Talk:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Don't try to make Gibbon out to be better than he is

Don't try to make Gibbon out to be better than he is - if he didn't write like an angel, he would not have been read even in the 19th century, let alone the 20th. Not much wrong with his work? YIKES! Gibbon is really quite good with literary sources, which is all anyone much worked with before 1880. Since then, however, archaeology alone has radically altered our view of the past. --MichaelTinkler, 11:20, December 22, 2001

Alright, first point. A literary source from the past is not a primary source - it is a contemporary or semi-contemporary secondary source. For instance, Wikipedia's September 11th coverage, interesting though it is, is NOT a primary source. Ammianus Marcellinus, Gibbon's favorite late antique historian, is a mixed source. He is a primary source for certain campaigns in which he participated as an officer. However, he often wrote based on public knowledge and hearsay. To say that Ammianus on the Mesopotamian frontier wars is a 'primary source' and that Gibbon's reliance on him is better than, say, reading excavation reports from Dura Europos is an example of why 18th and 19th century history, for all its strengths, is not as useful as late 20th century history. --MichaelTinkler, 11:25, December 22, 2001

Thanks. This article came from an introduction in my edition, by Hugh Trevor-Roper. I never claimed to be a historian. :-) I added a bit about its use today primarily as literature. --Dmerrill 08:51, February 25, 2002

Correct title?

My copy of this book is called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire -- without the words "The history of". That's what it says on the frontspiece. Did the name of this book change since Gibbon first published it? -- llywrch 20:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My edition, Henry Frowde, World Classics, 1903, uses both titles on adjacent pages. ping 08:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a copy of vol. 1 of the first edition on my desk at this moment. The title is "The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire". -- Wilus 06:55, October 21, 2004

I have three copies of this work and none of them are entitled "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." The all omit "The History of..." This clearly needs to be changed since its indisputably an error. PainMan 11:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there have been lots of editions made since the first edition, which was called "The History of.." - it's not uncommon for later publishers to change titles (among other things). -- Stbalbach 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A debateable point

regarding this paragraph:

The work is considered the first "Modern" history because it seeks explanations for historical events in terms of society, culture, and government rather than a Divine plan. Previous Christian authors almost always explained events in religious terms, and did not seek "worldly" explanations. Gibbon, however, approached his work from a point of skepticism, and wrote a very different kind of history.

This seems strange. Humanists like Petrarch in the 14th Century rejected history on religious terms and returned to the classics of Rome. It was, by definition, the Renaissance. Gibbon was part of the Enlightenment which also rejected history on religious terms. So to call it the "first" history to see things along social advancement.. it's a debateable point. But I don't have an earlier work to point to as example so will leave it for now. Stbalbach 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Libronix

This work is now on prepublication for use with Libronix Digital Library System: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon)] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.220.125 (talk • contribs) 05:00, November 3, 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss excerpts

SOMEONE keeps adding that EXCERPTS back into this page without any discussion. Please discuss first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alisonsage (talk • contribs) 20:08, January 10, 2005 (UTC)

Will someone please cite the wikipedia policy which requires "dicussion" before editing? If that were the case, then nothing would ever get changed, let alone corrected (such as the incorrect title given to the book by this article).

PainMan 11:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Once it is clear there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to discuss the matter on the associated talk page and settle the dispute in the open so that contentious topics don't enter a never-ending edit loop between two people who aren't communicating. john factorial (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Teaching Company

Some of the sentences in the article are taken verbatim from the Teaching Company's lecture on the early Middle Ages. Whoever put them in might want to reword a bit. --Ian 19:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

philosophy in Gibbon

I'm most of the way through the second volume of Gibbon, and I think his work deserves its reputation as a great piece of history. He says in the first volume that history is the sorry account of battles; one at times wonders why there are so many battles, and it is not only the defence of the empire against the Persians, the Scythians, and other plundering forces from outside the empire, but the internal disputes. With the advent of Christianity, warfare between the factions of Christianity seem to multiply leading to, by the time of Justinian, a totalitarian state where the state chose to dictate the views and the thoughts of the population. But the true value of the book is not the somewhat meangless history of who was fighting who, and which emperors got murdered, but the accounts of the systems of thought that existed in the empire. Whether the reign of the Antonines was a golden age or not, one can see the logic of the society of the time; one was free to pursue his own religion, with worship of the Roman Gods being the official religion, but there were also schools of Platonic thought that lasted up to around 300AD, towards the end of the first volume. I didn't find Gibbon in any way cynical about Christianity but objective, and an important thing to note is that the whole history of Christianity took place in the roman empire, from Jesus's birth in the province of Judea, to Christianity becoming the official religion under Constantine, through the various councils in which the doctrines of Christianity were set out. Gibbon delineates the various sects of Christianity and their beliefs, and it is notable that as soon as differences of opinion come into being on the subject, with the homoousian and the homoiousian initially, bloodshed follows. Justinian, I think, is the first emperor who attempts to enforce the official state religion and to ban all other sects of Christianity. What was his reign really like? It sounds like the third Reich; groups in the empire that had their own views on Christ were massacred in order to promote a uniform religion in which no man was free to think for himself. The conflicts between Arianism and Catholicism are well documented by Gibbon, as are the other sects of Christianity and their rise and fall. Gibbon shows that the doctrines of the incarnation, the holy trinity and earlier the almost forgotten homoousian were decided upon by church councils for political reasons and did not derive from Jesus at all! Surely this is the reason that the Church disliked the book; one cannot read about the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon in Gibbon without thinking that the Catholic Church is a political arm of an obsolete empire. Even the dress of the archbishops and priests is likely to come from that of the pagan priests who sacrificed to the gods in the temples. I have not yet reached Gibbons conclusions on why the empire fell; from my reading it lost its way when the emperors extended their powers to control over the individual. In the age of the Antonines, the emperor was, as in the latin word Imperator, the military head of the empire, and if they had stayed that way they would have been able to govern, leaving religious matters to the various churches. Instead, towards the end of the Western empire and into the Byzantine period, the machinery of state tried to dictate the the citizens what they had to think and feel, and this increasingly led to wasteful attacks on their own citizens and resources that could have been spent on defence, construction and agriculture being spent on genocide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edlong (talk • contribs) . 15:24, July 17, 2006

Christians executed

This passage is unclear: Gibbon extrapolated that the number of Christians executed by other Christian factions far exceeded all the Christian martyrs who died during the three centuries of Christianity under Roman rule. Does it mean that it is comparing the [Christians killed by Christians to the Christians killed by Romans] during the three centuries of Roman rule? Or does it mean that it compares Christians killed by Christians from 30 through 1590 CE either to all Christians killed under Roman rule (some Christians were martyred by other Christians), or to just Christians killed by Romans during Roman rule? Please rephrase for precision. --Blainster 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excising some NPOV violations

I propose to do some bold editing of NPOV violations in this article; the most glaring flaw seems to be teleological, the belief that the early twenty-first century’s point of view about an era is neutral, and that earlier views are benighted. If anyone wants to restore some kernels of fact among the opinions, feel free, if you can maintain NPOV.

FlashSheridan 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-excising

User Stbalbach simply reverted many of the above, without detailed justification; some of the reverts are clearly wrong, e.g., "it is as much a historical culture of the eighteenth century as it is of ancient Rome". Some are extremely sloppy word choice, bordering on falsehood, e.g., "unique" [cp. Thucydides], "novelist," and "whimsical." Some are simply excess verbiage, e.g., "Gibbon was not the first to theorise about this," when the following sentence makes this claim redundant. As noted, this article badly needs bold editing: it reads more like a high-school essay with a minimum word count than an encyclopedia entry. Also as noted, there may be some actual facts among the deletions, but they'd need to be rewritten to belong in the Wikipedia, not merely reverted.

FlashSheridan 16:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree they are "excess verbiage" in some cases they add to the flow of the writing and help emphasis the point being made. I found some of your edits to this article to largely kill the life in it turning it into boring prose - most of them I let go but a few I am standing behind. You also deleted a lot of material. As for the section on the dark ages your wording is factually incorrect, please read the dark ages article and that terms proper usage. As for the connection between the 18th century this is well known and standard, all writers of the decline of the roman empire are in some ways writing about their own time, this is known as historiography and discussed in Decline of the Roman Empire. Gibbons work is also known as being a great work of literature. You removed the section that he relied on primary sources, which is accurate. The "some historians disagree see late antiquity" line is poor, this is also handled in the Decline of the Roman Empire article. Your saying if things need to be re-worded you are deleting them from the article even if factually correct, that is not how Wikipedia works nor what "edit boldly" means. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your re-reverts aren't as carelessly edited as the above comments, but they're still mostly incorrect or redundant; see my individual comments to the excisions. I'll accept (in a later check-in) the insertion of "it was believed," in case it's possible for a reader not to read that part as a comment on Gibbon's beliefs; but as noted, the other excess verbiage ranges from superfluous to obviously false, e.g., "viewed in this perspective, it is as much a historical culture of the eighteenth century as it is of ancient Rome." I realize this probably sounds like some defensible theoretical verbiage you've encountered, but it's false as written; and I suspect the point you were trying to make is an opinion, which wouldn't belong in a WIkipedia article even if you sourced it properly.

Your claim, as I made clear above, that "What made Gibbon unique was his use of "primary sources"," is also false; you're making a claim about all previous historians, especially (as I mentioned) Thucydides, and obviously not providing evidence for a claim that's (in not merely my opinion) obviously false.

>I disagree they are "excess verbiage" in some cases they add to the flow of the writing and help emphasis the point being made.

This wouldn't justify the inclusion of falsehoods and redundancies even if it weren't ungrammatical and improperly punctuated.

> You also deleted a lot of material.

As previously noted, twice, there may be some actual facts among the deletions, but they'd need to be rewritten to belong in the Wikipedia, not merely reverted.

>The "some historians disagree see late antiquity" line is poor,

I agree that this, and some of my other revisions, are now stylistically choppy, but at least they no longer violate Wikipedia policy. If somebody with better prose style than mine, and an adequate grasp of Wikipedia requirements, would care to rewrite it, I'd be delighted.

FlashSheridan 16:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

<thread continued to the left>

You never really said what is in violation, or what the violation is. There are ways to deal with violations that don't require out-right deletion, depending on the type of violation. You delete stuff on unclear grounds then say someone else will have to re-write it because you don't have the ability to do it yourself? C'mon - either re-write it or leave it alone, believe me, no one is going to re-write for the purposes of "delighting" you. Wikipedia is a work in progress, it is never done, it is not about to go to print, there is no rush to make it perfect today that you have to delete content on stylistic grounds. If that was the case %50 of Wikipedia would disappear overnight. The thing is, I'm not sure I trust your knowledge on the subject matter of this article. Ideas such as "it is as much a historical culture of the eighteenth century as it is of ancient Rome" are not only well known and valid in historiography, they are valid in Wikipedia under the proper context and with citations - you are wrong that opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia, they are allowed and welcome.

1. Restored "Gibbon was not the first to theorise about this". This needs to be said. Gibbon is often seen as the first commentator on why Rome fell, but he was not, this needs to be clarified with a direct statement. It also leads into the next sentence. This is not a print publication, we don't have a word-count limitation and this sentence is needed.
2. Re-wrote the section about the middle ages to include the important link to Middle Ages in history which you had removed with no explanation. This article is the key link to the idea of the paragraph.
3. Removed "Some modern historians disagree", which you even agreed was weak, but for some reason added it back.
4. The citations section I did not write, so I don't have sources to back up the statements. I hope the author of that section will re-appear in the next couple months or so and restore his material with some citations - or I may restore it with citation tags - I don't see anything that wrong with it other than missing citations. -- Stbalbach 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can live with the two remaining reversions you made. BTW, I agree with your reversion of Qwertyus' insertion, though not necessarily your explanation. "one of the greatest" already was sufficient qualification to avoid occidentocentrism.

FlashSheridan 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Complements/Idea

Thanks for this article. Great job on making it so helpful.

I was thinking, Gibbons Theory should have its own article on wikipedia. The current section on it is good but i think there is much more information on his theory to be added. Thank You! 216.174.135.50 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions of method & historiography

This is, all told, a competent entry, but a couple of remarks bear rethinking. First:

"The book is famous not only because it is extraordinarily well written, but also because Gibbon offers an explanation for why the Roman Empire fell. This is one of the great historical questions, and, because of the lack of written records from the time, one of the most difficult to undertake. "

This could only sound ridiculous to anyone (not least Gibbon himself) who has spent years slogging through the copious written sources available from late antiquity and Byzantium.

Added "relatively". There is a lot about the period we don't know. I mean we have trouble explaining things like why WWI and WWII happened. -- Stbalbach 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Second:

"His facts stand essentially undisputed to this day."

What could this possibly mean? Hardly any professional historian working today would feel comfortable with the idea of "facts" in history, much less look for them in Decline and Fall. Gibbon was a brilliant historian, and an honest one. However, the centuries of research conducted since his time have left hardly any of his work untouched: we have new textual sources, better control of the sources that Gibbon knew, and an immeasurably greater understanding of the visual and material cultures of the eras in question. Better to say that Decline and Fall is a literary monument, and a massive step forward in historical method, but that no one today would treat it as a serious reference. --Javits2000 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, changed per your suggestion. -- Stbalbach 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

> Hardly any professional historian working today would feel comfortable with the idea of "facts" in history, much less look for them in Decline and Fall.

That sort of relativism is decidedly a point of view, and changes made under its influence need to avoid NPOV violations. Stbalbach’s changes so far seem unobjectionable to me, but we do need to avoid excessive relativism.

(BTW, IMO the use of scare quotes around “fact” is ill-advised; surely there are some facts in Gibbon, e.g., the apparent death of the emperor Constantine Palaiologos on the twenty-ninth of May A.D. 1543, in chapter LXVIII.)

FlashSheridan 18:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I am "professionally trained" (BA History 92') and this concurs with the works I've read on the philosophy of history. See the historiography article for some excellent works on this subject. -- Stbalbach 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The sort of crude relativism quoted above isn't a question of historiography, it's a decidedly non-neutral POV in epistemology. Not that I'm claiming that the state of epistemology is at all satisfactory: Crude relativism, like most skeptical arguments, isn't clearly refutable; but it would make a worthwhile encyclopedia impossible, and is incompatible with Wikipedia official policy: Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.

FlashSheridan 17:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It was just someones comment on a talk page, I'm not sure why your quoting "official wikipedia policy", there is no dispute over article content, talk pages are not held to NPOV policy. The fact is, the commentator above is right, there is a tradition within the historical community about the nature of facts. Some notable authors and influential works on the subject include Edward Carr's What is History? (1961), R.G. Collingwood's The Idea of History (1934) and Hayden White's The Content of Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (1987). -- Stbalbach 18:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

Should the Decline and Fall be available on Wikisource? Indeed123 17:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oversimplification

I came to this article because I was curious how long it took Gibbon to write The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The article provided that information very well, thank you.

However, I was appalled at the vast oversimplification of Gibbon's theory about the fall of the Roman Empire. This article needs to be reworked by someone who knows more than the original writer. Unfortunately, I am not that person; I know enough however to recognize that Gibbon's work has been distorted here by oversimplification. 4.155.99.137 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific commentaries welcome. Of course, this is an encyclopedia, summaries often do make things more simple than the complexity of the original work allows. I don't think it misrepresents what he was saying, these are commonly known points he made. -- Stbalbach 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly criticism of Gibbon's Decline and Fall

I'm not a professional historian, but from what I see the article as presently written is insufficiently criticial of how Gibbon holds up in the light of modern understanding of the Roman, and especially Byzantine, worlds. For instance, the piece makes it seem as though the only effective criticism of Gibbon in this regard lies in the area of his theorizing about why the Roman (and Byzantine) empires fell; and though it mentions J.B. (John Bagnell) Bury, it doesn't suggest that he -- in addition to John Julius Norwich -- was also a considerable critic of much of Gibbon's work.

As I say, I'm not a historian, and I admit I haven't read Bury's annotated edition of Gibbon's book, but let me point to a couple of things that make me believe that this is true. First, in the Bibliography to Vol. IV (the Eastern Roman Empire) of the original edition of the Cambridge Medieval History (the entire set of which was planned by J.B. Bury, though that volume was edited by others), concerning Gibbon's Decline and Fall it states -- and notice the note at the end:

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 1776-81. Ed. in 7 vols. by Bury, J. B. 1896. Latest edn. 1909 ff. (Bury-Gibbon.) [Notes essential especially for chronology.]

Second, in J.B. Bury's Introduction to the aforementioned Vol. IV of the Cambridge Medieval History, he writes:

In the period in which the Empire was strong, before it lost the provinces which provided its best recruits, its army was beyond comparison the best fighting machine in Europe. When a Byzantine army was defeated, it was always the incompetence of the general or some indiscretion on his part, never inefficiency or cowardice of the troops, that was to blame. The great disaster of Manzikert (1071), from which perhaps the decline of the Eastern Empire may be dated, was caused by the imbecility of the brave Emperor who was in command. A distinguished student of the art of war has observed that Gibbon's dictum, "the vices of Byzantine armies were inherent, their victories accidental," is precisely the reverse of the truth. He is perfectly right.

Given that kind of profound mistake on Gibbon's part, it would seem that -- as the C.M.H. Bibliography states -- "notes [are] essential" before taking much in the way of Gibbon's conclusions as gospel. Michael McNeil 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed

There are quite a few "Fall of Rome" games, some of them multiplayer, some of them solitaire, most of them with hexagons, but some of them with really big areas you put pieces or tokens in. Probably more than a dozen games in the last 35 years. Maybe even more. The one I am looking for, was never marketed in the US, it was marketed in England in 1976 or 1977. The game was reviewed in the UK-based "Game Magazine" (not gamer magazine) and there is British spelling all the way throughout. The Mongol Hordes keep pressing at the empire, and sooner or later break through, no matter how you try to build up your border. When you search for The Fall of Rome, you get redirected to this page, even though you are interested in the game by that name. I am not sure how to fix a redirect, but somebody here probably knows how to do it. The search engine in Wikipedia would work a lot better if the redirect were changed into a disambiguation page. The Fall of Rome is not the same thing as the History of the Fall of Rome. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversimplification

I came to this article because I was curious how long it took Gibbon to write The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The article provided that information very well, thank you.

However, I was appalled at the vast oversimplification of Gibbon's theory about the fall of the Roman Empire. This article needs to be reworked by someone who knows more than the original writer. Unfortunately, I am not that person; I know enough however to recognize that Gibbon's work has been distorted here by oversimplification. 4.155.99.137 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific commentaries welcome. Of course, this is an encyclopedia, summaries often do make things more simple than the complexity of the original work allows. I don't think it misrepresents what he was saying, these are commonly known points he made. -- Stbalbach 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly criticism of Gibbon's Decline and Fall

I'm not a professional historian, but from what I see the article as presently written is insufficiently criticial of how Gibbon holds up in the light of modern understanding of the Roman, and especially Byzantine, worlds. For instance, the piece makes it seem as though the only effective criticism of Gibbon in this regard lies in the area of his theorizing about why the Roman (and Byzantine) empires fell; and though it mentions J.B. (John Bagnell) Bury, it doesn't suggest that he -- in addition to John Julius Norwich -- was also a considerable critic of much of Gibbon's work.

As I say, I'm not a historian, and I admit I haven't read Bury's annotated edition of Gibbon's book, but let me point to a couple of things that make me believe that this is true. First, in the Bibliography to Vol. IV (the Eastern Roman Empire) of the original edition of the Cambridge Medieval History (the entire set of which was planned by J.B. Bury, though that volume was edited by others), concerning Gibbon's Decline and Fall it states -- and notice the note at the end:

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 1776-81. Ed. in 7 vols. by Bury, J. B. 1896. Latest edn. 1909 ff. (Bury-Gibbon.) [Notes essential especially for chronology.]

Second, in J.B. Bury's Introduction to the aforementioned Vol. IV of the Cambridge Medieval History, he writes:

In the period in which the Empire was strong, before it lost the provinces which provided its best recruits, its army was beyond comparison the best fighting machine in Europe. When a Byzantine army was defeated, it was always the incompetence of the general or some indiscretion on his part, never inefficiency or cowardice of the troops, that was to blame. The great disaster of Manzikert (1071), from which perhaps the decline of the Eastern Empire may be dated, was caused by the imbecility of the brave Emperor who was in command. A distinguished student of the art of war has observed that Gibbon's dictum, "the vices of Byzantine armies were inherent, their victories accidental," is precisely the reverse of the truth. He is perfectly right.

Given that kind of profound mistake on Gibbon's part, it would seem that -- as the C.M.H. Bibliography states -- "notes [are] essential" before taking much in the way of Gibbon's conclusions as gospel. Michael McNeil 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I added the criticism part and any additions would be helpful. Gibbon's views, as the article states, are not widely accepted, though Christianity was culturally inhibitive in some particular cultural areas (the Iconoclastic controversy and the decline of sculpture for example), I don't think I've read a single modern Historian who agrees with Gibbon's conclusions about the fall, in my opinion Gibbon is sometimes purposefully vague so as to detract from any ability to properly critique them, I mean, if the view you are rebutting has no easily definable assertions then it becomes difficult to construct counter-arguments.--NeroDrusus 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find odd about the section as it currently stands is that it starts with two lengthy quotes from Gibbon without any context for why they're being introduced, or what they have to do with the 'criticism' section heading. --Delirium (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read Gibbon's Decline and Fall (unabridged) several times. Anyone bold enough to criticise it should read it first. Clearly any historian has to make way for the insights of later research but frankly Gibbon's history towers above anything else I've ever read. Its a master work and you should tiptoe around when near it. 93.233.23.170 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Quran and Muhammad

Today I read first sentence of "Criticism of Quran and Muhammad". The footnote 15 is referring to my research work "Rashid Iqbal, (2017). “A New Theory on Aṣḥāb al-kahf (The Sleepers of the Cave) Based on Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)”. Al-Bayān – Journal of Qurʾān and ḤadĪth Studies 15 (2017)". The first sentence doesn't convey the essence of the referred work. In my research work, I only referred to Gibbon's statement. My complete research paper is a scholarly rebuttal of this criticism for which I was invited to The Oxford University, UK as well. I concluded in research paper, ""Gibbon grossly erred in accusing the Qurʾān and the prophet Muḥammad of fabricating Christian tradition. The discovery of DSS reveals undeniable internal, external and circumstantial evidences of “Five-Pronged Juxtaposing”, which, once cross-examined with Kor 18, 9-26, give an entirely different perspective with respect to this particular tradition about which Gibbon is self-assured and egotistical". I would request the supervisor of this article to kindly make the following correction in the first sentence as deemed necessary as the sentence is opposite to the essence of the referred footnote."Gibbon's comments on the Quran and Muhammad reflected his view of the secular, rather than divine, origin of the text. His criticism outlined in chapter 33 the widespread tale, possibly Jewish in origin, of the Seven Sleepers, has been repudiated in the latest research". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid37009 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Rashid37009 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding that WikiPedia is generally not intended for 'own research', which is what your publication is. It also has the appearance of polemical exegesis. And the DOI does not resolve. Maybe it has no place here? Rvosa (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References

link to complete edition?

shouldn't there be a link to the complete online edition at www.ccel.org? Homun 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)homun

section may require cleanup?

A section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please list the specific points to clean up in bullet format. J. D. Redding 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Historians such as David S. Potter and Fergus Millar dispute claims that the Empire fell as a result of a kind of lethargy towards current affairs brought on by Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official state religion." That part ive highlighted is just bullshit, Constantine adopted it personally but it was Theodosius I that made the religion the official religion of the empire. Terrasidius (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Should Asimov's Foundation Saga be included? Although this section seems to focus on academic work, I believe this would be a worthy addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.52.56 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli's Virtu

• I linked "civic virtue" to Machiavelli's concept of virtu, though my descriptor explanation was inadvertently saved as "to Machiavelli" before I could complete it. --RayBirks (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Asimov quote

One might argue that Asimov's doggerel does not need to be in this article at all (though I am fond of it, FWIW). Given that it is in here, however, it is appropriate to point out to the reader that it understates the connection to Gibbons.

If anyone wishes to remove that point (or the entire quote), please explain the reasoning for doing so, at least. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC) UGh, why didn't you put here so I could read it! Best comments are always in the Talk section. 08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.173.137 (talk)

Sorry, there's probably a WP policy against making the Talk sections too enjoyable. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Abridged Version

D. M. Low did an abridged version in 1960. It's a big red book. It's sitting in my lap, if that helps anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.98.153 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In cases like this, the ISBN number would probably be the most helpful. In works published prior to implementation of ISBN, listing the author's full name, publisher (including country), publication-date and date of original copyright (if applicable) would work best. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to amazon.ca it's ISBN-10: 0701140100 or ISBN-13: 978-0701140106 217.155.193.120 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Gibbons' Legacy

The current content focuses exclusively on a legacy of titles: The Decline and Fall of, and variations thereon. I have also understood -- but have no references to justify an addition -- that he is regarded as having - (A) set the standard for modern historical research, and (B) made the concept of Dark Ages (specifically, the aftermath of a societal collapse) a term of some fear in the English-speaking world. (That he lived in the Roman province that experienced perhaps the greatest disruption from the "decline and fall"; and that his literary style emphasized the consequence, are the points. He did not invent the term, though historians before had emphasized a more benign interpretation.)

Surely these deserve mention as well? Jmacwiki (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In modern historiography it is usually the German Leopold von Ranke that are acclaimed with "setting the standard for modern historical research" through the foundation of history as an acadmical discipline. Gibbon was incredibly learned, and he was an eminent writer, but already by the 19th century his approach was beginning to look dated, and his use of sources criticised. I don't know the answer regarding your second claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Do you see any way to work in anything about this into the "Legacy" section? As I say, it doesn't report anything that would be considered a direct legacy. (The popularity of the "Decline and Fall" title shows that there is an important social and literary legacy, though an indirect one.) Jmacwiki (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Long quotation, good or overlong?

The quotation on Christianity is indeed long. I'd suggest that it is useful as it includes the essence of Gibbon's comments on the matter, both for and against, and that this is worth including in this particular case. Without it, we are left with rather vague comments often with rather little relevance to what Gibbon actually said, and the quotation does help to put the secondary sources into appropriate context. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I looked for it and did not find any too long quote. Of course the whole should stay. His style & reasoning is exemplary, and he was a first timer in this. Enjoy good written stuff, like I just did! Maybe the quotes could be styled different, within MOS, to set them apart. That tag was placed here [1] by User:Temporaluser, who has not talked or edited here since. I propose removing that tag. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On first glance, the quotes are too long, relative to the size of the corresponding commentary. (To give context, the longest quotes in the featured article on Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason are only as long as their corresponding commentary, at the most.) I could've pared the quotes down, but I'm not familiar with the whole text to have the proper context to do so. (I wasn't even sure if these particular quotes properly presented his main arguments on Christianity.) @Richard Keatings, I don't think paraphrasing would make it vague. On the contrary, it will rephrase it in a form more intelligible to most modern readers. Breaking up this quote with commentary will also clarify some of his references that are no longer familiar to modern readers. I do agree that leaving a few shorter quotes will provide the adequate context. @DePiep, I don't know what "long" means to you, but the Gibbon's exact text makes up ~75% of the content in the section. Even if Gibbon's writing is exemplary, people can read it in WikiQuote. On a meta note, my purpose at tagging was to stimulate discussion of the quote lengths. Just because I haven't replied promptly to Richard Keatings's comments as you have doesn't mean my original tag is any less applicable. –Temporal User (Talk) 11:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple: it may be long, I don't see why it is too long.

There could be more context, but I don't see how introduction text should relate to the size of a quote. Nor do I argue that, the other way around, this work is so huge there should be lots of quotes from it. Paraphrasing to explain his style of writing is not the way to go. Exactly that is why we quote here. Of course before or after one can explain, but not instead of. And why should a reader go to Wikiquote? If I understand it well, overthere is like no context required at all. Why send the reader away? What is this article about then? And about your last remark: you tagged it but did not give arguments. The discuss-link lead to a blank. What is wrong in noting that?

Over all I am not convinced that it is too long by any relevant means. The tag being put up with paraphrasing or linking to Wikikquote is missing the essense of quoting here. Adding descriptions &tc to the section(s) is welcome. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the above, and of my own opinion that we have here a mildly unusual case in which the subject of the article can profitably be allowed to state their own position in their own words, I have removed the tag. I agree that commentary could well be added. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.me.com/wkirkpatrick13/DeclineandFallResources/Gibbon.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of Christian martyrs

The section "Number of Christian martyrs" is inadequate in two ways: first, it cites no sources; second, it says that Christian sources are not primary sources! Of course, Christian sources can be just as primary as any others. Gibbon rejected certain writings because he regarded them as exaggerated, "partial" (i.e. partisan, biased), or too far in time from the events they describe. If this section is to be kept, a reliable authority is needed that explains why Gibbon accepted certain sources, rejected others, and arrived at his final numbers; I don't have access to such an authority at the moment. Wgrommel (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Name legacy

Seems a bit odd to stick Waugh's novel on the end as an afterthought following Legacy? Surely rather than separate Waugh's book from this section as a floating link, it should just state at the end of the Legacy section something along the lines that Gibbon's title has become a cultural touchstone, as seen, for example, in the title of Waugh's novel..., along with a couple of other examples? Cpaaoi (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Youtube as a source

From 28:02: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8JcWVRFp8

And here just to summarize what the academia thinks:

" MYTH NO. 5 The empire collapsed because of Christianity.

In his monumental study “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon famously proposed that Christianity sparked a decrease in civic duty and a corresponding unwillingness to sacrifice for the empire in its period of greatest stress, ultimately leading (along with barbarian invasions) to its collapse. Because of the widespread acclamation accorded to it, both at the time and by later generations, Gibbon’s work has had unusual longevity.

But no modern scholar believes Gibbon’s thesis, if only for the simple fact that a Christian Roman Empire in the east survived the Germanic migration and lived on as the Byzantine Empire for nearly another millennium."

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-decline-and-fall-of-rome/2016/12/02/1c06ee5a-b682-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a2b5021f031

So, why are you deleting the text? En historiker (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Who wants to watch a 40 minute video to verify a sentence? The speaker, Paul Freedman "specializes in medieval social history, the history of Spain, the study of medieval peasantry, and medieval cuisine." That is not ancient Roman history. And the way you summarize it "Edward Gibbon's central thesis, that Rome fell due to embracing Christianity, is no longer accepted in academia today" doesn't seem to be what the professor says. Your quote makes it sound like there was a time when academia accepted his "central thesis" but it doesn't any more. Gibbon's book caused outrage when it was new and his radical thesis never was accepted by the mainstream, then or now.Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No one has to watch the entire 40-minutes videoclip, as I claerly stated that is was “From 28:02”.

Paul Freedman is just summarizing what the vast historians, inclusive scholars of Roman history, think: That Gibbon’s theory is refuted by the historians.

You stated: “Your quote makes it sound like there was a time when academia accepted his "central thesis" but it doesn't any more.”

Yes? - That is exactly what I stated. His theory was accepted for a some time, but no longer today. I have already provided the source(s). So why are you deleting? En historiker (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

His theory was accepted for a some time, but no longer today- that isn't what that quote you supply from the youtube vid says. It says there was "widespread acclamation" for the work but not specifically the "central thesis" that Rome fell due to embracing Christianity. The professor says "no modern scholar" believes that but they didn't believe it then either. Anyway, someone else has now removed the quote.Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not so much Youtube as a source. If this video were by a leading academic in the field, giving a consensus version of what Gibbon's "central thesis" was, and its later reception, that would strike me as acceptable. In fact it's by an academic whose field is some distance from the historiography of the later Roman Empire, and you would need to quote a consensus of relevant academics, not just one. In the meantime we might be better off with Gibbon's own formulation:

The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.

— Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, "General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West", Chapter 38

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you read that washingtonpost-article where it states that "no modern scholar believes Gibbon’s thesis"?

I will also find a source in some of Peter Brown's works later. En historiker (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As I say, a consensus of modern historians in the field is what you need to document. It would probably help if your text is compatible with what Gibbon himself says. I'm well aware that to some Christians, Gibbon's reassessment of Christianity in relation to the Fall is more or less the only thesis that they are interested in, but scandalized Christians are not a modern consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

“As I say, a consensus of modern historians in the field is what you need to document”

Respond: Freedman in that Yale-course and Pilkington in that article, are stating that Gibbon’s theory is refuted. So, it is not clear to me why or what you mean with “a consensus of modern historians in the field” is what I “need”.

“It would probably help if your text is compatible with what Gibbon himself says.”

Respond: Why should my source(s) be “compatible” with “what Gibbon himself says”? – As I stated, modern scholarships refute Gibbon, meaning they cannot be “compatible” with Gibbon. So, unless I am misunderstanding you it is not clear what you mean.

“but scandalized Christians are not a modern consensus.”

Respond: Freedman and Pilkington are hardly “scandalized Christians”. En historiker (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pilkington presents a bumbling attack on some half-understood and half-relevant ideas; he may possibly be a historian but he's producing bad journalism here. Your Yale prof does say that Gibbon offered Christianity as the cause of the Fall. I'm sorry to say that a remark in an introductory course by someone whose interests lie elsewhere - his latest book is "Ten Restaurants That Changed America", not really relevant to this article - really does not qualify as even a hint of an actual academic consensus. As for Gibbon, he's provided his own clear formulation of the Fall, in which some of the effects of Christianity may feature. But he had more sense than to argue for one single cause. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see any ”bad jounalism”. Pilkington pretty much confirms what Paul Freedman stated in the course at Yale. It is actually conventional scholarship, and anyone who has the simplest grasp of the historiography of Roman history would have easily realized it.

That Freedman doesn’t have master’s degree in Roman history is totally irrelevant in this case as he just represents what the academia thinks.

En historiker (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The book that this article is about is rather long, you know, and there is more than one idea in it so you cannot really flatly declare that Gibbon has been "refuted" by academia. At least not without better sources than you are presenting. WP proceeds by consensus and since I agree with what Richard Keatinge has said I hope you can see that there is no consensus for the addition to the article you are proposing.Smeat75 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Gibbon’s works are indeed refuted by modern scholarships, and no one or very few trained historians would dare to use Gibbon as secondary source today. Anyway, that was not my argument. My argument was that Gibbon’s theory that Christianity contributed to the fall of Roman Empire is refuted. Just as my two sources state it.

It is neither my, Pilkington’s or Freedman’s argument that Gibbon said that only Christianity contributed to it.

Feel free to insist to disagree. But don’t misrepresent my argument.

I can easily find other secondary sources either from Peter Brown, Wickham, Treadgold, Averil Cameron, Judith Herrin and some others. The problem is just that I have other projects and it will take me 30-60 minutes to scrutinize the whole once I am in the uni library. And that only for one sentence. We will see if I bother to do it in the future or not. En historiker (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Best of luck. Just to make it clear, you may want to provide evidence that:

1) There is a modern academic consensus that Gibbon's central thesis in "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was that Christianity was the cause of the Fall. (As far as I know there is no such consensus, and Gibbon's central argument is best summarized in his own words, above.)

2) The relevant academic community no longer agrees with Gibbon on this "central thesis". (I doubt that this thesis was ever "central". I am aware of ongoing debate on the degree to which the adoption of Christianity contributed to the Fall, or didn't. At least some secular historians agree that the process of adopting Christianity may have been a contributing factor, and I guess that the consensus is fairly similar to Gibbon's actual position.)

To help a little, you don't need to provide evidence that Gibbon is no longer a leader in current academia; he is still admired and quoted, but any substantive positions need a basis in more modern discourse. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words and clarification. However, I must correct you.

It was not me who introduced “Gibbon's central thesis” originally. It was another editor that did it, and I kept it.

What I meant was that Gibbon’s theory about Christianity being a reason for the collapse of Roman Empire has been refuted by the academia. Some few historians may disagree, but they are a minority in the academia. - Just as my two sources state it. I only need to find another scholar who can join the choir and state just what Freedman and Pilkington stated.

My assertion is: Gibbon’s theory that Christianity contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire has been (utterly) refuted by the academia.

Freedman and Pilkington state it, and before or sooner I might provide other secondary source(s) that confirms it.

You wrote: “he is still admired”

Respond: Yes. his prose is good. Just as many others.

You wrote: “...and quoted”

Respond: No. Not as secondary source. I simple have to say that not many trained historians would agree with that, and a simple grasp of the scientific theory and the methodology of the profession of history would easily show you why quoting Gibbon as secondary sources is a terrible idea. But that is another discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Thesis section contains too many seemingly subject opinions =

I hope that this edit solves that problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Gibbon’s theory that Christianity contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire has been (utterly) refuted by the academia

OK,this helps. So, you assert: "Gibbon’s theory that Christianity contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire has been (utterly) refuted by the academia."

Gibbon did indeed feel that Christianity "had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire". His own words demonstrate that, and I paste in a longer quotation for context:

As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country. Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies and perpetual correspondence maintained the communion of distant churches; and the benevolent temper of the Gospel was strengthened, though confirmed, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily obeyed which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors (chap. 38).

So far we may possibly agree. I'd take out the word "theory" from your assertion, a theory has a higher intellectual status than a mere suggestion of relevance, but that's a detail. We have also established, I hope, that brief comments in a piece of hack journalism and in an introduction-to-history lecture, from historians in different fields, are not suitable sources for Wikipedia. That leaves us with the assertion (I rephrase slightly) that modern academic historians in this field have achieved a consensus that Christianity had no effect whatever on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. I look forward to documentation of this assertion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

References

This is no place for apologetics. Such people would also deny inquisitions, witch trials, crusades and priests interested in children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.232.71 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

When the Criticism Section is Longer than the Summary ...

... you know you have religious apologists in your midst who are trying to downplay this legendary scholar because they don't like his critiques of their religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.65.14 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"Gibbon has been criticized for his portrayal of Paganism as tolerant and Christianity as intolerant."

I think this single line should either be expanded - at least supported by more than one citation - or extricated. Lgustafs (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Publication dates

The lead currently states that Vols. II-IV were published "in 1788–1789". However, the title pages for the 1st edition of each of these vols. states 1788. Is there a reason for saying 1789 (i.e. a citable source that the date on at least one of these title pages is incorrect)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3A1:9700:B1FA:1D41:F754:BCE5 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus is lacking

While this article does a great job showing the legacy and influence this work has had, it's severely lacking in terms of modern scholarly opinion. Anyone reading the current version might leave with under the impression that Gibbon's work was incredibly accurate, which is not something most historians would agree with.

The "Criticism" section is so short, in fact, that I feel it was a deliberate choice. I don't understand the reasons for this though, and considering the pervasiveness of many myths originated in this book, even on this talk page, I think it should see a big increase in size. Swaggernagger (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

detached, dispassionate

I don't know who gave the author the idea that Gibbon's style is detached or dispassionate, but I am laughing my head off. Gibbon was a Euro-centric bigot, hated Jews as well as Christians, scorned "barbarians" which, to him, included Mesopotamia which had been civilized since the 3000s BCE, etc. etc. etc. Either cite to who said this or actually read Gibbon for yourself. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dates in the style section

It's rather confusing that the dates associated with the quotes from Gibbon are a century after his death. Are they a typo or linked to the edition of the work? 192.176.202.37 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No mention of modern scholarship

I think the article should mention a little bit more that Gibbon's work has fallen out of favor, and is not really considered an accurate work of history. The way it currently reads may give off the impression that it is. Rousillon (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten by a historian who does not have a religious ax to grind.

I just finished reading Decline and Fall. It took years, but I enjoyed it. I had been told, before I started, that Gibbon said that Christianity caused the Fall. I did not find that anywhere in the book I read. Rather, it seems to me that Gibbon is critical of all religion, that he (like many modern historians) considers stories of miracles to be fables, and considers the constant quarrels within a religion and between religions to be the cause of many of the problems faced by the Roman Empire, particularly toward the end. Further, this belief seems to me obviously correct.

One reading of Gibbon does not give me the expertise to edit this article, but I would like to see an edit by a serious historian who does not focus on either attacking or defending Christianity. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear...

It's not often that I criticize an article in its entirety. This evening I decided to dip into the famed tomes for the first time and came here to see what I might expect. What I didn't expect was a torrent of mealy-mouthed, one-sided sniping from the gallery. Having been an editor on WP for 14 years, it's easy for me to recognise a decently-written and reffed article, even if it doesn't have a a gold star or a green plus, and this certainly ain't one of them. This is what happens to articles about Palestine or Serbia if they are not protected: it's an excellent candidate for WP:Blow it up and start over. It's been a while since I was so disappointed by an article about a well-known work of literature or history. Quite frankly, what a load of old wank. MinorProphet (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)