Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 8 December 2008

Madness

Articles

I agree Peter - but the situation is very woolly at the moment and will clearly take a few days (ever the optomist) to sort out. Until then, may I make a suggestion? If you want me to clerk for your mainspace activities for a while, I'm happy to do it. I've copied Dark ages to User:Peter Damian/Dark Ages and am happy to post any edits you want to make back to the mainspace article for you - or any other article for that matter. I'll be offline in about an hour for the rest of the evening and then probably back on sometime tomorrow afternoon. Failing that, other's may be available through email. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine that's very kind but usually I try to obtain consensus beforehand on an article talk page before I make changes. In any case the thing has become so utterly ridiculous I can't be bothered. Thanks again for your kind help and patience. This really is too ridiculous. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the offer's there if you change your mind. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's crazy. -- Thekohser XIV (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dark ages talk

Doric Loon is right about the authority of the OED and of the correctness of its definition. Clearly the the original conception of the "Dark Age" included more than just the Early Middle Ages, as it was coined by Petrarch for the period immediately preceding him (as is established in the article.) Even in more modern use, the definition is inconsistent (as is the definition of Early Middle Ages); sometimes it is said to end in 800, other times 1000. The fluidity needs to be made clear from the get go.--Cúchullain /c 17:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well first I am not sure about that version of the OED. The versions I checked in the library all agree that 'Dark Ages' now means the period 500-1000. All other dictionaries checked so far agree. Some writers (such as Peter King in the citation I gave earlier) restrict it so as to exclude the Carolingian renaissance. Note I am not disputing that it once meant the whole of the Middle Ages. Just that its modern meaning is the period up to the 12th century renaissance. I am a medieval scholar and I know of no other scholars who would use the term in its old pre-19C sense. For some citations see here. Peter Damian (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The citations include Peter King, who is a distinguished medieval scholar, Terence Parsons and of course Russell. In summary, no dictionary I can find, including OED, agrees with the primary meaning of the term as you give it in the article. The idea that any modern scholar would use it that way is preposterous. Peter Damian (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page after posting your comments there so everyone can see them. I will continue to do this, but God I hope this gets sorted out soon.--Cúchullain /c 20:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler's comment

Hans Adler (talk:Dark ages) is absolutely right. Nothing to add. Note however that later editions of OED appear to have the standard meaning anyway (the one referred to here is 1971). Best Peter Damian (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Peter - pleased to see you back and looking forward to your direct editing in the main space. Your abrupt departure and its nature raised serious governance issues in respect of the WIkipedia, something that I and others raised in other forums. Its good to see persistence by of group of admins may have resulted in a reassertion of common sense. --Snowded TALK 08:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dave, much appreciated. However I am only allowed to edit this talk page, which is a fat lot of use. Where you may be able to help is by posting you thoughts here - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_user:Peter_Damian_II. Peter Damian (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done - I blogged it at the time and more recently by the way; your case is an exemplar of how things can go wrong in what is an otherwise worthy endeavour. --Snowded TALK 09:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dark ages latest

I have checked in the Oxford Dictionary of English which is not the same as the Oxford English Dictionary. This does not even mention the old-fashioned use (referring to the whole of the middle ages). Also in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which is the same, although this is based on the ODE, and supersedes earlier versions. So we are now in a dilemma. All dictionary sources apart from the OED give the modern meaning as the primary one. Even the OED itself says that the term is 'often' restricted to the modern use. WP:WEIGHT allows us to weight these sources, in which case I suggest the article begin with the modern usage, while mentioning the older one.

Hans says "Perhaps in this case the lede is correct for an article in a general encyclopedia, and incorrect for an article in an encyclopedia of history. " Actually I don't agree with this because most encyclopedias and dictionaries (including Britannica, in the reference that Connolley recently reverted) give the meaning I am used to. Also I am not familiar with any 'popular' sense of the term. The completely uneducated will not know that there was any history before computers and television. Those with a minimum of education will have got that education from somewhere. And most reference works I am familiar with give the dates of the Dark Ages as 500-1100. Perhaps if I check in my son's history of the Middle Ages book, would that settle the question? Peter Damian (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See User:Peter_Damian/Dark_Ages for a list of references I located today. Peter Damian (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

in my opinion, the ODE is a college level dictionary. It does not generally mention non-current uses at all--as the Misplaced Pages article says. "It is a completely new dictionary which strives to represent as faithfully as possible the current usage of English words." (transcribed I think from the publisher's description). It is therefore unauthoritative about the history and the use of a word. The OED makes a point of indicating the periods in which a word was used in its different meanings, and is authoritative as a tertiary source, though any individual example there can be disputed by finding uses at different times--a popular academic sport. This is a general encyclopedia, not a learner's encyclopedia, and presents things in historical perspective. DGG (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm about

For an hour or so if you need anything doing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm thanks for the offer. What I normally do in these cases is assemble a set of citations as I have done hereUser:Peter_Damian/Dark_Ages. I then distill a suitable introduction, post it on the talk page of the article in question, and come to an agreement. If you have any thoughts about what an introduction to Dark ages would look like, based on those citations, let me have your thoughts. Peter Damian (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see they have altered the intro to "Dark Age or Dark Ages is a term in European historiography referring originally to the Middle Ages, or in 20th century usage more specifically to the Early Middle Ages." which has now corrected the error, but is a little clumsy. Could you ask them if they have any objection to my editing it to add some important details, and tidy up the style? When I am unbanned of course, which could be years. Thanks for the kindness, again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps mention to the guy who is struggling for the Latin, that it is Aetas tenebrae - age of darkness Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will do. The dark ages sounds like one of history's greatest mysteries, but is well out of my subject area I'm afraid. I'll have a look at the intro with my layman's eyes if you like. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we be talking about either 'most of western europe' or specifically mentioning the exception of Al-Andalus? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably not include that. Given that the current editors of the article seem to have agreed on a compromise, probably best to leave for a while. The problem was apparently the version of the OED they were using. I will return to the article when the politics is sorted out, if ever. Best Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My view is the lead could do with another sentence explaining the confusion in the term - I've had a humble stab here --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dark Age or Dark Ages is a term in European historiography referring to the Early Middle Ages. Historians have redefined the periodisation over time but current convention date the period as beginning with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire at c.500AD and ending either at 1000AD with X or less frequently c.750AD with the Carolingian renaissance." I prefer not to use words like the ones in italics, but that is a personal preference I suppose. The introduction should be accessible (in my view) to readers of any background or age. The difficult parts can come later.

"Dark Age or Dark Ages are pejorative terms originating in the 17th and 18th centuries to signify the 'darkness' of understanding which supposedly fell upon Europe after the end of the Roman empire until new 'light' arrived in the Renaissance. Following work by medieval scholars from the nineteenth century onwards, recognising the brilliance of achievements in the later Middle Ages, the term is less frequently used, although it is still used by some historians to refer to the period of the Early Middle Ages (c.400-800), or sometimes just to the 5th and 6th centuries." - but still needs further work. Hard to do this in a 'channeling' environment. I'm going offline now. All the best Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to the talk page for discussion. Mercifully there's some movement at RFAR too....... --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's various developments at talk:Dark Ages if you'd like to comment.--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion

I have offered a motion on WP:RfAr to address your situation. If you have any comments on the motion, I would welcome them here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks Brad. I Pm'd you, and I think the motion is a good one. I hope it is accepted. Peter Damian (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hello again. In the light of recent motions on RFAr (this version will do), I believe that the situation has changed. Formally speaking the restrictions remain in force; informally, they are now too strict, and I won't be enforcing them (but of course I can't speak for other admins, so you are to some extent still in the Castle).

What exactly you can edit is now a bit murky. To avoid pain, I'd advise you to stick to the talk pages and non-controversial mainspace edits, to avoid psychology (including fringe psychology), pseudoscience, and sexuality all broadly defined when in any doubt, and to avoid any interaction with FT2.

best wishes, William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)