Talk:Early Middle Ages/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No armor?

There is a sentence concerning the equipment of the Romans in Adrianople which asserts that most of the legionnaires "wore little if any armor."

Though it is cited, the sentence seems to be in direct conflict with historical written and artistic sources. These point to the existence of fabricae, state-run factories, in the 4th century, which mass-produced metal armor for the Roman armed forces. The legions in the Battle of Strasbourg (357), which took place only twenty years before Adrianople, under Emperor Julian are described - here in Wikipedia - as "[wearing] metal body armour (mainly chain mail)." The article for the Battle of Adrianople itself describes the Romans as encumbered by the burden of their armor.

May we be rid of this sentence, which misrepresents the strength of the Romans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.236.182 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's cited it can stay in, unless there's a problem with the source or you find something else that directly contradicts it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Directly from Wikipedia's article on the Battle of Adrianople: "The Romans retreated to the base of the hill where they were unable to maneuver, encumbered by their heavy armor and long shields..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.236.182 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic learning, Science, etc. This terminology is misleading. Many, if not most, of the knowledge came from non-Muslims under Islamic rule (the given example of Khwarizmi, arguably a Mazdaist). Furthermore, it is not evident to what extent science in Baghdad has to do with Islam. This should be changed.71.196.9.201 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Start in AD 300?

Cantor defines "Medieval history" as 300 to 1500. He doesn't say anything specifically about EMA. I interpret this not as a general definition, but rather as an explanation of what period he covers in his book. Numerous references define the Middle Ages as beginning with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 (or possibly 410). So I think Cantor is an outliner on this. Kauffner (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See the main Middle Ages#Age division labels Article. --J. D. Redding 18:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also the problem of the addition of the unsourced East Asian sections in an article on the Early Middle Ages. Since they were added without discussion, I plan on removing at least the unsourced material and restoring the previous version of the introduction.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove material, Cúchullain. If there is a issue, please list a 'citation needed'. --J. D. Redding 18:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd do that would if that were the only issue with the material. However, there's also the issue of why material on east Asia is appropriate for an article on the Middle Ages.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

{{globalize}}. --J. D. Redding 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., the Asian Middle Ages (ie., "Asia during the Middle Ages") should be included.)

July 2011

In the spirit of BRD, I've reverted part of the material added and altered by Reddi over the past several weeks. Specifically, I reverted the addition of unsourced material on Eastern Asia and the changes to the introduction that fundamentally alter the scope of the article. I've left in other cited material added by Reddi as well as the expansion of material on the Middle East and Islamic Empire.
Regarding East Asia, basically, most treatments of the Early Middle Ages do not include discussion of East Asia (except where it relates to Western history). Increasingly, they do include the Middle East and Islamic Empires, but still, the periodization is a Western construct. The article isn't titled "World History 500-1000".
Additionally, as indicated by another user, the change in the scope of the dating of the EMA to the 3rd century is not common. Different historians use different dates, but 5th century dates are far and away the most common. This issue can potentially be brought up in the text, but it doesn't need to be in the intro.
As such I believe that these changes, introduced in dozens of minor edits largely without edit summaries and with no prior discussion, are not a net benefit to the article. I've reverted them pending discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuchullain' Edit in question removed entire section ... --J. D. Redding 20:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the material. Your actions verge on vandalism (removal and change of content in a _deliberate_ attempt to compromise the _integrity_ of Wikipedia.), IMHO.
The 300s is the most inclusive (earliest) date. It was cited
Read up on Asian Middle Ages (ie., "Asia during the Middle Ages").
If you cannot _show_ how this is not a net benefit to the article, I will restore to the more abundant and redundant version.
As a side note, I do think an editor that would do such an edit wouldn't have any historical training. I am not a PhD, but I do have a degree in it. This material should be here. And it's in reference books by scholars! --J. D. Redding 20:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is about the Middle Ages) ... a period of time (Periodization of time.

Other books that can be accessed via google books.

China "Middle Ages"

"early medieval Japan"

Example books ...

medieval Japan, Daily Life in Medieval Times By Barbara Brooks Simons

Medieval Japan: essays in institutional history By John Whitney Hall, Jeffrey P. Mass

The mikado's empire By William Elliot Griffis

The only point that could be made is that the Japanese material is dubious ... but it should be here in the early middle ages; it's the _'classical'_ medieval japan (Imperial). The high middle ages and the Late middle ages cover more of 'Medieval Japan' (Feudal).

--J. D. Redding 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (slightly irratated by this whole thing ... )

(edit conflict)Sorry, the burden of evidence is on you to defend your challenged material. My revert was done in the spirit of BRD, please don't take it personally. Additionally, don't imply that edits are vandalism when they're not, such things don't make for a very collegial editing environment. And I shouldn't have to tell you that appeals to authority don't count a whit here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructively, Britannica defines the "Middle Ages" specifically as a period of European history.[1][2] On High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages, I see that you're the one who added the East Asia material, again without any discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I did because that is where the material belongs. (facepalm).

PLEASE answer ... have you even tried to look at any of the links I provided in this discussion to external books? --J. D. Redding 22:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., Encyclopædia Britannica has errors)

(edit conflict)

The burden of evidence for the material has been shown. Read "appeals to authority" is the reliable sources ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources again.

You removed material with a reliable source that directly supports it (eg., the 300s thing)

You _did not_ challenge anything. You just deleted it. I asked you to {{cite}} the particular points. ... such actions do not fit a collegial editing environment. (... the WP:BURDEN even states "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." =-| ...) [you only remove unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article _if_ it might damage the reputation of _living people_]

And vandalism has occurred IF it fits the description. (Do note, I am not calling you a vandal ... ) ... as I believe that good-faith is involved here to some extent, I stated that it _verges on_ ...

Also, ... maybe you should also read Try to fix problems (which includes 'requesting a citation by adding the {{cn}} tag'!)

--J. D. Redding 22:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some definitions:

Britannica: "Middle Ages: the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in the 5th century AD to the period of the Renaissance"

Merriam-Webster: Middle Ages n pl (1616) : the period of European history from about a.d. 500 to about 1500

Columbia Encyclopedia: Middle Ages, period in Western European history that followed the disintegration of the West Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th cent. and lasted into the 15th cent., i.e., into the period of the Renaissance.

More important than the formal definitions is the practical one: If you look at a book with a title that refers to "Middle Ages", "Medieval history" or "Early Middle Ages", but is not qualified geographically, what area does it cover? The Middle Ages (2001) by Morris Bishop has seven mentions of China, but only in the context of Marco Polo and such other interactions with Europe. Japan is mentioned only once. If book-length treatments barely mention these areas, you can't justify having entire sections on them in an article-length treatment. Kauffner (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the page before the removal ... the length of the sections fits books that can be accessed via google books. (specific book-length treatments cover this topic ... see China "Middle Ages" and "early medieval Japan") ...

And, is wikipedia suppose to ignore {{globalize}}? --J. D. Redding 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the few sources you did add, Cantor's The Civalization of the Middle Ages, does not have sections for East Asia. China is mentioned on a total of 4 pages, exclusively in ways that refer back to the West.[3] I also seriously doubt the scope of your "globalization" here. Why add Japan and China, but not Australia, Oceanea, and the Americas? Again, this isn't titled "World History 500-1000".--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reddi, don't you have some topic where you can contribute usefully? Because you are certainly unable to in articles about history. This has gone on for years. I do not feel editors are compelled to be held up with "contributions" of the kind of "And, is wikipedia suppose to ignore {{globalize}}". People have been more than patient, but at some point we will all need to face the fact that you simply do not have the first idea about the topics you insist on editing. Do we need an article or section on medieval Asia? Perhaps, but one thing is certain, Reddi isn't the person we have been waiting for to write it. Do we need an article on "early medieval Asia"? No. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I just noted Reddi has also butchered the entire, long-standing, well-developed Middle Ages article. I simply don't have the patience for this kind of prancing around these days. Reddi, you like timelines, yes? Then go and edit "timeline" articles instead of creating havoc in articles that have been written by grown-up editors who knew their stuff. Nobody will give you grief if you just insert your "Far Eastern timeline" of the Middle Ages in Timeline of the Middle Ages. Also note the huge gap in Timeline of Japanese history (no entries between 794 and 1560). You can work on that and everyone will win. You won't get frustrated by being reverted, and everyone else will be saved from exasperation. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So, destroy the information. This is incredibly screwed up. After your personal comments (direct and indirect) about me, you can go screw yourself. --J. D. Redding 13:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (ps., if the articles were written by editors who knew their stuff then the articles would not be in such a poor conditions)

Thanks dab. I support reverting Reddi's similar changes to the other medieval articles as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

well, discuss the edits not the editors, I suppose. If someone's edits are crap, they will need to put up with being told that they are crap. I am not sure about niceties like "go screw yourself", I think these have a tendency on falling back on those throwing them around. But of course Reddi is going to be frustrated over being reverted. But, for the love of god, what is it going to take? It has literally been years, and this user keeps butchering history articles with what appears to be complete innocence, and complete imperviousness to advice or criticism. It has become very clear, over numerous years, that Reddi isn't going to be capable of doing anything useful on Wikipedia, while being very capable of annoying people and creating janitorial work. If other people want to babysit him, have fun, but any time you want to submit a community ban proposal for this guy, just let me know where to sign. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's removal of this material. While there are various possible definitions of the term "Early Middle Ages" as regards both time and place, what our article covers should reflect what has been determined by consensus, and preferably reflect the most common definition in the largest number of good RSs. The old (pre-Reddi) version I believe did both, and his version neither. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • frankly, I have stopped even giving Reddi's contributions any close consideration. This character has been busy with his childish interpretation of {{globalize}} for years. He is like king Midas, except that every article he touches turns into crap. Good editors like Cuchullain or Johnbod, or any editor with some basic grasp of historiography and encyclopedic writing, could indeed improve the "Middle Ages" or "Early Modern period" articles by adding WP:DUE consideration of these terms outside the European sphere. There are a number of possible ways to approach this, but all of them would require that you understand the issues involved. Cuchullain after all these years still has the kindness to give pointers to Reddi on how he could make intelligent use of his own sources ("China is mentioned on a total of 4 pages, exclusively in ways that refer back to the West"). This is the kind, WP:BITE way to treat bad editors, of course. But while I always take care to take this approach with new editors who clearly edit in good faith but with blatant lack of expertise, I do believe that Wikipedians are not required to put up with long-term editors who simply Refuse To Get It. Reddi has for years made painfully clear that he does not get it, or want to get it, and keeps insisting that shouting "globalize" is all he needs to do to bulldoze a perfectly good article with his random worldwide timelines. I have nothing against timelines. Let him create timelines to his heart's content. But please not on pages that were edited by grown-up editors who actually knew about the complexities of the topic under discussion. Let him compile his "early medieval" timelines on pages that are actually intended as timelines, such as 7th_century#Events. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've missed all this. I wish Reddi would avoid all history articles, he doesn't improve them. He messed up Roman roads for instance - to quote what I say on the talk page there, " Far too much reliance on an 1890 dictionary (cited 50 times) a Cyclopedia of American Horticulture dating 1900, etc - about references dating no later than 1902, about 8 modern ones". Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd support an RfCU by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was more than a little surprised to learn that these changes were made by someone who had been editing Wikipedia for eight years. I was even more surprised by that fact after seeing the way he's comported himself on the talk pages. I too would support an RfCU.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup link on front page

I've rearranged the photos on the page, and I think the removal of the cleanup logo can be taken off. The only one that is troubling are the photos of Charlemagne. I was to remove one of the two photos, but I think the page looks better now. I apologize in advance if I made any mistakes. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Freeman

Citation 30 quotes the publicist blurb on the back of Freeman's book. This is sloppy. A direct quote from within the text is more appropriate. I don't know Freeman's book well-enough to do this. Perhaps someone here does. The claim itself is rather contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcungur (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Late antiquity

This article does not seem to address in the lead or elsewhere the idea of Late antiquity which that article says lasts until the 8th C according to some scholars? Philafrenzy (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The start of that article was misleading, which I've just edited. Perhaps Brown's rather minority view is still not the thing to start the article with. Nobody thinks Sutton Hoo (620s) is "Late Antique", nor even Italy in the 8th century. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Alaric I-Sack of Rome

The text states that: "In 410, the Visigoths led by Alaric I captured the city of Rome and for three days there were fire and slaughter as bodies filled the streets, palaces were stripped of their valuables, and those thought to have hidden wealth were interrogated and tortured." What is the source of this claim?

The actual Wiki-page of the Sack of Rome in 410 states (among other things) Sack_of_Rome_(410): "The sack was nonetheless, by the standards of the age, restrained."

The actual Wiki-page of Alaric I states Alaric I: "Although the Visigoths plundered Rome, they treated its inhabitants humanely and burned only a few buildings."

This seems to be conflicting information. E.vogel (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Norsemen

In Bósa saga ok Herrauðs is to read:

• Herraud's best friend was Bósi, the younger son of a former viking named Thvari or Bryn-Thvari by Brynhild, a former shieldmaiden and a daughter of King Agnar of Nóatún.
• Bósi was a rough boy who was eventually outlawed for maiming some other folk in a ball-game. Herraud, discontented, gained permission from his father, over Sjód's objections, be allowed to set off on a Viking expedition with five ships

There is, however, no such thing as a former Norseman, mentioned in the sources. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Egil Skallagrimsson saga: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.

So, a Norseman could be a viking for some time, and he could be a tradesman (or a baker, or a shepherd) for some time. But not all tradesmen, bakers, shepherds and vikings were Norseman.

Norseman spoke norse, but norse vikings did not speak vikingish, and norse shepherds did not speak shepherdish or bakerish.

Norsemen had norse culture, but there was no norse viking, baker or shepherd culture.

I think its important to remind people today about the term Norsemen, an accepted term by historians and archelogists, referring to people from the north, present Scandinavia. This term does not have any certain time limit, the Norsemen were norse in years, 400, 500, 657, 749, 803, 950, 1066 and 1100. Norsemen is a true ethnical group, for some reason neglected on Wikipedia. Whenever the word viking is mentioned, it can correctly be replaced by the term Norsemen in 95% of the cases. Norsemen are described in other Wikipedia languages, and since the english Wikipedia should be written from a global point of view, the term Norse and Norsemen should not be treated different.

The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus.

Interestingly enough, theres stories in the sagas, describing arabic piates, and they were in the sagas referred to, as vikings. = Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful norse farmers, and their wifes, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900.

For over 1 000 years, viking was nothing else than an old-english translation of the latin word pirate.

A macedonian king will never, ever, become scandinavian. An arabic pirat will never become scandinavian.

But a norseman was scandinavian, and the present scandinavians are descendants of Norsemen, according to historians and archelogists.

The sentence The linguistic contact of the Viking settlers of the Danelaw with the Anglo-Saxons left traces in the English language reflects a very poor knowledge in what viking actually means. As well as poor knowledge in the term Norsemen.

'Viking is a controversial term, Norsemen is not. For some reason, some people absolutely wants to call my ancestors vikings, which is historically incorrect and besides, unpolite. The Scandinavians as a an ethnic group, is more or less the same as Norsemen, Theres no problem whatsoever to use the correct term.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211233018/http://www.etext.org/Politics/World.Systems/datasets/citypop/civilizations/citypops_2000BC-1988AD to http://www.etext.org/Politics/World.Systems/datasets/citypop/civilizations/citypops_2000BC-1988AD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Early Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007012619/http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/1996/plague.htm to http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/1996/plague.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415231721/http://dpalm.med.uth.tmc.edu/courses/BT2003/BTstudents2003_files%5CPlague2003.htm to http://dpalm.med.uth.tmc.edu/courses/BT2003/BTstudents2003_files%5CPlague2003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Dark Ages

The Dark Ages is a term still used today and it's not obsolete, it just has to be used in the proper context. Such as Britain in the 5th and early 6th centuries, the state of the Eastern Roman Empire in the 7th century, the Slavic invasion/migration into the Roman Balkans and the Muslim Invasion of the Levant. For the native inhabitants, it was a dark age with the collapse of Roman Authority in the Western Provinces, Africa and the Levant. User:Slapnut1207 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Sometimes" referred to as the Dark Ages

What does that mean exactly? Why are we being so vague about this? It's as if we disapprove of it. Our job is to put it straight and to be factual, not imprecise. WP:WTA frowns upon such language, and so I changed it to "also referred to as..." (which is unambiguous), but was quickly reverted by Johnbod. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

More precise links please. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: see section Unspecified places or events. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To me, the description at WP:WTA does not apply to this situation, since the specific instances under which one might refer to them as the "Dark Ages" are not necessary here, and would likely be removed as being too detailed for the lede sentence. To my "ear", distinguishing "Dark Ages" from the other two means that it is less common; using "also" implies that "Dark Ages" is still fairly common, while "sometimes" implies that it is less often used. nGrams, however, says that "Dark Ages" is more common than the other two. How about "The Early Middle Ages, Early Medieval Period, or Dark Ages, are typically regarded..."? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is, if you look at Dark Ages (historiography), is that is a highly controversial term, strongly disliked by most historians, and the wording should reflect this, even by a hint. It is indeed "as if we disapprove of it" - we do, reflecting the best RS, and I'm glad the phrasing succeeded in conveying this. Just linking it with the others is not acceptable, but it probably needs to be included. Your ngram shows it has been in sharp decline since the 1840s - but is considerably complicated by there being other completely different "Dark Ages" (see Dark Ages (historiography) and Dark Ages), and older works will often assign a very different period to the medieval one. In 1840 many or most writers would still have meant a period up to at least 1400, centuries after the modern idea of the "Early Middle Ages". Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: so we need to be explicit about that in the article, rather than vague and non-committal. The fact is that the, now disfavoured term, is also used, and we can discuss its demise in the prose and qualify it with something like "which has been controversial and fallen out of favour since the 19th-century", or whatever. And, of course, we need reliable sources (not just our own interpretation of some usage stats) which present that argument. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Janet Nelson's article "The Dark Ages" in History Workshop Journal, no. 63, Spring 2007, could be cited for a critique objecting to use of the term, but it is still used. E. g. Ann Williams et al eds, A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Arge Britain, 1991, Barbara Crawford ed, Scotland in Dark Age Europe, 1994, Michael Wood, In Search of the Dark Ages, 2005, Peter Wells, Barbarians to Angels: The Dark Ages Reconsidered, 2009, Guy Halsall, Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages, 2013. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, though Michael Wood of tv fame is very much a popularizer (the book just rehashes his 1979 In Search of the Dark Ages tv series), and Wells and Halsall both seem to be using the term in inverted commas, as it were. No one today is going to use the term in the title of a straight textbook account for students, or a serious journal title. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wood abandoned his PhD on Anglo-Saxon history to pursue a broadcasting career, but he is respected by Anglo-Saxons specialists. I have not read Wells. Halsall does refer to the "so-called Dark Ages", but his book is partly a defence of the idea that the fifth and sixth centuries were a dark age in reply to writers (mainly popular but including John Morris) who claim to be able to write a reliable history of the period. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on the titles, a number of these publications cover Sub-Roman Britain and the Anglo-Saxons. Peter Wells is even making a reference to the Angles, and their supposed characterization as "angels" by Pope Gregory I. But this article is not limited to Great Britain or the British Isles. Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of refs as to the dislike, and the shifting period the term covers, at Dark Ages (historiography), and indeed at Middle Ages. This is the first sentence of the article, and there should certainly not be anything in the text. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, "formerly referred to as the Dark Ages" - Epinoia (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As Dudley Miles's examples above show, that won't quite do. Oddly enough, the old phrasing is there for a reason, & I'm not hearing any good reason to change it. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: - it may continue in popular usage, but I don't believe any academic today would use Dark Ages - it's like the term "primitive society", people still use it, but no anthropologist would say primitive society or primitive culture - it's an outdated, and pejorative, value judgment, so "formerly referred to as the Dark Ages" seems appropriate - Epinoia (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

again, see Dudley Miles's very recent examples. There are more in the refs at Dark Ages (historiography). Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason it needs changing is that "sometimes" is too subjective and vague, so needs to be replaced. Or else we need to qualify it as to exactly when, and why it is only "sometimes" used. If it's usage is problematic or controversial, then we need a short paragraph describing that and its use in the lead suitably qualified. As it stands, it is not at all encyclopaedic. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We have an entire article on that. There have been discussions in the recent past as to whether "Dark Ages" should redirect here; it goes to the disam instead. None of us have spotted that it should therefore not be bolded and unlinked, which I have now changed. I hope this solves the problem. It does still need to be mentioned, but distinguished from other redirecting terms. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: if we continue to use "sometimes referred to as" here, we clearly need to define when, and when not, here too. Interestingly, the Dark Ages disambiguation page contradicts this page in its link to it - it says "European Early Middle Ages, often referred to as the Dark Ages,..." (my emphasis). So we still haven't got a satisfactory solution here. My preference is to say "also referred to as", and then insert a short section summarising the terminology and etymology. We owe it to our readers to be open and honest here, especially when Oxford Dictionaries defines "Dark Ages" unambiguously as "The period in western Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the high Middle Ages,..." it without any dissaproval. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear to me, as I hope I've shown above. So you want to insert into the first sentence of a prominent article a disquistion on something that has its own article, where the matter is dealt with? Dictionaries are not high-quality sources on this sort of thing, especially when usage has been shifting and the definition has probably not been looked at for many decades. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't much like the changes Dudley Miles has now made. In particular, restricting the usage of the term to "Britain" is just wrong. It is discussed as a Western European phenomenon, and in fact the "darkness" is more severe elsewhere - the lack of evidence for German history at the time is such that the fringe/downright nuts German Phantom time hypothesis proposes that the whole period AD 614–911 never happened - not suprisingly this has never had much appeal in Britain. Most countries don't have an Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, nor as many surviving documents from the period. The term was not invented with Britain in mind at all, and has equivalents in the other European languages. It may be true that it has lasted longer in English language usage than elsewhere, which the French seem to think, but that's a different thing. We also spend too much time in the lead discussing something else. No doubt DeFacto will demand sourcing for some points, which are indeed questionable. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• My edit is based on Nelson's discussion. She says "Of all the European languages, only English had and has the expression 'the Dark Ages' distinct from 'the Middle Ages'. And in UK English, 'the Dark Ages' survived in historians' discourse through the Second World War and beyond, into the twenty-first century, alive if not exactly well." I did not get the impression for Costambeys et al The Carolingian World that the period lacks sources and I do not see that a fringe theory rejected by mainstream historians is relevant, but I am of course happy for other editors to amend my edit. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"I did not get the impression for Costambeys et al The Carolingian World that the period lacks sources"

Because it does not. See: Category:5th-century history books, Category:6th-century history books, Category:7th-century history books, Category:8th-century history books, Category:9th-century history books, Category:10th-century history books, and Category:11th-century history books. Numerous contemporary annals, a few attempts at national histories, and biographies of prominent figures. This is a literate period with a large number of active writers. Unfortunately the categories are lacking several books mentioned in our articles, which still lack their own individual entries in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever! The changes made by Dudley Miles say that the term refers specifically to Britain in the EMA. I don't believe this is true at all (if it was we could probably drop it from the lead entirely). Dimadick, did you actually look at these book categories? Mostly they contain Chinese histories, & I can't see anything very relevant to Germany before the Royal Frankish Annals. I note that the Nelson article actually begins: "In her University of Vienna doctoral thesis, ‘Das Schlagwort vom “finsteren Mittelalter” ’ (‘The term “the Dark Middle Ages” ’), in 1931, Lucie Varga ....", and another title you refer to is "Barbara Crawford ed, Scotland in Dark Age Europe". The talk archives of the DA page are full of lengthy discussions, not much of it about AS England. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it is you who did not read them.:

• • The Getica is a history of the Goths.
  • The Chronicle of Fredegar covers the history of Francia and the Merovingian dynasty.
  • Historia de regibus Gothorum, Vandalorum et Suevorum covers the history of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Suevi.
  • History of the Lombards covers the history of the Lombards, and their interactions with the Byzantine Empire and Francia.
  • Liber Historiae Francorum covers the history and origins of the Franks.
  • Annales Bertiniani covers the raids of the Vikings.
  • Chronicon Gothanum is another history of the Lombards.
  • Annales iuvavenses is primarily a history of Bavaria, but covers surrounding areas in Germany and Austria.
  • Annales Vedastini is a history of Lotharingia.
  • The Deeds of the Saxons is a history of the Saxons, and covers much of Germany.
  • The Annals of Quedlinburg cover the early history of the Holy Roman Empire.
  • Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum is a history of the Archbishopric of Bremen, but covers much of the history of Northern Europe, Scandinavia, and briefly mentions the colonization efforts in North America.
    • Where are all the "Chinese" histories that you are talking about? Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In those categories you suggested I look at, which I did. Especially the early ones. But all this is way off topic. I'm not going to list them, nor go through the one you list, pointing out how many of them do not cover the chronological or geographic limits in my assertion, eg the Getica. I'm certainly not advocating the Phantom time hypothesis, as I made clear. Perhaps you could give us your views on the matter at hand: whether usage of the DA is restricted, by those who use it, to Britain? Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Varga thesis is about use of the term in Germany up to the eighteenth century and I did not think that was relevant. We would need sources to say it is used by modern German historians. I refer to Britain in my edits (not England) as the term is also used of Scotland and Wales. I have cut down the comments about the Dark Ages in the lead (it was previously in two paragraphs) but I think it is worth keeping one sentence for readers who have come across the term in popular histories. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We certainly don't need such sources here - we shouldn't get into the matter at all. You are somewhat dodging my point that the term is used, by those who use it, of the whole of Western Europe (or the post-Barbarian) parts of it, not just Britain. For example, this review of Sir Charles Oman's forthrightly-titled The Dark Ages 476-918 (1908) makes it clear he is covering all "the various regions, limited to Western Europe (minus the British Isles) and the Balkans and Asia Minor". So everything except Britain! From Michael White (author)'s 1997 biography of Isaac Newton "this plunged most of civilisation into what has become known as the Dark Ages....". Or "The fall of the Roman Empire (or its 'transformation', in the jargon of some modern scholars) shattered much of the knowledge gained over thousands of years by Romans and Greeks and plunged the world into the Dark Ages". And so on. This Europe-wide loss of classical learning is in fact the normal context in which writers still use the term - going back to Petrarch's original concept. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The works you cite are not up to date specialist sources. I assumed when I started working on the edit that the usage is European, but that is not what the source I found says and I have to go by that. If anyone revises further based on an RS covering mainland Europe that is of course fine with me. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The whole issue here is how we handle usage by sources that are "not up to date specialist sources"! The term is far more common in the English language, and apparently long has been, but in English it has never been at all restricted to Britain, as your edits suggested. What source actually said otherwise? Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is that the lead should be a summary of the main text, and you have restored statements which are not mentioned, let alone cited below. You have restored: "The Early Middle Ages was labelled the "Dark Ages" in the 19th century, a characterization based on the relative scarcity of literary and cultural output from this time." This is contradicted by Janet Nelson in the article I cited and she is a leading historian of early medieval Europe and author of a life of Charles the Bald. She quotes Varga as saying that the usage ended in the late eighteenth century. Nelson asks why the expression Dark Ages has survived in UK historians' usage into the twenty-first century and answers "I think that one answwer is that the English have needed a distinct term to particularize the Anglo-Saxon period, denoting its difference from the 'medieval' period after the Norman Conquest of 1066." As I said my edit followed the source and it is obviously right to change it if you can cite a different source, but not to revert it because in your personal opinion it is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see this article, but it clearly doesn't allow for the uses I quoted above. Whatever Varga (whoever he is) says does not explain Sir Charles Oman, a leading medievalist of a century ago, not the 18th century. A google search also disproves Varga's apparent assertion - possibly it works in Spanish. I think you are over-reliant on the one source you found, which contradicts various others used at Dark Ages (historiography). One would think that "the Anglo-Saxon period" worked perfectly well as a distinguishing term for the Anglo-Saxon period! Or "Early medieval". Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You quoted the Nelson article and Lucie Varga above. Are you not able to see the whole article? I agree that I am over-reliant on one source - although a first-rate one - which is why I have suggested others could revise if they find other sources. I do not see anything to contradict Nelson in the Dark Ages article, apart from a quote from Jacob Burckhardt, who was a Renaissance specialist. Oman was a military historian and a professor of modern history who also wrote about medieval history among many other subjects, but he could be cited if somone has access to his dark age book. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's all online - but why would anyone want to cite it? The point is the title and the scope of the subject matter. To be clear, you are saying that Nelson asserts that DA is only used for Britain by recent historians. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes and I am happy to email you the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Got the article now, many thanks! I can't actually see it supports the "Britain-only" assertion - there is nothing saying it is not used for the continent. The point she does make, that it is sometimes used as convenient shorthand for AS England + assorted Celtic fringes might well be added to Dark Ages (historiography). She clearly doesn't agree with Varga's 'allegation'. She touches on, but does not develop, what I think is a major element in continued usage (as in the examples I quoted above), which is anti-medievalism, especially with an anti-clerical or anti-religious slant. It is still used in this context by historians who are specialists in something other than the EMA, never mind journalists (Google search on "Guardian "Dark Ages""). That search throws up a very interesting, up to date, and extended analysis of the use of "medieval" and "Dark Ages" by politicians, media etc., taking in Jeremy Clarkson, Gary Lineker, and squads of Guardian colomnists. He traces a sharp rise since 2001 in usage relating to Islam. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• She does not specifically say that it is Britain only but she implies it saying for example "Modern French has no equivalent to 'the Dark Ages', however, and nor to my knowledge do other vernaculars." Also: "And in UK English, the 'Dark Ages' survived in historians' discourse through the Second World War and beyond." My basic point remains. I edited and cited on British usage. I did not cover Continental usage as I did not find a source for this. You have deleted my sourced edits in the main text, which now has no discussion of the subject. You have also replaced my summary in the lead with your own view. This is against Wikipedia rules, as the lead should be a summary of the referenced content of the main text, not one editor's unreferenced view. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That it is mostly used by English-language historians is one thing; what they use it for is another. Your idea of "British usage" as restricted to the history of the British Isles is not supported by the article, flies in the face of other evidence above, & as far as I am concerned is your own OR, and wrong. Please remember that "[your] my own view" consists of the word "sometimes"; you are the one who has added flourishes. I have referenced the other sentence to a yet more distinguished historian than Nelson. Given all the above, you can hardly claim that "sometimes" is "one editor's unreferenced view". There is indeed "no discussion of the subject" in the main text, because it has its own article, and is a diversion here. Add a reference to the article if you like - that supports "sometimes" much better than it supports your text. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"an anti-clerical or anti-religious slant" I don't really see why. Late antiquity is characterised by Christianity becoming the State church of the Roman Empire, Christian monasticism rising, and (towards the end of the period) the Early Muslim conquests. The early modern period is largely defined as the period of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the European wars of religion, and (famously) the witch trials in the early modern period. Anti-religious people have plenty to dislike in Late antiquity, and even more in the brutal and intolerant early modern period. Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Middle Ages are seen, not wholly unreasonably, as the period when the church dominated and largely controlled intellectual life, especially in the EMA. Did you read the chapter? Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)