosophy and the Roman zealous enforcement of all things Greek, as Christianity was a Greek religion based on Greek philosopher interpretation of Jesus and his associates' ideas), who manipulated whole slews of events in their favor, rather than open dominance in the military field, which they had already tried and failed with, hence the 'fall of the Roman Empire'.  But puppeteering the Germanic tribes into violence certainly worked for them and the various lands of Europe and around the Mediterranean became a veritable chessboard battleground for them to try and consolidate it all under their wing, which was checked by the expansion of Islam to the south and east.  A very deciding factor into why heretics were punished harshly was because the string pullers wanted unified conformity to keep power in their image AND repel invasions from the Asians and North Africans, of which the latter goal was something the rest of the Europeans cared about greatly(allowing the empire to exist), but the former ideal has been a hot contest amongst the ethnicities of Europe over who's image is most superior, and not wanting subjection to forced ideals by occupying neighbors, which did resemble the many attempted and some succeeded invasions of Europe by the outer fringe of Europe(Huns, Avars, Magyars, Mongols, Turks).  Until the formation of nationalism at the end of the Middle Ages, most tribes grudgingly consented to the "protection" of the Mediterranean church's saintly martyrdom as long as they had some representation and say in their own affairs to defend themselves, of which the appointment of Pope-crowned kings seemed to have been a two-way affair for control by local peoples and Greece/Rome.  This was responsible for creating 'heroes', but who sometimes were thrown into affairs that seem to plunge Europe into further risk of chaos by creating distrust amongst neighbors or inciting unrelated tribes into invasion of Europe's lands, such as the Muslims' peoples-leading into modern day violence between Middle east Islamics in regards to Christian support of Crusader-based Zionism, much like the formation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the modern creation of Israel as a state has had similar effects and issues in the region as the past.
As is, these are of course irredeemably POV. Claims like the Christian power was controlled by Greek and Roman forces in the shadows (Using the 'innocence of the baby Jesus' and his mother Mary's "purity" as their front or cover up for their real intents-besides the usual Greek 'superiority complex' when it comes to philosophy and the Roman zealous enforcement of all things Greek, as Christianity was a Greek religion based on Greek philosopher interpretation of Jesus and his associates' ideas) need to be attributed and backed up with citations as one possible interpretation. Currently they are neither attributed, nor are citations provided. 
I would ask Kenneth to read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, and rewrite these paragraphs accordingly, with citations provided for all controversial elements. Furthermore, this obviously needs serious copyediting and paragraph-splitup before it can be accepted.---Eloquence 17:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
:If you want to have a conversation, the first thing you should do is start using paragraphs.---Eloquence 22:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
::And the first thing some other people on this page should do is read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenneth Alan's additions 

message: Please remember this is not the place to write about the history of the period. The Dark Ages is a defined concept that came about in the 1300's and has specific meaning and signifigance. The origin and history of the Dark Age concept, how it has been percieved throughout history, is what this page is for. Any history that takes place prior to Petrarchs definition of the concept in 1300s probably does not belong on this page. The history of the Middle Ages period should probably be placed elsewhere, probably under the heading of the Middle Ages or appropriate sub page.--Stbalbach 08:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Stbalbach's good idea is made more complicated at Wikipedia by the fact that "Migrations period," the most usual modern term, has been highjacked by the German-centered Völkerwanderung, umlaut and all. As Wikipedia stands, Middle Ages has a subsection "Early Middle Ages" where all material providing a general overview would fit nicely. Just cut 'n paste.--Wetman 18:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you have Human migration#The Great Migrations, and Great Migration points there, too.--Shallot 20:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Good point, Shallot. I'm making sure Late Antiquity links to these. Wetman 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help to stay on Topic 

message: Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts, desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways and any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
This sentence needs some clarification. If we drop who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts we get this sentence:
Petrarch desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways and any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
So, is the sentence attempting to describe:
Any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying?
That's understandable. But within the context, it's very oddly constructed.
I think, but I'm not completely sure, that the sentence should have been constructed as:
Petrarch desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways because any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
So, the sentence should really say:
Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts, desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways because any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.-- AllyUnion (talk) 22:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Should be more clear.--Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to find the "Age of Darkness"-quote, but have only heard of it from secondary sources. It's very possible the quote is more conceptual in nature than a 3 word coin-phrase. Another quote attributed to Petrarch is ..restored to light the ancient elegance of style which was lost and dead.--Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar / Sentence Structure oddity 

message: According to Petrarch's Wikipedia bio, he lived and died in the 13th century. How could he had possibly had invented this concept in the 14th century? Concerning the fall of the Western Roman Empire, was it in 410 as stated on this article or 476?
:Petrarch was born in 1307, the 14th century (As in 2005 is the 21st century). There really was no exact date for the "fall of rome", but there are two dates generally seen to signify the end of the Roman Empire, this article picked the earlier one (for reasons I can't remember at the moment).--Stbalbach 14:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 410 was the year of the Goth's first sacking of Rome (one of many in the fifth century). It's generally considered the mortal blow to the Western Empire though 476 is the better known date.--Marskell 15:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone owghts to get the dates and ideas correct... 

message: "Scarity of records" may exist in popular perception, but it is a myth. We have more extant documents from the so-called Dark Ages than we do the classical period (Indeed, the classical documents come to us from "dark ages" manuscripts). There were fewer original works of a secular nature (And thus, of interest to our modern sensibilities), but there was a flood of religious documents during the period; it was not lacking in written records. Indeed, one could say the perception is just another Enlightenment/humanists perjorative assesment. The article should go out of its way to make it clear the "scarity of written records" is not accurate, or at least provide a more balanced NPOV perspective.
*Whether or not the scarcity of written records is a pejorative Enlightenment myth, the period of a few centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was characterized by a collapse of civil, literary, and economic institutions.  (Eastern Europe, under the influence and sometime control of the Eastern empire, by contrast, did not have a dark age.)  That's a statement about the times, not merely about the currently available records of those times.  Jmacwiki (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The scarcity of records claim is no myth.  For instance, between the writings of Gildas and Bede, there is not a single historical record from Britain!  We have no idea about what really went on during these years.  For example to claim that we know more about Roman period Britain than we do about Arthurian or the Early Saxon period is a measure of just how dark this period really was.  Materially the culture of those times was lower than it was in pre-Roman Britain! John D. Croft 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another thing to consider is that only "enlightened" pagans had their writings perserved by Christian monks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scarcity of written records 

message: From what I read above maybe this article is not supposed to be a discription of history, but I would like to see some material regarding the loss and preservation of knowledge and the aquisition of new knowledge during the Dark Ages. For example, what percentage of classical texts were lost on continental Europe and how important were they? What documents were preserved in Ireland, Byzantium and the Arab empires, respectively? Was much of important gained by the West when Byzantine scholars fled to Rome in 1453? How much of a role did the aquisition of knowledge in base-10 arithmetic, algebra and other Arab & Persian innovations play in triggering the Rennaisance and heaving Europe out of the Dark Ages? Does this kind of material belong here, and if not, where?--DavidW 07:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Medieval literature.--Stbalbach 15:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does belong here. The loss of classical knowledge is one of the things that gives it the name "Dark Ages". It was more than a time of few written records, as the article implies. It was literally a time of mental darkness. 216.23.105.16 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? --Stbalbach 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, FWIW, you can read http://rubens.anu.edu.au/new/books_and_papers/survival.publish/chap2.html to see how the "locals" regarded the ruins that they were living among, but did not know how/did not have capability to duplicate or even rebuild. Jmacwiki (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss and Preservation of Classical Knowledge and Development of New Knowledge during the Dark Ages 

message: I removed this, which seemed prolix, apparently without any loss of information:
:Recent research has reversed this line of thinking, and most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors had simply assumed that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and used this assumption to prove itself. Studies conducted on the authentic evidence have shown the opposite to be true in most respects.
Is there any hard information here that should go back into the article's introductory pasragraphs?--Wetman 19:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Introduction

message: According to our article:
:"Dark Age" is often used generally to emphasize the violence or difficulty of a particular period, while it is employed more formally to denote an era that is archaeologically obscure.
I'm not that familiar with the archaeological profession, but for example, archaeologically speaking, we know more about the early middle ages than we do about many other periods, that are not labeled a Dark Age. Is this statement accurate, would a professional archaeologist "formally" label a period a Dark Age? Stbalbach 1 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
my professors have quite often referred to 1200-800 BC as a dark age for greece/crete/cyclades etc. Also, see Greek Dark Ages Novium 23:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Egypt didn't do too well 1200-1000 either. I'd personally say that Anatolia wins the "furthest to fall" award. There should probably be something about the history of the term's expansion to cover the "Greek" Dark Age, and others.-- Zimriel 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archeological Dark Ages 

message: Having failed to watch this page after a brief bit of debate it's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. "The Middle Ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness". I haven't encountered many lines in wiki talk as over-simplified and debating-ending as that. And this is nice: "I think people who are not contributors to this article should take their crusades elsewhere." Maybe take it easy on the sense of ownership? What's interesting is that if you go through the talk you see Stbalbach becoming a crusader himself--eliminating any reference that even slightly pejorates the period.
A few suggestions: re-name this article Dark Ages (historiography) so people don't make the mistake of thinking they're actually going to be reading about an historical era ("The Dark Ages is a metaphor;" "Ghengis Khan was complicated;" "The Holocaust is a noun.") Alternatively, leave it just above a stub with redirects. Another option is to have a go re-defining the Renaissance for consistency's sake--can't really be born again if the good times never stopped rolling. For what it's worth, it is still possible to walk into a respectable university class and hear the Dark Ages discussed (with appropriate caveats) in all it's old-fashioned, pejorative glory. Unfortunately, readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out that such sentiment still exists.--Marskell 15:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Job 

message: The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, right!  What's that got to do with the so-called dark ages?--Doric Loon 18:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, the Stone Age lingers in isolated valleys of New Guinea...--Wetman 18:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: The Oral Irish tradition preserves stories about the coming of Patrick to Ireland and his magical battle with the chief Druids at Tara. He won, spectacularly, and was granted the right to preach in the land by Concobhar, the high king at the time. Undoubtedly this is not the first introduction of Christianity to the Druidic religion. Indeed, the use of the trinity by the Christians to replace the older Elemental trinity idea shows some thought was employed in converting these 'pagans' to the new way. But this is not the only effect the Druids had upon the Christians and their ideas. The introduction of Christianity to the Druidic mode of rule is the source of 'the dark ages'. It is no coincidence that there is no written accounts or literature or secular art from this period and the fact that these were all forbidden by the Druids.
From the Acts of the Apostles and other accounts of the early Christians it is obvious that they primarily promoted peaceful living. The mercy and love of their God was foremost in their teaching. They lived in communities and were possessed of and could pass on skills of healing and language, evidence of their anointing by the Holy Spirit. 
Throughout the rule of the Roman empire the Secular leaders were always advised by those possessed of the knowledge of the gods and their wishes. These priests were vested with great power. As the Empire started to decline and fragment so too did the power of these priests. The Christian leaders had seen this advisory role and with their popularity increasing (or through amazing leaders with a miracle or two) moved into this position. 
At this point there are still public libraries and political debate and sciences and medicines and plumbing and the hope of a slave's children becoming freemen and citizens. Society supported artists and athletes and others who could not work for themselves. The priests too may have hoped to bring enlightenment to everyone and advise the rulers to mercy and honesty. But as the bible itself says power is inherently corrupting, Luke 4:6RSV
'And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will." (7)
   
With the introduction of the Druids to the Christians a new mode of governance was demonstrated. The Druids ruled with absolute authority. They kept all the knowledge to themselves and kept everyone else in ignorance, taking the brightest and best to be trained. They were the intermediaries between the gods and men. They alone knew the will of their gods. And their gods were vengeful. Their gods demanded sacrifice and they ruled through fear. They were the judges and historians and doctors and while the secular kings and chieftains held the loyalty of their men, they held their office with the Druids blessing.
Looking, now, at the Christian conversion from the loving, forgiving, communism that the Apostles and the first priests preached it is easy to see why the damnation of fire and brimstone, Hell, Purgatory and original sin became the focus of the institution as it grew. As its power increased, so did it fervor for the punishments of its God and the engendering of fear into the populace, a fear that is only recently being abandoned and still preached by many, a fear deeply rooted in the pagan worship of the Druids.
217.33.75.158 00:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of the Dark Ages

message: Possibly I am being too radical here for the liking of some, but I have provisionally delted the section "Origin of Dark Ages concept" - that is, the paragraph on the history before Petrarch.  The paragraph in question is this:
:To understand how the concept of the Dark Ages originated it is helpful to understand how the people of the time saw their own place in history. Most scholars in Late Antiquity followed Saint Augustine (5th century), who believed history had six ages (see "Six Ages of the World") and that they were living in the sixth and final stage of history. In this phase the end of earthly man was expected after Christ returned to earth, and the events of Revelation and the end of the world could happen at any time. Though the momentarily expected imminent Second Coming faded for Christians during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the idea of the world in a late age was prevalent for nearly 900 years.
It seems to me that this has no place here.  No link has been established between the sex aetates and Petrarch's "Dark Ages" concept.  The sex aetates mundi are monumentally important for mediaeval historiography and I have no argument with anything in this paragraph, but it is a distraction here. If the sixth age began with Christ and ended with the eschaton, as Mediaeval thinking would have it, then it was not possible for there to be both a post classical Dark Age AND an enlightened renaissance age to contrast with it.  In other words, Petrarch did not build on the mediaeval aetas doctrine, he discarded it.  --Doric Loon 21:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have presented an excellent adjustment to this essential text. --Wetman 21:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say Petrarch built on this model? All the paragraph does is provide the reader some context of the model that preceeded Petrarch (well, continued for long after as well). I think thats pretty helpful to have in the article, context. Your probably reading far too much into it. Most sources that talk about the historiography of the dark ages also discuss the model of the world that came before Petrarch (and during Petrarchs own time), its simply a matter of course and would be a lesser article without it. Stbalbach 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not meant to do justice to medieval historiography. It's meant to provide historical context and background. I'll consider how to incorporate it, so its not wordy. I recommend reading Mommsen, Theodore E., "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'", Speculum, Vol.17, No 2. (Apr.,1942), pp.226-242 (via JSTOR). It is the essential treaties on this topic.Stbalbach 00:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The article should encapsulate Mommsen's conclusions in Speculum, for those readers without such rich library resources, because this whole article turns on Petrarch's view and his predecessors if any, and how such a view changed with time. --Wetman 04:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins, Augustine, sex aetates

message: The recently added text about Volcanoes doesnt belong here (the article is about historiography). But not sure where to move it. Thoughts? Stbalbach 15:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The volcanic phenomenon is discussed at Climate changes of 535-536. There's certainly no connection whatsoever to the "darkness" perceived/misperceived in the "Dark Ages". --Wetman 03:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcanoes 

message: This needs a complete rewrite by somebody who knows how to write in a scholarly manner. This is just christian apologetics. It's rather daft to have an article called "Dark Ages" that so clearly has been written with the singular intention of denying that there were any "Dark Ages". This is polemic rather than description, apologetics rather than analysis. Check out those snidey references to "humanists". Such a hateful bunch they are!
It's beyond dispute that the term "Dark Ages" applies to christianised european civilisation alone and cannot be refuted by appeals to scholarship in for instance the muslim world- and that in Europe the church extinguished the light of all scholarship other than theology; there was, for instance, no mathematical research beyond the pointless debates about the calendar, purely so that the date of Easter might be accurately calculated. Classical works were lost to Darkened europe and only survived beyond the christian sphere, in the East. This article is a feeble christian revisionist exercise regarding that basic fact, which defines the darkness of the age.
If it can't be rewritten by somebody with a bit of historical integrity, it needs deleting. God knows how many people are reading this farrago every day and assuming it is in some way authoritative.--82.71.30.178 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not "Christian Apologetics". See any scholarly academic source on the historiography of the term "Dark Ages" and you will find this article is reflective of mainstream academic views. Academics began rejecting the term "Dark Ages" in the early 20th century as a flood of new scholarly research about the Middle Ages appeared. The interpretation along the secular/christian fault-line is incorrect.
here is a good place to start (Bottom of page), or even better, see Mommsen, Theodore E., "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'", Speculum, Vol.17, No 2. (Apr.,1942), pp.226-242.Stbalbach 16:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappointing Article: Christian Apologetics 

message: I agree with the last sentiment. I came here to see the extent of the age and an overview of the age. Of course, I expect this to include some insight onto why it is labeled "Dark", but not a obviously biased attempt by an evangelical to debunk the label. From what I have gathered ELSEWHERE, the label has mostly to do with a collapse of infrustructure and literacy --and yes the Catholic Church is directly involved. (anon)
:The history of the age is covered in Middle Ages.  --Stbalbach 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An Evangelical who wants to defend the Catholic Church?????  Which editor are you talking about?  If I spotted an Evangelical agenda in scholarly writing I would be down on it like a ton of bricks!  --Doric Loon 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed, Disappointing Article Smacks of Christian Apologetics 

message: I don't want to comment on whether this qualifies as "Christian Apologetics" as mentioend by the previos posters, but I'm more bothered that this far from NPOV, agenda driven, article is being highlighted as some kind of "Best of Wikipedia" thing right now.
It isn't. I wanted a basic answer to the question "What is the Dark Ages" and instead got over 2,500 words on why the author hates the label "Dark Ages" and how it's somehow some giant conspiracy by early second millenia "humanists" to make the past look bad. I guess kind of like people in the 20th Century think the 19th is backward, or something.
This article is all very interesting, but it needs to be on some academic website, not as the answer to the question "What were the Dark Ages?" As it is, as an example of Wikipedia at its best, it's terrible. It's more of an example of how, with little editorial oversight except peer pressure, pretty much anything can be posted as long as its phrased correctly.
:while I don't necessarily endorse the "Good Article" label, I fail to see how there is any "Christian agenda" here. An article on "Dark Ages" is necessarily on the term, not a particular era. If you want to read about the history of the era itself, and not about the application of the term "Dark Ages", go to Middle Ages, Migration period and Viking Age. I think the scope of this article should be made more clear, and it is probably mistaken that this article is featured as the "main article" for the Early Middle Ages at History of Europe. fix it please! dab (ᛏ) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive personally read a lot on this subject, from some of the leading medieval scholars, and this article through the input and work of at least 5 qualty editors over the course of two years is probably the most complete treatment of the subject, in one short article, I have seen, published or not. Not saying it cant be improved, or there isnt somthing better out there, honest and learned edits welcome. I have not seen a serious complaint, from someone with an academic perspective, that hasnt been addressed. The complaints have come from those who are not academically-oriented (see the section on "popular usage"), or who have not kept pace with the latest research in the field of medieval history, or who have a political agenda to cast negative judgement on those "priest ridden" (Voltaire) times. --Stbalbach 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  *This* is quality? 

message: Stbalbach, you just linked the phrase "priest-ridden" with Voltaire.  The article (quite possibly in one of my edits) links it to Gibbon.  Can we pin this down?  --Doric Loon 11:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right. Voltaire's quote I was thinking of is the "uncouth times that one calls the Middle Ages". Thomas Jefferson's famous priest-ridden quote is "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," --Stbalbach 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Priest-ridden?

message: There seems to be a conflict on what Latin to use for Petrarch's quote:
:"amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius, no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom"
The options are:
:"De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia"
::-or-
:"Apologia contra cuiusdam anonymi Galli calumnias"
Thoughts? --Stbalbach 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrarchs quote 

message: The author of this article and many of modern historicians are correct that usage of the term "dark ages" by renassanse European writers was obviousely biased. It was made especially to portray an earlier Greek-Roman civilization as a better world, which is very debatable. It seems very obvious that not just it was a very cruel and anti-humane world (with slavery, examples of utter materialism, orgies, gladiators and so on) but also an economically and socially a troubled world. Technical and scientific achievements? Sure, though Romans hasn't done so much and Greeks had borrowed some from Egypt. Also, does these achievements matter when being used for evil purposes. Colosseum is a technical achievement, also a modern nuclear world is an achievement, yet, it hardly can be considered positive. So, the "humanists" who are defending ancient world are pretty controversial. Corrupted world, such as modern civilization which in some ways copies a bad examples from Ancient times ("thanks" to Renaissanse and Enlightment age writers). If you were living during these times and not were belonging to minority of ruling elites, you'll fully realize this. Even if you were belonging to elites you aren't safe, read about cruelity among Roman elite for example. Eg, some early historicans say that actually barbarians who had conquered Rome were better treatening each other than Roman elites.
Speaking of Christianity, it obviousely was improperly used as political tool during the middle ages, and this caused real problems. But "reverting" to an ancient era traditions is a bad way to address this problem.
Please forgive my poor English.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.233.48.78 (talk • contribs) .
I may forgive your english, but my god, do you really think a highly inaccurate rant against the ancient world is appropriate here? Novium 23:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a good quality article. 

message: Regarding this addition moved here:
:At a stretch, one could say that the period often described as the 'Dark Ages', is becoming clearer than in any other century, primarily due to Beta-ray scanning and a host of archaological finds. As the uncertainties clear about Saxons and Vikings, permission is being increasingly given to researchers and historians who wish to examine finds of this era in places such as building sites, private owned land, and National Trust sites.
This is POV "At a stretch, one could say". It's also POV to say that knowledge of the period is primarily due to "beta-ray scanning", dont forget the research of 10's of thousands of professional Medieval history scholars during the 20th century. Even if the POV statement was removed, there's nothing be said here that has not already been said: archaeological finds are improving knowledge of the time period, as one example. Nothing here is specific to the "dark ages", it's true for any period, it's really a statement about archeology, not the term dark ages. Also the dates 476-1000 are general round numbers that is a compromise and fairly non-controversial, the article says there are different variations and POV's about what dates constitute the period. --Stbalbach 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon additions 

message: I moved the below material out of the article. This is not the right article for it, this is a historiography article not a history article. It is also highly POV. --Stbalbach 03:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological discussion 

message: I think Lynn White was notable guy, and so does the author of the article on him, Lynn Townsend White, Jr. Quote restored. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the notability of Lynn White

message: This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Only one reference is provided. The citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: If you pitch the Dark Ages, will you pitch the Renaissance too?  After all, you can't have a "rebirth of learning" if learning hasn't died.  Athana 72.224.247.162
:Nobody is "pitching" anything - if I understand correctly what you mean by the word.  But yes, the term "Renaissance" is also a historiographical construct which is loaded with implications which may or may not be helpful, and yes, that term too is subject to fashion, and if it goes out of fashion as "dark ages" has, we will have a Wiki article saying so, and saying why.  But Wikipedia will not decide that - we will just report it if it happens.  BTW, it would be helpful to put new talk at the bottom of the page - I am moving this down! --Doric Loon 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an article for the history of the period, Early Middle Ages, why would we have two articles on the same subject? This is described clearly in the lead section and top hat, it is not at all misleading. The term "Dark Ages" has been largely deprecated by professional medieval historians, as explained in the article, so we might as well use the placeholder name here for a historiography discussion about the term. I do recommend reading this article carefully and in full, and please bring to our attention anything that you consider not to be accurate. -- Stbalbach 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaissance

message: The article says: <Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark age" for its lack of Christianity, was now seen by Petrarch as the age of "light" because of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch's time, lacking such cultural achievements, was now seen as the age of darkness.> 
But this seems mistaken to me, because Petrarch was looking back to the time before the cultural flowering of the 13th century, the "little renaissance." Did he think his own age was dark, or the period of a three hundred years before his time? 24.12.8.116 13:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He thought his own age was dark. It was not for another generation or two before certain writers began speaking of a new age, and thus "middle age" between the classical era and the new age. Petrarch did not discuss a middle age, he saw only two periods, his own (dark) and classical. -- Stbalbach 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrarch's view of Dark Ages versus his own time 

message: I don't want to rush in here without us thinking about it, but is the quotations section really useful?  I think two of the quotes enrich the article, but they could be used more strategically further up.  Some of the others (whether "Middle Ages" is a good term, for example) are off topic.  It is certainly not usual to have a random quotes section, and I wonder if we might not be better ditching it?  --Doric Loon 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: I propose shifting the article to Western European Dark Ages, as it is what the article is really all about, and have reposed it to there.  My attempts to make it more relevant to Dark Ages in other parts of the world have been consistently deleted.  To claim this article is about Dark Ages for the whole world is Eurocentric arrogance.  There are many historical examples of Dark Ages elsewhere around the world, as Jarred Diamond, and many others attest.  Lets make this article a discussion of this historical phenomenon, not just a culturally biased European article.
John D. Croft 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Dark Ages is most often used in terms of Europe. See what links here, and any number of other sources such as google books. This is per the Wikipedia guidelines on article naming, the most common usage. For anyone who wants to know about other dark ages, it is disambiguated at the top of the page in a top hat, and in a disambiguation page. There is no problem with how it is currently set up.  We already have other articles dealing with topics that Jarred Diamond and others discuss such as Societal collapse. -- Stbalbach 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to societal collapse should be added to the Dark Ages disambiguation page. Right now it only mentions this article two other specific "dark ages" (in the History subsection of the page), it would be nice to see an article on the more general concept. But I agree that the focus of this article is fine as it is and conforms to the Wikipedia guidelines.--Boffob 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add the link there to the disambig page if you wish. To John D. Croft: you are correct that this article is really about the European "dark ages"; I think it should remain so. However, the article's title is a different matter. We currently have two articles, this one on the European Dark Ages, and the disambiguation page for the general, unspecific concept of "dark ages" in other civilizations. If you think the general term should be located here, you are free to gather consensus by following the instructions at WP:MOVE. But realize that the most common use of the term "dark ages" does seem to be the European one (as Stbalbach pointed out above). That is not to say that common use always dictates where an article goes; for instance America and American are disambiguation pages, though clearly the primary use of the terms in the English language is to refer to the United States.--Cúchullain t/c 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shift of the article

message: I know I'm not stating much new but just to add another vote to the discussion ...
If this article is simply intended to be about European history it should be merged with and redirected to the Early Middle Ages since that is the less controversial (and more widely accepted, albeit less widely recognized) term. If this article really is about a "characterization" about the EMA this is certainly not the way it reads and, for this to be justified as a separate article, it *should* be made clear. One thing I'll say that might be a valid historical distinction if the community considers it valid would be to make the EMA article be about Mediterranean history and this article be more specifically about Western European history. This could be argued to be a valid distinction in that a variety of different things were going on around the Med during the Middle Ages so the "Dark Ages" could be said to be what was going on in the Western European part of that history.
As it stands, though, IMHO it is still unclear as to how the article is not redundant over the EMA article (i.e. regardless of the differences in content, the distinction in purpose is still not clear).
--Mcorazao 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is simply intended to be about European history - it is not. It is a historiography article. -- Stbalbach 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you've missed the point, I'm afraid. It's about the concept of a "dark age" that happened after the fall of Rome, not the actual historical period of the Early Middle Ages.--Cúchullain t/c 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another opinion: Early Middle Ages 

message: Stbalbach: with regard to the re-added Python reference -- that sounds interesting, but I have to say that as it stands I didn't find the comment illuminating.  I think it's because it doesn't mention the context you give in your edit summary.  Can you cite the talk?  Is it in a written form?  I also think it needs to say something about why this is relevant, so there needs to be more of the material you mention in there.  After all, it's now well known that knights and chivalry post date the dark ages (by almost any definition of that period) and certainly post-date Arthur.  So I'm not clear on the point being made by the inclusion.  Can you elaborate?  Mike Christie (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually very useful because so many people are familiar with Monty Python and the film. The lecture was given by Professor Philip Daileader for The Teaching Company entitled "The High Middle Ages", lecture one. Note that we are talking about "Modern popular use", the "dark ages" in popular culture is anything with swords and knights, most people couldn't tell the difference between 400AD and 1400AD, its all for them "dark ages". The purpose of that section is simply to show how the dark ages are portrayed in popular culture and Holy Grail is a notable and well known example. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I took another look at the paragraph and I agree it serves a purpose; I think it could probably be improved some, but you've convinced me that the Python reference has its place.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Python reference 

message: Face it, the Dark Ages were dark, but not in a literal term.  Just because the worship of God was widespread does not mean that propaganda wasn't being spread.  Everybody hailed the Pope in that era, and they treated the man like he was God himself.  In order to get into Heaven, you actually had to pay the church!  Then, later on, a man named Martin Luther hammered a notice on the Church.  This note stated that the Bible had the supreme authority over if you went to Heaven, not the Church officials.  If you followed the Bible,and had a belief in God, you would go to Heaven.  Later on, Martin Luther was called a heretic.
:This is an exceedingly simplistic view.  To argue that "everybody hailed the pope" is blatantly inaccurate.  See the Investiture Controversy.  One German ruler even called the pope a "false monk."  You sound awfully like a Protestant apologist, but it doesn't appear as though you know any religious dissent before Luther.  Dissent was actually rife, such as the Cathars.  In the Early Middle Ages especially, the pope had little real power.  This statement also completely disregards Eastern Orthodox and the African churches, both of which were still very much active, as they are today.  In addition, your view of Luther does not seem to point out that he despised Jews and that there is debate over whether he actually nailed his theses or circulated them in manuscript form.  Lastly, arguing whether a period was dark or not based on theological grounds is clearly non-encyclopedic.  I am not a Catholic, or even a Christian for that matter, but seems like you are living in a fantasy world of legend and myth, rather than operating in a sound historical framework.  Vincent Valentine 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do Luther's views on Jews have to do with anything the above commentor wrote?  Are Christian theologians required to believe that Jews - who reject Christianity - will be saved in order for their arguments to be relevant? 71.205.191.38 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dark Ages WERE Dark! 

message: I removed this section from the article:
:
:The assumption that the medieval period was one of backwardness was also reflected in the views of the relationship between the Middle Ages and the study of nature. The contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers comment the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition, the blame of which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly placing the word of religious authorities over "personal experience and rational activity", and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.When Science & Christianity Meet, By Donald R. Shanor, David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, p.8 As Lindberg reports, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church".quoted in the essay of Ted Peters about Science and Religion at "Lindsay Jones (editor in chief). Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition. Thomson Gale. 2005. p.8182" For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th centuryJeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN-10: 027595904X; ISBN-13: 978-0275959043. and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that the people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim was mistaken, as Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
It seems to be talking about Middle Ages in general, not just the Dark Ages, and it uses examples from the High Middle Ages, like the picture. I believe the intention of this is to mislead readers. –Fatalis 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As is expressed in the article, the popular view of the term Dark Ages (contrary of it's usage in historiography) is not necessarily restricted to the Early middle ages. Considerations about the whole period are perfectly adequate when it is exactly this popular view that is being addressed. Also, as is well explained in the article about the Flat Earth, the dominant texts of the Early Middle Ages also did support the sphericity of the Earth. Since the above paragraph is sourced with references from respected historians of science, and since the  misconceptions that the text mentions are obviously related with the popular view of a "Dark Age", I have the intention to restore what you just deleted. BTW, thank you very much for assuming good faith. --Leinad ∴  -diz aí, chapa. 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but it should have been explicitly clarified in the text. As it stands, the article doesn't distinguish between the two usages (save for the introduction), and your addition was blatantly biased. If you're re-adding it, please make sure to spell out what it's talking about. –Fatalis 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it fits in that section quite well. –Fatalis 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflating different periods of Middle Ages 

message: In the interest of avoiding conflicts and conflicts of interest, I just wanted to start discussing whether the link originally added by User:James Hannam should be added to the page. I think it seems worthy enough on its own, and the only issue really is that the author of the article is the one who posted it (and others in other wiki articles). Are there any other objections to such link?--Boffob 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link by James Hannam 

message: The subject warning/clarification is not clear to
lay people (me).  I wasted my time reading the article.
Never before has a Wiki article angered me so.
Please modify it something like this:  
"This article is about the term 
"dark age(s)" as a characterization of the (Early) Middle Ages in 
Europe.    IT IS NOT ABOUT THE DARK AGES.   For the period 
itself, see Middle Ages and ...."
Thank you. 
4.246.84.186 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you were angered, but if the difference between history and historiography was lost on you, I would suggest the experience of confronting this was time well spent.  But you're right, that's not the point.  We do have to make the disambig sentences as helpful as possible, and if you don't understand them as they stand, that bears thinking about; but to say "it is not about the dark ages" would be wrong - it very much is about the dark/middle ages, even if its focus is entirely on what to call them! --Doric Loon 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The topic's warning. 

message: WP:V doesn't make any exceptions for editors declaring that something is "basic knowledge". If it's really true, they should just prove it by sources. Reinistalk 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are provided. Please don't delete/remove sourced material. -- 71.191.36.194 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of {{tl|fact}} tags 

message: re: this quote
:"After about the year 500 "human life was suspended for a thousand years," says a brilliant French writer. Something like that certainly will be the unanimous verdict of historians when our scholars have shed the last trace of subservience to the clergy. At present some of them have an affectation of showing that the Middle Ages were not quite so bad as the older historians had said. It is wrong, it appears, to call the early Middle Ages "the Dark Ages," because, by diligent search, we can find a lamp in it here and there!" — Joseph McCabe, The Story of Religious Controversy: Chapter XXI (1929)
This quote is old, out dated and out of fashion. Without an explanation of the context it's misleading and counter-productive (ie. POV). Nothing in the article supports this quote.  The quote would be supported in the Middle Ages in history article, which discusses the many historical biases for and against the Middle Ages. -- 71.191.36.194 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with removing this and other quotes that are given with no context; we have Wikiquote for lists of quotes. Go ahead and remove it if you want.--Cúchullain t/c 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That could potentially work. I'd personally like to see the same thing done with the other quotes as well.--Cúchullain t/c 08:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph McCabe quote 

message: The references are clearly christian biased. I have read and listened to articles on pages quoted in references 6 and 7. To meet the good article standards I think additional references are necessary.
"Dark ages" is a metaphor but the centuries were not all "dark". However, we do have much arguments showing that the the name dark ages is "well earned". The meantioned articles above make some very unrealistic claims. For example there are numerous decrees and papal bulls (now available online) which clearly suppressed intellectual enterprises that would conflict the doctrine. The first and most notorious sign of the beginning of dark period was the closing of Academy of Athens by Justin I who also decreed to
totally destroy all religions (particularly various paganisms) in favour of christianity. 
Many scholars believe that closing The Academy was the greatest intellectual disaster until the renaissance.
I do not see any citations on that. I agree that the apologetic claims by those authors should be present in this article even though I disagree with them. But I think opposite opinions are mandatory.
And my opinion:
what strikes me is that there are people who still refuse to accept even the documented accounts from different and independent, sources on what was going on in particular era.
For example the statement:
"..the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though he says that they are not supported by current historical research.
Either this author doesn't know what natural philosophy is (which I doubt because I've listened to his lectures) or is a dogmatic proponent. One need not go to the middle ages, only a few centuries back to see that this was the case and that there are WRITTEN documents to prove such cases. Historical research does indeed support such knowledge, it's just not accepted by some people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.8.230.4 (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm helping out in a group in South West France that is doing a "hands-on" re-creating (building) a 10th century house. From what I gathered today, and my French is about at 70% comprehension...  In France the term 'Medieval' applies from straight after the departure of the Romans... There was no 'Dark age' in France  only early Medieval...  Quite different from the British interpretation. I add this, as maybe not relevant to the discussion, but I'm struck by this whole business of a 'Dark Age'.(The term might better be applied to the present)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Licornenoire (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In most European languages other than English, the term "Medieval" is not at all negative or pejorative.  It just seems as though some English speakers refuse to think of this period as anything other than a bunch of clueless murdering savages, when in reality they were just like we are today, only they lived several hundred years ago.  Vincent Valentine 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought 

message: Based on WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources the claim that the "the period only ever existed on paper...the years between 614 and 911, never existed at all", particularly as it appears in the modern academic use section, shouldn't be included. It has been inserted by User:Bonzo345, both logged in and as an IP poster, five times (in contravention of WP:3RR) and reverted by a couple of editors. Any views, please? I am considering asking for semi protection, so that at least we can discuss the point with just the registered user. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much to discuss. Herbert Illig's ideas, or any other sort of phantom time hypothesis, have no place in a section on "Modern academic use". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no place at all, I would say. No notability. This is just obsessive crackpottery that collapses like a house of cards under scrutiny. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's back, but now labelled as a "Fringe theory". To what extent, if any, does the change now justify its inclusion? (I have repeated the invitation to the poster to contribute here, but he/she hasn't responded.) --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas."   No evidence has been given of serious acceptance or rejection; I'm deleting it.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Whois checks of the two anonymous IP addresses adding the phantom time hypothesis indicates both comes from Romania.  Two different people in a non-English speaking country adding the same material to an article in the English Wikipedia seems extremely unlikely.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I deleted Fringe theories and as a compromise I placed Phantom time hypothesis in see also....delete it...or leave it..Modernist (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section again, but I know it'll come back. This page may need semiprotection.--Boffob (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi page protection requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was declined. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The period only ever existed on paper 

message: Surely the most objective indicator(or entirely subjective) is a period of which we, today, are ignorant due to a lack of written records, or other records in specific geographical areas. The Al-Aqsa mosque was built from which we can only discover post holes in England. There are no records at all of a whole English kingdom, such as Lindsey, which is truly dark to us. On this reckoning the Dark Ages in Britain can be limited to around the Fifth century to the Mrercian Supremacy of the Seventh century. Whilst the Christian Church did preserve some literacy, it also resisted innovations in science being made by the Muslims, so that Christian navigators eschewed the use of the magnetic compass as the Mohammedans had bewitched them and even the introduction of the abacus from the Muslims by the Pope in the year 1000 was seen as diabolic. The notion that the Normans brought a higher level of culture in 1066 is entirely mistaken- the really significant date in terms of cultural progress is 1099 and the capture of Jersalem and contact (in every sense) with the Islamic World.--Streona (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Ages Subjective and Objective

message: A radical view is proposed on the website "jesusneverexisted.com" that Christianity was a cause of the Darkness of the whole of the Middle Ages. The near monopoly on literacy enjoyed by the Church gives us most of the written records and paganism is poorly documented, except in Iceland, which makes it appear progressive and is often considered to have transmitted the "wisdom of the Ancients". However much of this so called wisdom was complete rubbish - especially Aristotle, and the Church effectively discouraged and prevented any further reseearch or development (sometimes on pain of death)and anathematised contact with more advanced civilisations such as the Arabs.Only in the 16th century were scientists able to emerge from this straitjacket --Streona (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that Christianity was responsible for the Dark Ages is a highly radical view.  Radicality has nothing to do with how long a position has been argued.  Blaming societal collapse on a religion is not exactly a mainstream position.  (And given that the pagan barbarians, whose raids fueled the collapse of the Romans in the West, were hardly literate themselves, the position doesn't make a lot of sense.) 71.205.191.38 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity

message: In reference to this edit: Referring to WP:MOS is not a form of policing. The Manual of Style exists for a good reason: to make Wikipedia easier to read. And replacing difficult words with easier ones is not talking down to the readers as you call it. Just like the Manual of Style, it is about making a more accessible and therefore better Wikipedia.
What you are doing is a form of intellectual elitism. Writing for readers of your own clique and not caring about others. It's against the philosophy of Wikipedia and should be avoided whenever possible. Waninge (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so, preferring "paucity of artistic output" over "shortage of artistic output" is "intellectual elitism"? Waninge, you self-identify as "en-3". Did it occur to you that there may be stylistic differences between the two phrases you did not quite grasp? Let me put it this way: "paucity" means that there was little output. "shortage" means that there was too little output. People were desperate for more artistic output, the artists were working day and night, but just couldn't produce enough art to provide for the enormous artistic needs of the period. The text was perfectly fine as it was, thank you. If knowledge of a perfecty pedestrian English word like "paucity" makes me a member of a "clique", then so be it, en-wiki is only accessible to the "clique" of people with a passive knowledge of written English. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my knowledge of English is about "en-3". But I didn't know the word "paucity". I had to look it up in a dictionary. If I don't know it then probably many people don't. So, "paucity" makes the article less accessible, which is the reason I replaced it. You say there are stylistic differences between "paucity" and the words I used, but "paucity" can be replaced by easier terms with the same meaning. "Scarcity", "fewness", "small amount", "smallness of number", "smallness of quantity", "a small number of" and "an inadequate supply of" are a few examples. All of them are easier than "paucity". There is no good reason to keep that word. Waninge (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you looked it up, you learned something, that's good isn't it?  There is a "simple English" Wikipedia for people who are truely struggling, but this isn't it.  I think you would rather object to me going to the Dutch wikipedia (where I read regularly) and telling you not to use the whole range of your language just because I haven't learned it properly.  --Doric Loon (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really the point of this discussion. I am sure that many people who have English as their native language do not know the word "paucity". Most Wikipedia editors and administrators probably know it, as most of them have a higher education than average. But most passive users probably don't know that word, will not take the effort to look it up and as a result don't understand the meaning of that line. That's what I mean by elitism. And now I end this discussion, as I am getting tired of it. Waninge (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paucity is an unnecessary difficult word 

message: In European historiography, the term Dark Age or Dark Ages refers to the Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 to 1000 AD. 476 is very specific and 1000 AD is rounded to the nearest 1000. Can these dates be clarified in parentisis. (  Ceoil sláinte 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: Maybe the article should be split in : "Dark Ages(early middle ages)"-which is not used in a pejorative way, even if it was not completely true, as it was light during the day, "Dark Ages(middle ages)"-used in a pejorative way, with all the controversy included, "Dark Ages(first G.W.Bush presidency term)"-with its own controversy .... 198.62.239.133 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not be split. Even the usage in the early middle ages is pejorative, as discussed in the article and many sources. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is pejorative if people feel it that way. Some people feel that it is not pejorative when used about parts of the early Middle Ages in some parts of the world (not everywhere and not the whole early middle ages). Telling them that it is pejorative when they do not feel it that way is wrong. I think that everybody has the right to his opinion, including those who are not offended by the Dark Ages term. I find it awkward the way this article is written. It is almost like explaining why genocide is wrong in a 50 pages article without explaining what it is in the first place. It leaves everybody confused. And there is no wonder that authors are afraid to use words that might be seen as politically incorrect. That does not impress me. I am not offended by the use of the Dark Ages term (this means that it is not pejorative for me), but I understand the pejorative use as well. I would like to see both points of view, and not only one.67.83.207.248 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: But both points of view ARE in there.  The article as it stands actually dedicates considerably more text to an account of those who used and liked the term than to those who reject it.  Please remember we are not doing original research, nor are we trying to be politically correct, so whether the term seems pejoritive to you or me, or whether it really is in some absolute sense, or on what level, is not the point. We have to report the state of play in the world.  If some people find it pejoritive, our job with respect to that is simply to report what they say: no more, no less.  --Doric Loon (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: How do you not realize that you own use of the term "Vulgur" in describing -- dismissively -- a traditional view of history is even more POV and disingenuous than the supposed bias of the "dark ages"!? The fact of the matter is that this article should not exist -- it should forward one to Early Middle Ages and then the first sentence of that article should be "The Early Middle Ages (also sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages)" or whatever, and then a short, succienct section saying why the term is considered inappropriate nowadays should be included. There is no need for this long-winded historiography discussion which is NOT what users searching the term are looking for.MartinDuffy (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The "History of Anglo-Saxon England" wikipedia page says that "The 5th and 6th centuries are known archaeologically as Sub-Roman Britain, or in popular history as the Dark Ages". It looks to me that not much is known about that period of time from England. I think that the "dark ages" label would be OK for that period of time in England, but not until 1066.198.62.239.133 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article should be split