Talk:Byzantine Empire: Difference between revisions

Banner instead of Coin?

Sorry for reviving this debate, but I think that a banner would better represent the ERE than a coin. Which banner though? The tetragramic cross. According to the "Byzantine flags and insignia" page, the cross was used quite some time before the Palaiologos family came to power. Here's a quote: images of flags with crosses quartered with golden discs survive from the 10th century, and a depiction of a flag almost identical to the Palaiologan design is known from the early 13th century.

So, the banners similar to the Palaiologos existed long before they came to power, and some variants of that existed since late antiquity. I would say that is a good enough reason to replace the coin. --85.113.183.175 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to use the actual banner/flag rather than a coin. Any objections to this?

"Byzantine flag". Alternate versions can be seen on this file's page.

I would still object to this. The consensus a while back was to use the coin, not only for consistency with the articles on the Roman Republic, the Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire but also because the Byzantine Empire never had a flag as such. The tetragramic cross really only becomes prominent during the Palaiologos dynasty, and is appropriately used on that dynasty's page; Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty. Constantine the Great, Justinian or Alexios Komnenos would probably not have flown that banner and for most of its history the Empire as a whole would probably be more represented with banners depicting an eagle (one-headed at first and two-headed later) or a Chi Rho.Ichthyovenator (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Truly? I've reviewed the archives going back to 2012 and I see no such consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong. The notion that the Byzantine Empire didn't have a modern flag is of course obvious, as is the notion that there isn't a single representative symbol that was used throughout their history. That does not mean that a coin is the best representative symbol. In fact, it's a bit bizarre to feature a coin where several actual alternatives would be reasonable. The tetragrammatic cross, being the most "recent", is a legitimate option. But it's not the only option. The iconic eagle or the Chi Rho are absolutely equally viable alternatives. I'm not sure why anyone would think that an individual coin is a better representation than actually using any heraldry/symbology. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said it before: If there is no symbol that represents the empire in its entirety, then the logical solution is not to include one in the box at all. Because that's the only purpose that field in the box has: showing a symbol that represents the empire in its entirety. I still fail to understand the horror vacui that so many editors seem to suffer from when it comes to filling the top right corner of a page with colorful spots just for the sake of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Your hostility here is a bit strange. It's perfectly common and standard to display heraldry in an infobox. It's not exactly unreasonable to suggest that it be included. It does seem a bit unreasonable to suggest that there are no symbols that represent the Byzantine Empire. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that heraldry wasn't really a thing in the Byzantine Empire, the "Byzantine flag" was popularized under the Palaiologos dynasty (which as said, uses the flag in its article) but I'm not sure if we have any source as to whether it was extensively used in the same way an actual flag would be, even during this period. There are no symbols that represent the entire 1000+ years of imperial history, the only things close would be coinage (though maybe the backside of a coin, since those tended to stay the same, rather than the front depicting a particular emperor would be better), an eagle (but that's also a bit problematic since neither the one-headed or the double-headed were used during the entire empire) or a Chi Rho (though I'm unsure if those were used up until the end). I agree that the hostility is a bit unnecessary but I do not see the need to put in a symbol just for the sake of putting in a symbol. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as "hostile". But I still think that for the infobox to work as it should, the field ought to be reserved to things that represent the empire in its entirety, and a flag that was used only during a short subspan of its history (and one where the empire was essentially just a shadow of its former self) doesn't really do that. I also still think that the entire sequence of discussions we've had about it over the years suffers from what I just called a horror vacui – an unspoken assumption that the slot needs to be filled with something, just for the sake of filling it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that if we are looking for a representative object, then for me that is definitely the gold solidus obverse with Christ Pantocrator; Byzantium is often associated with untold riches, and the solidus was very widely circulated, the standard for gold coins for nigh a millenium, and even gave the name "bezant" to gold coins in general. The flag is representative only of the Palaiologan era. But I also agree with Future Perfect that we do not have to put something in there just because we can. Constantine ✍ 13:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Can anyone explain the logic behind those reverts: 1 2 Regarding the 1st edit, this more or less a common Wikipedia practice. I don't see the argument against using it here, especially if we add a literal translation. For the 2nd edit, there's a nomenclature section so why should this badly phrased paragraph stay in the head? Much of that paragraph lacks sources, e.g. the claim: "its citizens continued to refer [...] to themselves as 'Romans'". This is downright wrong as it was only Greek-speaking citizens who referred to themselves as 'Romaioi/Romans', but Greek-speaking citizens were not the only inhabitants of the Empire. So this is a very misleading claim to be in the head, albeit without a source. Raikkonen (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious that large scale changes to the opening paragraph of a Featured Article that receives ~5000 visits every day might not be a good idea to just do without consulting the talk page to discuss such changes first. The part about self-identity of the empire and its inhabitants is highly important to understand in regards of the Byzantine Empire and it should definitely stay in the lede section. Its citizens didcontinue to refer to themselves as Romans. That this would only refer to the Greek-speaking inhabitants is wrong since the inhabitants of Byzantine North Africa, Egypt and the Levant were just as Roman as those in Greece and continued to regard themselves as such. Sources please. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious unless a policy defines it. Anyway - the self-identification of the state, its Greek-speaking Orthodox inhabitants, and all its other inhabitants, are not things that intersect in the way that the paragraph in question implies. This view is anachronistic. Mentioning Greece is sort of out of context here since Greek-speakers inhabited parts of Asia Minor, North Africa, and the middle East at the time (that includes Byzantine North Africa and the Levant). But do you have any sources to suggest that non-native Greek-speakers, non-Orthodox peoples, such as Armenians, Jews, Venetians and other Latins in Constantinople, etc. identified themselves as 'Romaioi'? (I'm using the Greek word here because Latins, outside and inside Byzantium, may have identified themselves as "Romans" in their language, but not as Romans/Romaioi in way the Byzantines meant it.) Raikkonen (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, obvious or not, the logic has now been explained to you. Personally I prefer the version now restored. Especially on big popular articles, I don't like a string of translations in the first line. If you want to, you should continue the argument here. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine self-identity changed over time. The original Roman form of identity, which continued for centuries in the Byzantine Empire was simply that if you were a citizen of the Roman/Byzantine state, you were a Roman. This view is illustrated quite well in for instance the letter from Emperor Basil I to the Frankish Emperor Louis II (871, link) which specifies that "Roman" is not an ethnic or cultural qualifier, but a national one. Any subject of the emperor is a Roman. In some ancient Roman documents, you can retain an ethnic qualifier as well (see for instance numerous inscriptions by barbarian soldiers in the Roman army, who seem to identify as a civic Roman and an ethnic Frank/Goth/etc.). "Roman" only became an ethnic-type thing later on (when is not exactly clear) in the Byzantine Empire, as the borders crumbled to contain areas completely dominated by Greek-speakers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just adding that having a Roman citizenship and a Roman self-identification did not necessarily overlap in Byzantium. You could be a Roman legally but this doesn't mean that you would identify as a Roman like the article currently claims. Even in the military, it wasn't the same as in ancient Rome, since the Varangian Guard, Slavs, and Armenians were viewed as missionaries. Anyway, I'm not here to make original research so I prefer to cite a scholar (Anthony Kaldellis) who is considered a specialist in the topic of "Byzantine identity":

"'Roman' was not a label held by or projected upon all subjects of the state collectively and indiscriminately. It was not an abstract, "umbrella identity" that could encompass Greeks-speakers, Armenians, Slavs, Jews, and whoever else happened to live in territories governed by the state. Rather, it entailed specific exclusions based on language, religion, upbringing, and custom; in sum, it was an ethnicity. [...] If an imperial subject was sufficiently foreign as to speak primarily Slavic or Armenian, he would likely have been called a Slav or Armenian in imperial service, not Roman. [...] Under their own rule, the people we call Byzantines were, in their own eyes, Romans: Greek-speaking and Orthodox.", Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (2019). Doesn't this prove that some information in the article head is misleading/outdated? Raikkonen (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The point is that at the very least a significant majority of the people living within the Byzantine Empire at any one given time would have self-identified as Roman. As Kaldellis says; "Under their own rule, the people we call Byzantines were, in their own eyes, Romans: Greek-speaking and Orthodox". We don't say that the citizens of England don't self-identify as "English" just because a small minority of them might not self-identify as such for various reasons. In the same way, I don't think saying that the Byzantines self-identified as "Roman" without any clarification is misleading or problematic. It was after all the official position of the Byzantine state that it represented the Roman Empire (which it of course, legally did), with an Emperor of the Romans governing the Roman people. The article as it stands is huge (more than twice the recommended article size), so fitting in a detailed discussion on self-identity isn't really viable. I do think you might be able to incorporate more such information in the Byzantine Greeks article. Even better would be undertaking some expansion efforts at the underdeveloped Population of the Byzantine Empire, which at the moment only includes total population estimates and nothing on self-identity and various ethnic groups.

I'm sorry if I came across as rude with my comments or reverts here, the lede section of this article and the first few opening paragraphs are changed tiringly often which rarely results in something better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, no offence taken. What you're suggesting sounds very reasonable and also happens to be the view that Kaldellis shares, i.e. that, when referring to the Byzantine people, the Eastern Roman "ethnicity" should be (by default) referring to the people who self-identified as Romaioi, and not to the other (numerous) ethnic groups that found themselves in and out of the borders of the empire periodically. Therefore, if we agree that the Byzantines/Eastern Romans were in fact only the Greek-speaking Orthodox people of the empire, don't you think that it would be crucial to mention this in the head of article? For example, a simple edit here would be "[...] the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its primarily Greek-speaking, Christian Orthodox eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople". In addition, wouldn't it abide by common practice to include the native Greek and Latin names of the state (with literal translation) on the opening line? This used to be the structure of the lead a long time ago, I never understood why it got changed without obvious reasons. Raikkonen (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that because the Byzantine Empire existed for roughly a thousand years, it is difficult to offer such precise statements. That the people of the empire saw themselves as "Roman" is true for the duration of its entire existence, whether these people represented all citizens as a national identity (as in the earlier centuries) or just a majority of citizens as something more like an ethnic identity (as in the later centuries). In the earlier centuries, self-identifying Romans could be found which did not speak Greek. There is also of course the point that Latin continued to be the administrative language for quite a while.

Specifying that it were the "Christian Orthodox" provinces is already sort-of in the lede ("orientated towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity") but I think inserting it in the way you suggest would be somewhat anachronistic? Before the schism, the Byzantines would have followed the "unified" Nicene church, after all, and probably self-identified as "Catholic Christians" (which has little to do with modern catholicism, but I believe it is the identifier Justinian uses in his documents?).

I do think articles of this scale, with this many daily visitors, should have a consensus for any edits in the most prominent parts (e.g. the lede and the infobox), so I think you would do best to wait for more people to chime in on this before making the edits you are talking about. I agree that it is common practice to include the native names of any given state in its opening line but I do think that this article warrants some further explanation of why the state called itself the Roman Empire already in the lede, which I think it does quite well now. You might notice that this isn't the only break with common practice the article does, for instance the name at the top of the infobox is inexplicably "Byzantine Empire" rather than "Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans", which is unlike virtually every other article on a country where their official names are presented at the top. As with most other things that look like inconsistencies on Wikipedia, this is apparently due to past consensus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Greatest Emperor in Byzantium?

Who takes the cake Justinian or Constantine? Would love to hear your thoughts. Lyleciardi (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that great military prowess isn't what makes someone truly great, and though Constantine (assuming you mean Constantine the Great and not one of the ten or so Constantines after him) and Justinian both led the Roman Empire in times of military success (Constantine as a general and Justinian as an administrator), truly great emperors would need to be defined by more than military success. For instance, we don't consider Hitler the greatest German leader even though Germany reached its greatest ever extent under his rule.

Justinian's military campaigns (led by generals such as Belisarius, Narses etc.) were most often undermanned. His reign left the previously full imperial treasury near empty, left Italy and Rome itself depopulated and in ruins and alienated the Barbarian Kingdoms in the West, most of which up until that point had been allies, or at least on good terms, with the empire.

I'm less familiar with Constantine the Great, but he was the single greatest reason that Diocletian's Tetrachy, which had ended the Crisis of the Third Century, collapsed. As can be gathered from any list of Roman emperors, the empire descended into regular civil wars again after his death.

I'd like to think that truly great emperors would be those who improved their empire or the rest of the world rather than leaving it in a worse condition than they found it. In this respect Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) would probably be the standard choice. Another noteworthy emperor would be Anastasius I Dicorus (491–518), who among other things stopped the trend of financial collapse that had been ongoing since the third century (for instance making it possible for the later Justinian to fund his invasion forces). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

[IPA] note is useful, relevant, common on articles; no reason to remove here

[IPA] phonemic pronunciation of foreign languages in a footnote is standard on many articles, complainant must not read them. Especially languages with historic and foreign alphabets; one person may personally find it "irrelevant" and "useless", I find other information "irrelevant and useless", my personal standard is not the standard. And useless to "readers"? As a READER I find [IPA] very useful and relevant when reading an article and wanting to know how to correctly pronounce foreign words as their were pronounced originally, especially the main title words. If you don't care about that and/or can't read [IPA] that does not make how the word was actually pronounced "irrelevant and useless"—don't read the footnote. "Byzantium" & "Roman Empire" happen to be words that were in use for 2,000+ years across many stages of Greek and Latin, spaining from Classical to Koine to Medieval (a.k.a. Byzantine) Greek. Just one basic transliteration of only Classical Ancient Greek would be misleading and flatout inaccurate regarding how the names were pronounced on the streets of Constantinople in the 5th century, 10th century, 15th century. Byzantine Roman Empire spanned multiple languages and multiple forms of those languages, autonyms evolved. The International Phonetic Alphabet also allows for people of any background to interpret correctly how a word was pronounced, vs. letters that can be interpreted in different ways. Again IPA is standard across many articles, a footnote of /IPA/ is not a new phenomenon, it is useful, relevant, helpful to those who actually do care about such things. And to a final point, transliteration does not constitute OR, that's a ridiculous point explicitly rejected on the WP:OR page (Translations and transcriptions NOT OR) for good reason, otherwise IPA could never be used unless someone wrote a book on transliterating one particular word to cite, all transliterations of words require such sources too, nonsensical. I don't know why this is even controversial, no good reason has been presented why a footnote containing simple IPA transcriptions of the pronunciation of the Greek + Latin is wrong, whereas it is standard across many other articles nowadays. Making adjustments is fine (as I did in response to the first initial rude deletion on silly grounds), but just flatout deleting everything removing historical pronunciations the way it was done is not just rude but makes no logical sense and harms the quality of the article as a reference source. As a user of Wikipedia I find IPA transcriptions on articles very useful for historical pronuncations of words; here should be no different. Inqvisitor (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Several things: First, about OR: phonetic transcription is not just transliteration, it's linguistic analysis. Claiming that a certain letter corresponded to [b] during one specific period, to [β] in another and then to [v] from a certain point onward is a non-trivial claim of linguistic fact, which can by no means be compared to simply rendering one script by means of another (which is what transliteration is). I'm not saying your transcriptions are wrong – at first glance they do seem knowledgeable and plausible, though I haven't scrutinized them in detail – but that's really not the issue. Such transcriptions would have to be sourced.

Second, about relevance: That lead sentence is explicitly (and only) introducing modern English terms, going to great pains to clarify that they are not the native names. Why then would we want to add information on the native pronunciation history of some name other than the ones we're talking about at that point? The name that may have been pronounced [byːd.d͡zán.ti.on] in Classical Greek was the name of a city, and never the name of the state this article is about. The name that would have been pronounced [ba.si.lěː.aː (tɔ̂ːn) r̥ɔː.mǎi̯.ɔːn] in Classical Greek isn't even the same name as the one you attached the footnote to (plus, the thing it denotes didn't even exist when Classical Greek was spoken, so that transcription is ahistoric anyway). So, if anything of this material (a small subset of it) might be relevant somewhere, it would be in the "nomenclature" section, not in that lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to question the inclusion of detailed discussion on the phonology of "Byzantion" since as the article specifies, the "Byzantines" cared little for the old name of the city and its connection to their empire is a modern invention. I would also question calling the use of Romania "less common". From sources it appears to have been the most common informal designation for the empire. As an example, people use the informal name "America" far more commonly than the formal name "United States of America". "Romania" appears frequently in the works of Byzantine historians and is attested as early as 582, remaining in constant use for centuries after that. Most importantly in regards to the discussion above, the stuff you've added is completely unsourced which is a big no-no on Wikipedia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay fine I'm not interested in arguing, I moved it to the nomenclature section. Frankly there is a lot of redundancy between the opening paragraph and nomenclature paragraph repeating the same info. A lot of information could be cleaned up and merged between the two-and potentially moved to footnotes instead of all the Greek and Latin parentheticals in the main text which make the text unwieldy and difficult to read. That is the whole beauty of using a footnote instead of just adding more to the main text. In general the article could use a lot of cleaning up and improvement...

As for the theoretical issue of "linguistic analysis"? ALL translation and transliteration involves "linguistic analysis". Translation is far more "linguistic analysis" than any form of transliteration; a translator is making a subjective original personal analysis of what a word means in the source language and then personally thinking up a word he or she believes is its approximate equivalent in another language, again based entirely on subjective and original analysis. Wikipedia:OR states explicitly that not just transcription but translation does not constitute original research. All translation and transliteration involve a degree of "original" knowledge by the editor. By your standard ALL transliteration on Wiki, whether Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, Phoenician, or IPA, is OR and must be deleted from every article, unless someone published an academic book or a scholarly article on how to specifically translate/transliterate that one particular word to cite as source...which is obviously an insane and unreasonable standard. This is especially the case for "dead" historical languages of which there are no native speakers. We have no recordings of how Classical Greek or Classical Latin (or e.g. Biblical Hebrew or Punic) were actually spoken, the information used for those transcriptions is based purely on subjective "linguistic analysis"; their entire articles would have to be deleted. Nobody can be trusted as a 100% verifiable source.

Someone who speaks Russian cannot provide IPA/transliteration of Cyrillic for English Wiki or vice versa without "original" "linguistic analysis"-and there are subjective personal analysis calls to make since the two alphabets do not line up, sounds have to be approximated like /дж/ /dzh/ is oft used to approximate English /j/ in e.g. a name like "John" as Джон, that's an attempt to render one script to another. A subjective personal linguistic analysis call. Russian simply lacks a sound for English [h], often substituted by /г/ /g/, "Garry Potter" for "Harry Potter". All of that is "original research" or unsourced according to this other person. So knowing 2 languages and 2 alphabets does not allow one to make a translation or even transliteration between the 2, you need an official academic publication to do the translation/transliteration for you to cite... Apply that universally, thousands of articles need to have such personal "unsourced" translations and transliterations of words deleted.

But thus the advantages of IPA, which is an alphabet like any other. Its universal application for transliteration for academic/reference purposes only makes it sui generis. It does not purport to specifically "correspond" to any particular letter in any other alphabet, but to be able to approximate a sound on universal level so as to be understood by all, as opposed to basic transliteration from Greek to Latin letters which can be interpreted a million different ways based on English phonology or Latin or any other language using the Latin alphabet. You complained on one hand there is too much "irrelevant" info and "This is not an article about the history of Greek and Latin pronunciation" yet by your standard then in order to not be OR, you would demand I turn a brief pronunciation footnote into a sourced treatise on the evolution of Greek phonology? No, if people want those details they would indeed go to that "article about the history of Greek and Latin pronunciation"...

Your critique would apply to EVERY use of IPA, even English-speakers making English IPA boxes, it all involves original personal "linguistic analysis". Information on Wikipedia does not always have be to attributed but attributable. English-speakers who know both the English alphabet and IPA alphabet don't need to provide a source on how both alphabets are pronounced to people who don't know one or the other to provide an IPA transcription. If you had to, you can go to an original source and look up and verify that they are accurate. So anyone familiar with the Greek language and its phonological history would be familiar with the weakening of Ancient [B] to [β] to [v]; no scholar would question that. Anyone who knows basic spoken Greek and sees Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων would say that if you had to choose just one English alphabet rendering, should be better be transliterated into English with /v/ Vasileía; that wasn't a change that happened overnight in Modern Greek, Byzantine Greek was closer to Modern Greek phonology than Ancient.

(Again I tried to keep the pronunciation notes as succinct as possible thus limited to the 3 main major stages, not purporting to cover exact dialects for every time/place in history. Byzantium was founded c. 660 BC, part of the Classical Græco-Roman world the "Eastern" half of the Roman Empire, of which it became a capital Constantinople in AD 330, then following the fall of the "Western" half, the "Byzantine" Greek-speaking Roman Empire lasted another 1,000 years till fall of Constantinople in AD 1453. That's over 2,000 years of possible local dialectal variance. In the "Eastern" Greek-speaking half of the original Hellenophilic Classical Roman Empire, Classical Attic Greek would have been taught to educated Romans (East and West) in schools as proper Greek, even though Koine Greek had become the most widely spoken variant since the Hellenistic period. Just as Classical Latin would be taught in schools as proper Latin rather than local Vulgar Latin dialects, even centuries after Classical Latin ceased be to the common spoken form. ("Koine" and "Vulgar" both meaning roughly the same thing.) Koine Greek is a late for of Ancient Greek that evolved out of Classical Attic Greek and eventually became the standard in Late Antiquity; likewise Justinian in the mid-6th century AD was the last Roman Emperor who was a native speaker of Latin. Only by the 7th century did "Classical" Græco-Roman influence fade for good, from 8th to 15th centuries distinct Medieval "Byzantine Greek" evolved, closer to Modern Greek. Have to draw a line somewhere; 'tis contradictory to say too long, too much info and then also say it's not detailed and specific enough.)

Inqvisitor (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And to Ichthyovenator, you seriously reverted my edit on the basis that the "nomenclature section is long enough as is", because of my 2 tiny footnotes in the corner? Whereas what I did was reduce the size of the section, clean up a whole bunch of the main text, as I explicitly said cleaning up and condensing the section was my longer-term goal since it is too long, there is so much redundancy and unwieldly parentheticals of different languages and confused formats (including misformatted language) in the main text (which you brought back with your unwarranted revert). Nothing was "unsourced", already addressed that but sheesh it's like some folks here have never read a Wikipedia article on a foreign language subject. I didn't add any new Greek text, that's not apparently in dispute, so IPA? My degrees are in the Classical languages, I know IPA...just who is an authoritative source to provide IPA pronunciations then, only a living native Ancient/Byzantine Greek speaker (who also must know IPA)? Or an academic literally has to publish a scholarly book or journal article transliterating one or two specific words into IPA in order to be "sourced" (in which case thousands of Wiki articles need to be purged of "unsourced" translations and transliterations)...whatever, done here, but hard to believe you were not joking that you reverted my cleaning up of that messy text and blamed the nomenclature section being too long on a tiny footnote into which I moved some of that text...a move to the nomenclature section which was only made to please Fut. Perf. in the first place...whatever, I don't get into stupid ego edit wars, I don't like stupid arguments, this is not worth all the time and effort I've already wasted trying to improve this article...

Inqvisitor (talk)

On the tangential topical matter raised vis-à-vis "question the inclusion of detailed discussion on the phonology of Byzantion"...Byzantion (Βῡζᾰ́ντῐον, Latin Bȳzantion, later Latinized to Bȳzantium) is Ancient Greek name for a settlement believed to have been founded by Illyrians c. 660 BC. It is named after its legendary mythical founder Byzas, (gen. Byzantos; Βῡ́ζᾱς, Βῡ́ζᾰντος), a name of Illyrian origin. Byzas is a figure in Greek mythology, son of Poseidon, his name declines as Greek 3rd declension noun. The word Βῡζᾰ́ντῐον is fully Greek in form simply adding to the genitive root Byzant- the suffix -ῐον (-ion) akin to Latin suffix adding -ium. There is no reason to believe "Byzantine" Romans disliked the old name of the city, the connection is not a modern invention, it was certainly the original name of the tiny old settlement over which great Constantinople was built, they just didn't typically use that old name for themselves, it was re-named Κωνστᾰντῑνούπολῐς (Kōnstantīnoúpolis) in AD 330, "Byzantine" Roman Cōnstantīnopolis lived on another 1,123 years beyond the old small settlement of Byzantion and remained Constantinople another 4 centuries even under Ottoman rule until renamed Istanbul after 1923. French people of Lyon don't regularly call their city by ancient Roman settlement name Lugdunum. English people from the town of York don't typically refer to themselves by the ancient Roman settlement name Eboracum American New Yorkers don't often call themselves New Amsterdamers. Russian people of Volgograd, known as Stalingrad 1925-1961, don't care much to use the old name of the city Tsaritsyn 1589-1925...except many many more centuries passed in the case of small ancient settlement of Byzántion becoming massive mighty Kōnstantīnoúpolis.

Inqvisitor (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how wanting there to be a wider consensus to your additions (as is custom in wikipedia, especially on a page like this one which gets hijacked very frequently) warrants a reply this rude and reeking of a sense of superiority. I never said the Romans disliked the old city name, just that they didn't care much about it (which is evident, most Byzantine sources portray the city's history as beginning with Constantine the Great). This article is already massive (pushing 200,000+ bytes, Wikipedia standards dictate that articles should really be ~100,000 at most) and adding in honestly superfluous phonological information is not helping the article's problems. As for your points about not needing sources, I personally can't speak Byzantine Greek, and as a reader I don't trust unsourced material. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work, not original research, what is the reference for these pronounciations? "Random Wikipedia editor" isn't satisfying in this case. "Oh but it's fine in other articles"; no I would say it's a problem there too. Just because an issue is present elsewhere doesn't mean we should make the same issue present here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Byzatine empire" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Byzatine empire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Some important leaders are left off the ‘notable emperors’ list

Why hello, earlier today I looked at the infobox for this article and saw a list of important emperors, and in my opinion a few very exeptional emperors were left out. For one Basil I, he was the founder of the Macodonian dynasty, and brought the ERE into a new golden age and his importance cant be overstated. Another to include would be Irene of Athens, she was also important being the one to first outlaw iconaclasm, plus she is argueably the only Empress regnant in Roman history which is rather impressive due to beliefs at the time. Finally, the last emperor to include on the list, would be Constantine IX. He was the emperor at the time of the east west schizm, and extraordinary important event which would send ripples through history for centuries, and not only that he actually rebuilt the Church of the Holy Sepulchre after its destructive by the Fatimids and his building is the one that still stands today, very impressive. I could name others, but these are the main ones for me. Overall I firmly believe that we should add a few emperors to the infobox’s list, thanks for reading. SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

About the proper page title

Academia use the name "Eastern Roman Empire" three times more often than the name "Byzantine Empire" in the titles of their serious publications. Anyone can easily verify this on any database. Please do check the page move history. It is embarrassing and a shame for us to have those disgusting and racism page-move history.

@Selfoe: please refer to the many discussion that have taken place on this talk page in regards to this. You can't go around moving pages out of the blue to satisfy your POV, especially without citing a single source. This page makes it abundantly clear that the Byzantines self-identified as Romans and that their empire was the same empire as the one founded by Augustus in 27 BC, just a later stage of it. "Byzantine Empire" continues to be the most commonly used term for it and is therefore what Wikipedia uses. "(Eastern) Roman Empire" looks incredible awkward. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: You don't go around claiming facts as someone's POV. Simply check the academic literature on any database for the usage of ERE and BE to see the fact yourself. ERE is the most common use not BE.

@Selfoe: You didn't provide any source when you moved the article (POV) and then thought it was appropriate to move an article of this magnitude before discussing it first???? Your argument isn't true BTW, a search on Google Scholar for instance gives "Eastern Roman" 20,100 hits and "Byzantine" 667,000 hits. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Requested move 3 August 2020

(Eastern) Roman Empire → Byzantine Empire – No discussion, no consensus for unilateral move. Elizium23 (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit this should have been discussed first; the consensus has always been that the page should be at "Byzantine Empire". It should be moved back immediately. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the reference and statistics for your consensus. Please also apologize to the whole community for your abusive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject and suggested that any admins reading summarily move it back and ban User:Selfoe. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Move back - I tried, but admin needed. Like this, the title breaks all rules. @Anthony Appleyard:. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs moving back, though the sentiment is admirable. At ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Byzantine_Empire_page_move GPinkerton (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What specific rules did the title "Eastern Roman" break? Did you seriously check modern academic literature? More than one million of articles and books mainly use "Eastern Roman Empire" to address the empire while only 0.3 million articles and books uses "Byzantine". To name a few：

Bury, John Bagnell. The Cambridge Medieval History: The Eastern Roman Empire (717-1453). Vol. 4. University Press, 1923.

Alcock, Susan E. "The reconfiguration of memory in the eastern Roman empire." Empires: perspectives from archaeology and history 122 (2001): 323-350.

Kalinowski, Angela V. Patterns of patronage, the politics and ideology of public building in the Eastern Roman Empire, 31 bce-600 ce. Diss. National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 1999.

Haldon, John. The empire that would not die: the paradox of eastern Roman survival, 640–740. Vol. 13. Harvard University Press, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The new version equals "Byzantine Empire" with "Imperium Romanum" is just making people laugh.

• Selfoe, do any sources actually use "(Eastern) Roman Empire"? I doubt it. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible Name Change

This has been debated too many times before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why hello, in my eduacated opinion I believe that this article should be renamed from the ‘Byzantine’ Empire to the Eastern Roman Empire for multiple reasons. For one by all extensive purposes they are Roman, after emperor Theodosius I died, he left it in his will that the Roman empire be bisected into two equal halfs for his sons. That being the west (which would quickly fall to barbarians) and the east, what we know as Byzantium. Both considered themselves Romans, and considered eachother Romans so is it that far of a stretch to call Byzantium the eastern Roman empire? Second of all, did the city of Rome even matter at that point? By the time of Theodosius, the actual city of Rome had diminished in importance to the point where it wasn’t even considered the captial, with that honor going to Constantinople, the capital of Eastern Rome. And even in the west Rome wasn’t even the administrational center with THAT honor going to Ravenna. Plus even if you say they don’t count as Roman because they didn’t own Rome, well they actually did own Rome for a while. After Justinian’s reconquest they held on to Rome for another 200 years until 753 with the formation of the papal sates. Overall I think that the Byzantines were rightfully Roman, and that we should dignify that with a simple name change of this article.SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi SirFlemeingtonz, please read all the previous discussions on this above. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Byzantine Empire" is simply the most common name to be used as the article title. ERE is also accurate and that's why it's included in the article. The Byzantine Empire wasn't "rightfully Roman", it was literally the Roman Empire, that's a simple fact, not something that needs to be argued and justified. The article explains this, and then goes onto explain why it's come to be conceptualized as a distinct entity by modern historians, and how "Byzantine Empire" wasn't a real name, but an unofficial term used by historians to refer to the half of the Roman Empire that didn't fall. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallery

@SirFlemeingtonz: Per WP:GALLERY, we don't generally include generic image galleries. Galleries are used only when images are needed to depict a specific topic better than words are possibly able to, and there isn't sufficient space in the article to include all of the necessary images without organizing them into a gallery. In other words, the Byzantine Empire article isn't an appropriate location for a generalized collection of Byzantine-associated images. Images depicting art go into the most relevant article about art, images depicting architecture go into the most relevant article about architecture, images depicting technology go into the most relevant article about technology. We don't just dump them all into the parent article. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As usual, the reference to WP:GALLERY is badly misleading. Most articles on similar topics actually do have galleries of one sort or another. This uncaptioned one was not a very good gallery selection, but the objection should be to that, not the principle of having galleries - probably best as mini-galleries at intervals. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You must not have even read my comment. I didn't "reference" WP:GALLERY, I explained what it says. Nor did I state some "principle" that we are not to use galleries. I simply said galleries need to be used in accordance with WP:GALLERY. You're straightforwardly wrong, most articles on historical states do not have generalized image galleries, as this contravenes GALLERY rather straightforwardly. Art and architecture are obviously candidates for a gallery, though they should be placed in relevant sections of the relevant articles. Examples of this: Architecture does not include a generalized gallery of different types of architectures. It has some small galleries separated into specific sections. More specialized articles include larger, more specific galleries. Baroque contains numerous galleries showing different styles. Brutalist architecture uses a gallery to illustrate its style. Roman Empire doesn't have a generic image dump of "Roman" images, but Roman sculpture and Roman mosaic contain galleries. This isn't a "principle", it's the simple guidance on how galleries are used. If there's like one thing we're not supposed to use galleries for, it's generic image dumps. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please just read what WP:GALLERY ACTUALLY SAYS! Try Ottoman Empire, Seljuk Empire ..... Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only am I now convinced that you're not reading my words, but I'm now confused as to what point you're actually trying to convey. Ottoman Empire doesn't even have a generalized image gallery. Seljuk Empire does, in apparent contravention of WP:GALLERY. I'm not sure what you're arguing, because it doesn't appear that you're making any argument against anything I'm saying. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I must say, the extreme aggression and edit warring is a bit strange, Johnbod. I am simply trying to explain a policy to a new user in good faith in my capacity as an administrator. You're making aggressive accusations that I'm misrepresenting the policy, even though your arguments don't disagree with anything I'm saying, nor have you cited any part of the relevant policy that disagrees with my interpretation. I have invited you numerous times to continue this on my talk page, but you're more focused on aggressively deleting my comments. Again, if you want to discuss the specifics of WP:GALLERY, please drop by my talk page. I really don't understand what this "dispute" is about, I just feel like you're irrationally attacking me and I'm genuinely confused. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm the agressive one - glad that's clear. You call me a drunkard, then reinforce it by describing that as an "honest question" then try to retreat under the smokescreen of a wholly bogus "admin action". If this is continued anywhere else it will be at ANI. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page, you're more than welcome to reply there, or not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I apologize for inconveniencing you. SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Totally wrong information

Preceded by Roman Empire. Byzantine empire is exonym, Roman empire was officially. West and East never been separate states just was a administrate divisions of the same state like Tetrarchy. --2A02:587:440F:41B4:A00F:D2DE:CB66:2573 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Roman is Roman, 'byzantine' ought to be banned from wikipedia articles as untruth

I have an interest in the Roman Empire, from Augustus to Constantine XI, I find it very hard to tolerate even looking at articles I want to read when they are absolutely infested with the nonsense word 'byzantine'. No one in the Roman Empire ever called themselves that and even in 1912, when Lemnos was liberated from Turk occupation by the Hellenic Navy, the islanders were still calling themselves Roman. I have heard that the few native people of Constantinople still call themselves Roman in the present day. So I would like to see the 'byzantine' word banned from general use in articles as an untrue term. Obviously still have the article explaining the word. I think history people in general nowadays consider it to be a rubbish word that is incorrect, and get the impression that it is perpetuated by the fact of people just getting into this history being told it is 'byzantine', when they have not yet learned more about the situation. Middle More Rider (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been debated to death; please read the archives. On Wikipedia, we do what the reliable literature does. The historical literature calls this thing the Byzantine Empire, for better or worse, so that's what we do. End of story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, history is full of "rubbish words" that historians keep using because they are universally understood, and there are no alternatives without major issues. Try Celts for example. We follow WP:RS, not try to lead them. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to campaign for better, instead of accepting the worse, then end of story.

There is no issue in truth, correctness and accuracy, if something 'is', it 'is'. Middle More Rider (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't "campaign" for anything on Wikipedia. We follow what our sources do. That's the policy of this place. If you don't like it, go find some other website to write on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your hostility will not benefit Wikipedia. Also, I can refer those people who do care about this, to some Twitterstreams, those of 'Purpura' and '365 Constantinople Days' that show it is easy to constantly refer to the Roman Empire by the correct name, in all aspects of its history all year around, without ever calling it something it isn't Middle More Rider (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously correct that the inhabitants of the empire in question referred to themselves as Romans and to their empire as the Roman Empire. You are also correct in that this empire shared unbroken continuity in virtually every single aspect with the Roman Empire before it. All of these things are explained very well in the article. They are even explained in the very first paragraph: "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages" and ""Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire".

However, as explained before, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources do. The contents of the encyclopedia are not necessarily "truth" (what is objective truth?), but represent the current academic/popular consensus (if one exists) in regards to specific topics. The current consensus in regards to the name of the empire that was centered on Constantinople from the 4th to the 15th century is to refer to it as the Byzantine Empire, and thus Wikipedia follows suit. The Byzantines are not the only case of this happening; for instance, the Ancient Egyptians called their country Kemet, not "Egypt" (which is an exonym). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless OP is planning on writing this article for the Latin wikipedia this comment should be dismissed. Exonyms are pretty commonplace in Encyclopedias Alexandre8 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How is the decision made what the consensus and current academic thinking is? I see both arguments just curious what would be needed Elias (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There are several ways this can be determined. When I've suggested changing things like article titles, I've usually pointed to Google Ngram (which shows how often phrases occur in books over a certain timespan) and the number of hits in recent years on Google Scholar. You can also look at other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, and what terms they use. I'm sure there are other methods as well, but in this case all of them demonstrate that "Byzantine" remains widely used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that we should forgo reliable sources in favor of two Twitter accounts, one of which literally has the handle "@365Byzantine"? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As I did not say forgo reliable sources, no I am not. I said that it is an example, it is possible to continuously write about the Roman Empire without calling it something else. You picked out one word which is part of the web address, not the title of '365 Constantinople Days' and not the content of that twitterstream, why?????? Middle More Rider (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I completly agree. Byzantine empire never existed, unfourtanley that's what is called mostly today. JoãoMolina99 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC) blocked sock Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - "that's what is called mostly today", and that's why we use it. Can we stop this pointless discussion? Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

FA review needed

This important FA was last reviewed in 2012, and some issues have crept in since then.

• The article has grown from 13,000 words in 2015 to now over 15,000. That's a good chunk of prose that has not been vetted in a content review process, and the size raises the issue of WP:SIZE and appropriate use of summary style.
• The top of the article is cluttered with infobox, navigational template, and images.
• The article is cluttered with too many images, and complicated by MOS:SANDWICHing.
• There is uncited text throughout.
• There is considerable WP:OVERLINKing and a sea of blue.
• See MOS:BADITALICS on proper nouns in non-English languages.
• Portals could be added to a portal bar at the bottom.
• There are considerable HarvRef errors.
• There are incomplete citations, eg, "Byzantine Empire". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2002.; Markham, "The Battle of Manzikert". and Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," p. 560.
• There is an inconsistent citation style
• There is overuse of however

These tools may be helpful:

• Dashes
• Dup link checker
• Dates
• Resolving HarvRef errors

Hopefully these issues can be tackled so that a WP:FAR is not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)