Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Differentiation between "Ancient Rome" and Byzantine

@Eliasbizannes:, @Johnbod:, @Cplakidas:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, there's been some reverting over the last week on this. As far as I can see this is the long-standing pre-December 2022 version, which seems fine to me. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The original references for this statement are showing here but I gave not validated them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_Empire&oldid=993966126#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMillar20062,_15James20105Freeman1999431,_435%E2%80%9337,_459%E2%80%9362BaynesMoss1948xxOstrogorsky196927Kaldellis20072%E2%80%933KazhdanConstable198212Norwich1998383-4

I suggest two changes:

• "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" --> change this with reference to language only drop the word culture
• "characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity" replace it with a link to this page:Christianity as the Roman state religion and reference only to general Christianity that Theodosius I make official not the denominations created after

Elias (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think either is an improvement. Eastern Orthodoxy is very distinctive of the B. Empire; it should be highlighted. (Christianity as the Roman state religion isn't distinctive - it also covers the western empire in the later period.) The distinctinction of Greek/Latin is clearly broader than language. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Up until 478, yes the western Empire was the Roman/Byzantine Empire so there is nothing wrong with that which is why Christianity as the Roman state religion is appropriate still.

To say Eastern Orthodoxy is what distinguishes the Byzantine Empire it implies:

• a denomination in it's last 400 years defines its 1123 years which is not representative
• it gives the perception that the Roman Catholic Church was the original Roman Empire Christianity which is not true

To say Greek/Latin culture versus language is what distinguishes

• it implies the Byzantine empire was not the Roman Empire which is not true
• it suggests Byzantine culture is more similar to Greek culture than Roman culture which is not true.

This is all in the article but let me give you my 10,000 foot view. Up until the 8th century, it was the Roman Empire and Nicene Christianity. After that it was called Empire of the Greeks as Latin was no longer used and so that Charlemagne could distinguish his empire. The schism of 1054 made official the differences that has brewed over the centuries and when Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy officially began as separate denominations. Empire of the Greeks was replaced with the term Byzantine due to world power politics with Russia in the 19th century, the Crimean War and Greece's Megali Idea (Kaldellis). So these words matter. My suggestion keeps it general (language and general church that all denominations originate from) which is line with the sources. Elias (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there's some underlying but irrelevant baggage to your edit. You have a lot of concerns about what is "implied" that you're trying to refute by your edit, but which isn't implied at all. There's no implication that Roman catholicism "came first". RCism isn't even mentioned. Rome and Orthodoxy were divergent long before the final schism so the "unrepresentativeness" is irrelevant. The later Western empire which had "Christianity as the Roman state religion" most definitely is not considerd "Byzantine" by WP:RS. The worst one is "it implies the Byzantine empire was not the Roman Empire which is not true". Please. Let's not shoehorn clumsy wording in just to WP:RGW. Let's not drag this into "it's really the Roman empire" malarkey. The existing wording is accurate, to the point, and WP:NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I believe it would be more fruitful if you referenced the sources behind the original statement you reverted to rather than Wikipedia policies. Also, mentioning Eastern Orthodoxy rather than Nicene Christianity is the WP:NPOV issue. Saying Byzantine is Byzantine because it adopted "Greek" culture (as opposed to influencing it) is the WP:RS issue. Elias (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the page reference of the sources that were linked to a previous revision to the statement we are talking about.

To recap, the statement written was the following: Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

The references to the above statement with my notes below.

Millar, Fergus (2006). A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24703-1.

• P2: there were twin empires and the east was Greek — in culture and language.
• P15: it was the fulfilment of 1000 years of Greek culture, representing the heritage of Greek culture and extending it. It was not just Greek-speaking, but the Greek-speaking world.

James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0.

• P5 “...Changing yet continuous institutions, beliefs, value-systems, culture” “But from the start, there were two major differences between the Roman and Byzantine empires: Byzantium was, for much of its life, a Greek-speaking empire, orientated towards Greek, not Latin culture; and it was a Christian empire”

Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement – The Foundation of the Western World. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-88515-2.

• pp. 431: “Scholars disagree as to when they should call this new entity the Byzantine empire. Some prefer a date as early as 330, the year of the city's dedication, others prefer to wait until the Arab invasions of the seventh century, others again take the council of Chalcedon, 451, as the starting date”
• 435–37: Greek culture considered itself superior, male dominated, highly competitive, dependent on slaves, and a belief in heroic values. The competition creating developing culture of debate and sophisticated language which contrasted significantly with Republican Rome's Latin,
• 438: [This is added by me because it flowed from the previous page] Greek language introduced grammar, rhetoric, philisophy and Greek rules of thought into Latin which is a step of primary importance to the history of the west
• 459–62: timeline of events of Greece under the Roman Empire from 29AD until the aftermath of the Arab wars run the 640s

Baynes, Norman Hepburn; Moss, Henry St. Lawrence Beaufort, eds. (1948). Byzantium: An Introduction to East Roman Civilization. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

• P xx "Roman tradition in law and government, the Hellenistic tradition in language, literature, and philosophy, and a Christian tradition which had already beeb, refashioned on a Greek model"

Ostrogorsky, George (1969). History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-1198-6.

• P 27 The integration of Hellenistic culture and Christian religion within the Roman imperial framework is what gives rise to the Byzantine Empire. The first physical expression necessitated by the crisis of the third century was the recognition of Christianity as Roman religion and the new capital on the Bosporous. This marks the the beginning of the Byzantine period

Kaldellis, Anthony (2007). Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87688-9.

• pp. 2–3; The basic definition of the West — shaped by Greek literature and philosophy, Roman law and systems of governance, and Christianity — is what Byzantium was and Western civilisation. It was a composite culture of Roman energy and power, Greek knowledge of their study of nature, and the Hebrew’s uncovering of God.

Kazhdan, Alexander Petrovich; Constable, Giles (1982). People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-88402-103-2.

• P12: Byzantium was the only medieval state that retained Greek science and literature, Roman law and administration, and Christian faith.

Elias (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on my review of the sources and in line with my original request, I suggest the following statement:

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, saw the displacement of Latin with an expansion of Greek language and culture, and in its adoption of Christianity over paganism. Elias (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's grammatically inconsistent ("... as it was …, saw …, and in its …"). Otherwise I don't see much difference to what we had, other than that it's slightly more wordy and cumbersome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I was trying to account for nuance but happy to go back to just got back to my original suggestions:

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin, and characterised by Christianity .

The two (very) big differences with this version:

• It's "Christianity:, as per the sources. And link is to when it was adopted in the Roman Empire. There are arguments we can link to Nicene Christianity or Chalcedonian Christianity
• Groups language and culture as one and this sweeps under the carpet the complexity of those ideas

Elias (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This strikes me as the right way to go and flows naturally from the quotations above (although I like "Greek language and culture rather than Latin"). I think it is important to remember that the sentence is a generalisation, contrasting "ancient Rome" as a whole from the "Byzantine empire" as a whole. Furius (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion and well put.

Rewritten: "Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek language and culture rather than Latin, and characterised by Christianity " Elias (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's probably good to give people a day or two to comment, but as far as I'm concerned this is clear, accurate, and well-supported by the sources. Furius (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

With one exception, the existing wording does the same thing but more succinctly. The difference is a reference to Christianity rather than Orthodoxy. "Ancient Rome" links to this article which says that it estends to "... to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD". From the end of the 4th century the Nicene Church was the state religion of the Western Empire. The proposed wording therefore doesn't make sense. The best option is to leave the existing wording alone. DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The earlier wording was "Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from its earlier incarnation because it was centered on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity." This is vague about what is meant by "earlier incarnation", uses "Eastern Orthodox Christianity", which is problematic for periods before 1054 (i.e. most of Byzantine history), and missed the opportunity to link to Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire. Ostrogorsky, above, specifically emphasises Christianity as a central part of the Rome vs Byzantine distinction. Furius (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree to preserve the sentence in its original state, it is concise and appropriate towards the goal in mind emphasizing the subject enough, perhaps adding the link of Hellenization in the Byzantine empire already suggested, in the word "Greek" for further research if necessary. Pablo1355 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we are going in circles. Let me recap the issues so we can narrow the debate and make some incremental progress in the interim.

1. There is consensus to keep the statement where possible
2. There is disagreement that "characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is appropriate because it does not align with the sources; it references a denomination that only came to being in 1054 but on the flip side it does not distinguish itself from the "Western Roman Empire" which was also Christian
3. So far, the consensus if for the addition of Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire for the words relating to Greek
4. There has been no comment on the proposed link Romanization (cultural) for the Latin word
5. There is a disagreement of whether to keep "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" because the sources reference both language and Culture as distinct things and it implies the Byzantine Empire adopted Hellenic/Greek culture rather than influencing it.

Here's my reasoning. I believe emphasising Greek culture and not language is like mentioning the cart but not the horse. The concept of Greek culture that is different from Roman culture, especially for the Byzantine period, is incredibly complex not the least because they were Roman's themselves until competing politicians and later historians rebranded them. Up until the end of the Western Roman Empire all Roman and Byzantine subjects followed Chalcedonian Christianity and did so until the East–West Schism 600 years later, a thing introduced by "Byzantine" emperors. But it's the idea that the Western Roman Empire was a distinct empire unaffiliated with the Byzantine Empire, which when it comes down to it, is a WP:RS issue. Elias (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a new proposal:

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from Ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, evolved with a Greek character, and was a Christian state for the entirety of its existence.

Elias (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm keen to resolve this issue so will wait one more day for feedback before making an edit. Elias (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems acceptable to me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to rewrite it, not only because of the strange wording but because of the ambiguous intention of a subject correctly and precisely explained in sufficient understandable parameters. Pablo1355 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pablo1355 We could rewrite it in the active voice which will help with the strange wording. I was trying to minimise changes to the text to only what matters but also accept there are better ways of communicating it. But it appears before we can agree on that, you are claiming "ambiguous intention".

What is that? Do you have issue that I want to say what the sources explicitly say?

What is correct and precise about calling the Byzantine Empire a Christian denomination that contrasts from western Europe that did not officially form until 724 years after its creation (by western historians)?

How does "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" sufficiently explain to the reader that Hellenistic language and culture, which shaped Ancient Rome from the beginning with Magna Graecia, was a complex cultural co-evolution with Latin culture? (Also refer to source notes I wrote above "Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement – The Foundation of the Western World." about how Greek shaped Latin) Elias (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone already pointed out erlier in this thread, my point still stands, you argue for changing sufficiently explained characteristics within a comfortable reading, fulfilling all the necessary parameters given "misunderstandings" that are somehow not explained to the reader in depth according to you, your new proposal to rewrite it is low noted concerns which frankly aren't there to begin with, you also argue for clarifying the collective influence of Greek culture within the empire that certainly was not limited to a vague linguistic influence that could be and was contrasted with the Latinistic culture of Europe, either by the different established Christians dogmas and the language barrier or by the wide range of differences that implies being within two totally different cultural spheres (Greek east and Latin west, literature, philosophy, architecture, folklore ect) Pablo1355 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it a "low noted concern" for you that Wikipedia editors are injecting bias in their edits that are not representative of the very sources they reference?

I went to the trouble of writing everything I did to have people understand the implicit bias that exists but this seems to not be something you see. So let's please focus this on the words themselves.

• "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" --> the sources that are referenced to this statement combined ((and as an aside: one should be flagged for WP:PARAPHRASE) all make a clear differentiation on language and not just culture so I've argued we need to say Greek language as well. Apparently saying Greek language and culture is too wordy so I've gone down a rabbit hole to avoid that.
• "characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity": none of the sources say Eastern Orthodox Christianity and only Christianity. Yet the ~80 years that historians have their invented narrative of a "Western Roman Empire" is preventing us from simply saying "Christianity" which is why I've gone down another copy editing rabbit hole.

Can you suggest better? Elias (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Biases again?

I am not the only one in this thread that points out the ambiguity and strange nature of your purpose, you argue that there are biases involved in the editions of various editors but as you can recognize, nobody identifies them, on the other hand I also think that you do not take into account the multiple atrophies and problems writing the text that few of us approve given the strange nature of the purpose to be achieved, even less if you argue that said series of editions are given to eliminate the aforementioned bias of Western historians that you solemnly identified in a well-written text. Pablo1355 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not well written. Things I've already said are that it's in the passive voice, it does not reflect what the sources that it was originally referenced to say, it gives a distorted view of the facts, and it violates copyright per the the close paraphrasing guideline.

The entire naming of the Byzantine Empire is bias. I'm fine with that but if you don't understand that maybe you need to do some more reading. To further distinguish it as Eastern Orthodox and adopting Greek culture further distorts what Anthony Kaldellis had called definitionally a Western empire. To say it was Christian and progressively saw the preference for Greek language over Latin and an integration of Hellenistic culture into the Roman imperial framework, is not only more accurate and plays less to the bias, but it says exactly what the sources say.

Your energy is better spent on responding to what I'm saying with better copy. Do you think you can do that? Elias (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only do you ignore the interference of several users in your problematic and frankly unnecessary series of edits, but you insist on using your idiosyncrasy inspired by the theories and hypotheses of a well-known Byzantinist pioneer. I think you can accept what is feasible and at hand and acknowledge that your argument for changing a good textual composition has no solid support other than removing supposed "bias" involved that could lead to "misinformation" for the reader. There is a strong intent underlying this series of edits to position Byzantium as a exact copy of Rome influenced by the Greek language alone, vaguely elaborated, denying and completely ignoring the original scholarly and universal purpose for the academic use of the "Byzantine" terminology for the studies of the Eastern Roman Empire in the process.

In a way there are more biases involved in this new series of edits with fervent conviction that certain fractions of the text are wrong and purely biased. That is the difficulty involved in the series of changes proposed in problems that few identified not worthy of compromising. Pablo1355 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement you are defending is as follows:

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

In James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0.

• P5 “...Changing yet continuous institutions, beliefs, value-systems, culture” “But from the start, there were two major differences between the Roman and Byzantine empires: Byzantium was, for much of its life, a Greek-speaking empire, orientated towards Greek, not Latin culture; and it was a Christian empire”
• The text is in violation of WP:PARAPHRASE and needs to be removed in the absence of an improvement.

Further, the consensus of all referenced sources to this statement, which can be clearly seen wit Liz James, it that it differentiates Greek language and culture and it only references Christianity and not any denomination. This is an WP:VERIFY. WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NPOV issue.

For the above reasons, this text needs to be modified. So if you would be so willing to offer a proposal of what they are they are welcome, otherwise there is nothing more to discuss. Elias (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Again I am not the first to point out the strangeness and irrelevance of your editions.The hypocrisy in between speaks for itself, erlier, you asked for sources to be used and not wikipedia policies, in the same way I reaffirm that the existing wording is precise on point and I would advise you to stop pushing a very out of place edition lacking any useful purpose. Pablo1355 (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't find "evolved with a Greek character" an improvement on "oriented towards Greek language and culture rather than Latin." The former is, I think, too vague - who knows what "a Greek character" is? Furius (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

My original suggestion was drop the world culture and sweep the complexity of the concepts with just saying: "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin" but apparently this was too broad.

I then suggested "saw the displacement of Latin with an expansion of Greek language and culture" but this was too wordy.

I then suggested: "oriented towards Greek language and culture rather than Latin" but apparently the original wording is still better "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" which for many reaasons, I disagree.

...and now "evolved with a Greek character" is too vague which is fine I can accept that.

What else can be said? The sources clearly say Greek/Hellenistic language and culture I don't know why this has to be so difficult. Elias (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. You've been very patient and your proposals have been consistently grounded in the sources. Essentially, I think that your proposal on the 21st (!) was great, clearly grounded in the sources, and I haven't found any objections to it cogent. That version was: "Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek language and culture rather than Latin, and characterised by Christianity" It is similar to the existing wording, but clearer ("ancient Rome" rather than "earlier incarnation") and more precise (including language [which *is* important] as well as culture, referring to Christianity rather than Eastern orthodoxy). Furius (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you. My only modification is to link Constantinople to New Rome as it gives the reader useful context on the change. Elias (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Constantinople (the New Rome)" or "Constantinople"? Fine either way, really. Furius (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I like that even better. So to restate:

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople (the New Rome), oriented towards Greek language and culture rather than Latin, and characterised by Christianity".

My only remaining feedback is this could be WP:CLOP as the source this is similar to is a 2010 book. The presentation of facts is not copyright, but the way it is ordered and the words expressed is. "oriented towards Greek language and culture rather than Latin, and characterised by Christianity" would need a different expression and order, the rest is fine. But maybe an expert in this area like @Diannaa can give an opinion. Elias (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The suggested edit as stated on my user talk page is too much like the source. I would go with a simpler version such as "Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, the Byzantine empire used the Greek language and favored the Eastern Orthodox version of Christianity." — Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems to return several problematic points. Couldn't we just quote the source? Furius (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Diannaa, that's a good perspective. Furius agreed. Works well if it was only that one source, but I view Diannaa's suggestion not just a good copy edit but also illustrative to avoid copyright issues.

We could quote it but then we lose all the other sources, which also means dropping the reference to Constantinople. I think that itself is important as all the sources not only discuss it but it's what inspired the name Byzantine.

None of sources says Eastern Orthodox so unless someone suggests one, it should not to be included. Elias (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I started a new thread with a rethink. Let me know if this works cc @Furius Elias (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Up until the end of the Western Roman Empire all Roman and Byzantine subjects followed Chalcedonian Christianity" No they did not. The Roman Empire still had plenty of religious minorities, and in Byzantine Egypt the majority of the population were adherents of Non-Chalcedonian Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. My mistake for generalising all the empire's subjects with state policy. That said, we are now in detail that detracts from the point of this discussion: Christianity, per the sources, is one of the main differentiators from Ancient Rome. Nicene, not Eastern Orthodox, is also a more accurate claim that carries from 330 AD. How it's worded where we can differentiate it from the collapse/abandonment of the western provinces historians call the Western Roman Empire I've tried with "and was a Christian state for the entirety of its existence." I'd appreciate if discussion focused on this particular text. Elias (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

With the exceptions of Julian (a former Christian in his own right) and possibly Eugenius (a Christian with pro-pagan policies), every one of Constantine the Great's successors was Christian, and typically enforcing pro-Christian policies of some kind. Whatever the causes of the Christianization of the Roman Empire were, Christians established their political dominance in the 4th century. I doubt that any description of Late antiquity can avoid mentioning the religious changes in this era. Dimadick (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. What difference exists between Constantine's successors and the Western Roman Empire that allows us to differentiate the Christian transformation that distinguishes Byzantium? Elias (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not referring to only Eastern successors. The Western Roman Empire was also Christianized. In 382, Gratian "rescinded the rights of pagan priests". A minority of the "traditionally pagan aristocracy of Rome" were unable to prevent imperial efforts at further Christianization. Dimadick (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Is is true to say between 382 and until 478, Christianity was the only religion practiced in the Western Roman Empire? Or did elements of paganism persist despite Gratian's and Theodosius's efforts? (I'm would like to determine if there is anything to differentiate the belief systems between the Western Roman Empire with the Eastern Roman Empire) Elias (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The only religion? Probably not. The article on the Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire notes that "pagans and sympathisers" survived well into the 5th century. In the 6th century, Pope Gregory I made an effort to appropriate the sacred caverns, grottoes, crags and glens of the pagans, in hopes of Christianizing the pagans of his own era. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to read about the increased tolerance for the pagans in the Western provinces of the Roman Empire. Or rather the change of individual rights, from the time of the Edict of Milan to the Theodosian Code to the time of the Law Codes of Justinian, the increased intolerance.

But while this is is interesting, it does go back to the debate of when the Byzantine Empire started: when Constantine created New Rome in Byzantium, when Theodosius mandated Christianity, or after Justinian made Christianity enforced all the way but when we also saw the last of the expansion of the Roman Empire (and where historians' shifting goal posts brand everything that was in decline, decadent or negative of the Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire.)

Regardless, I don't think there is any solid references there for us to distinguish the Western Roman Empire from the Eastern Roman Empire. My latest proposal for the replacement text drops the reference to Ancient Rome and hence the Western Roman Empire so we can avoid this comparison. Thank you anyway. Elias (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

In light of all the discussions, most recently the copyright issue of the original text, here's my latest suggestion with my notes

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire[1] due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople[2], the use of Greek over Latin[3], and its integration of Christianity[4].

[1] We should contrast to the Roman Empire, not Ancient Rome, as that's more relevant. We should also include this to put this sentence in the active voice.

[2] The link to the New Rome page gives the reader context and we should lead with this reason as it's where Byzantium the name came from

[3] Greek language and culture are equally important, though language I think ranks first. The sources talk of both separately but at the same time as well. This is a complex topic -- Ancient Rome used Greek alongside Latin, Greek influenced Latin significantly -- that it's better to just link to the page that explains how Greek language grew. Linking to the page about Latinisation also helps illustrate the concept that with language comes a different culture.

[4] The sources all make a point of how Christianity is one of the main things that makes the Byzantine Empire different. By phrasing it as "its integration" it acknowledges the approach that we come to eventually call Eastern Orthodox but which in those days was still embryonic and undifferentiated from Western Christianity

Further, given how much discussion has occurred on this sentence, I believe we need to include all the sources that appeared with the original text:

• Millar 2006, pp. 2, 15; James 2010, p. 5; Freeman 1999, pp. 431, 435–37, 459–62; Baynes & Moss 1948, p. xx; Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 27; Kaldellis 2007, pp. 2–3; Kazhdan & Constable 1982, p. 12; Norwich 1998, p. 383.

Elias (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No one has responded that they accept this latest proposal which accounts for every issue discussed so far. I'll wait until two other people but close it off after one week (Tuesday February 7th UTC) to count support to determine consensus or consider new revisions before taking action on the article. Elias (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't see this before because of the way the talk page appears on a mobile. I think this works. Furius (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Furius. Unless there are any other comments, I'm closing this discussion and making the edit as proposed once the clock strikes midnight 7 Feb UTC. Elias (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) The reference to Christianity is incorrect as it is an insuffient distinguisher from tha late westyern empire (b) you can't impose a 7 day deadline (c) stop edit warring. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) Can you propose a better version that aligns with the sources?

(b) Sure. What can I do then to a get productive discussion for a edit?

(c) Likewise. It would be more helpful if we could discuss how to improve the text in line with the sources rather than just stating an opinion. How can that happen? Elias (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What I propose is keeping the wording that's been in the article since (basically) 2012. As I said when I opened this thread, I don't see a problem with it. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine if you want to advocate for that but I'd appreciate discussing the issues I've raised before saying there is no problem because I believe there is.

Starting with a pretty significant one: where in the sources does it says "Eastern Orthodox" and not "Christianity" where in my review above is the only thing they said?

Second, if you don't think there is a WP:CLOP issue then that's also fine but you have not acknowledged that.

Third, why can't we add "Greek" to represent language and culture or "Greek language" itself which was from the 2011 original edit *and* mentioned specifically in the sources? Elias (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You may not see any problems. I see two.

(1) "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is problematic because for 700 of the Byzantine Empire's 1100-year history Eastern Orthodoxy didn't exist as a separate church, so the Byzantine Empire wasn't "characterised" by it... (as opposed to the fact that Western Rome was Christian for 150 / 500) That's a problem with the current sentence.

(2) "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" is potentially close paraphrasing and should be rephrased. That's a problem with the current sentence. Both issues might be accepted in a regular article, but are unacceptable in a featured article and need to be fixed. Otherwise, either version strikes me as fine (it's a pity if language goes unmentioned, but it's in the infobox, so I'm not particularly fussed).

I don't really think it is fair to drop out of a discussion for two weeks (Fut.Perf. last responded here on 20 January, DeCausa on 22 January), even if it is a pedantic discussion, and then claim that changes coming out of that discussion don't reflect consensus. Elias has consistently grounded his comments in close engagement with the reliable sources and has been responsive to criticism throughout. But if we really are at deadlock, then I guess it is time for a RFC. Furius (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Those points were brought up and addressed previously. There's only so many times that responses can be repeated. I think that gives you the answer why I haven't posted since 22 January. This thread is a pretty unreadable, impenetrable (you said pedantic) wall of text that few would want to contribute to. Maybe an RfC is an idea. DeCausa (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they have been. The response to point (1) was that Western Rome was Christian from 330-476 so it is incorrect to imply that Ancient Rome wasn't "characterised by Christianity". I agree that that's potentially an issue, but that doesn't make it ok to say that Eastern Rome was characterised by a denomination that didn't exist for most of its history. Oh! And below (proving your point about how convoluted this discussion has become) "on how Orthodoxy was a key distinctive feature of the Byzantine empire and a distinguisher from "the West"" - but Byzantium vs the Medieval West is a different contrast from Byzantium vs Ancient Rome - and the sentence claims to be telling readers about the latter. The response to point (2) has been that the rest of the sentence is probably different enough and I take that point on the whole. But "orientated towards Greek, not Latin culture" is nearly word-for-word the same, which isn't ok. Furius (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A Request for Comment is a great idea. Here is my summary of the issues:

1. WP:CLOP with one source. James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0. P.5. The text "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture" is a direct copy as well as the placement of that sentence followed by religion being the issue.

2. Reflecting what sources say which is Christianity is a main differentiator. Removing the reference to Eastern Orthodox Christianity which is not in the sources or factual for the majority of the regimes existence.

3. Reflecting what sources say which is Hellenistic language and culture became dominant over the former Latin and Latinisation. Careful attention to how it is written as it has implications on other topics. For example, lead with language which is more specific over culture or use broader terms.

4. Draw a contrast to the earlier Roman Empire versus Ancient Rome (which includes the Western Roman Empire under current historiography) and is more relevant as the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire not ever the Roman Republic and Byzantine is invented term to differentiate from the Roman Empire.

5. Add back all the original sources that were attached to this statement so people can see for themselves (which is what I did and what is driving this discussion).

Finally, an edit that tries to incorporate the above. I'm open to other text as long as the above is addressed. To assist, below are the first time this sentence appeared in its current form, the third the current version and the fourth my latest proposal.

Version first made in 21 June 2011:

Byzantium, however, was distinct from ancient Rome, in that it was predominantly Greek-speaking and was influenced by Greek, as opposed to Latin, culture.

Version from 8 September 2011 by Future Perfect at Sunrise

It is today distinguished from ancient Rome proper insofar as it was characterised by Christian rather than pagan culture, and predominantly Greek rather than Latin-speaking.

Current text:

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians prefer to differentiate the Byzantine Empire from Ancient Rome as it was centered on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Proposed text:

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, the use of Greek over Latin, and its integration of Christianity. Elias (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I insisted in multiple ocassions that the original format should be maintained, because, as you mentioned it before, it doesn't break or alters in a critic matter what the information wants to tell; it results that they are formulating consensus ignoring an important mayority of users involved in this matter that does not see necessary said ambiguous editions.

I hope that you can moderate the situation since I left notice of it Pablo1355 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa for bringing this to talk. I'm also fine with the "pre-December" version you linked to, although I would find it natural, in a sentence that explains why X is distinguished from Y, and what distinctive features A, B and C were characteristic of X, to also add which alternatives each of A, B and C contrasts with: i.e. just as we say "Constantinople as opposed to Rome" and "Greek as opposed to Latin culture", it would be natural to say "Christianity as opposed to whatever". What I was opposed to during the latest rounds of reverts was the attempt to add "Roman Catholicism" to this "whatever". Not because it would be wrong per se, but because it would be irrelevant to the specific purpose of the sentence, which is to explain the period contrast between "Byzantium" and "Ancient Rome" – not the geographical contrast between East and West. The distinction between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is relevant to the perceived contrast between the Byzantine East and Western Europe during the Middle Ages, but it's not relevant to why people put a temporal cut-off point between Ancient Rome and Byzantium. – I am neutral about whether we should describe the characteristically Byzantine feature in this comparison as simply "Christianity" or as "Eastern Orthodoxy". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say. It would be natural to have a religious comparison with "Ancient Rome" if Orthodoxy or Christianity is mentioned. the problem with the latter is it's not distinctive from the later stages of the western empire. I'm against making Greco-Roman paganism (as one edit included) for the "ancient Rome" side of the comparison for the same reason. I think it makes most sense to include Orthodoxy but to avoid the issue (!) by not offering a comparison as the long-standing text has. I think it's worth remembering the context of the passage. It's not, I think, necessarily about what actually changed at that time to "justify" a cut-off between Rome and Byzantium. It's "modern historians prefer to differentiate the Byzantine Empire from Ancient Rome [because]..." That's subtly different I think. Certainly Byzantine historiography has a great deal on how Orthodoxy was a key distinctive feature of the Byzantine empire and a distinguisher from "the West". For that reason, I think there's an element of retrofit going on - it's Orthodoxy plus "what led to" Orthodoxy. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, but isn't the principle reason why the name shifts from Roman to Byzantine the fact that Rome was conquered and occupied by Ostrogoths and the center of all remaining Roman power shifted entirely to Byzantium. It's like how the Phoenicians that founded Carthage just became the Carthaginians after Phoenicia was conquered by the Babylonians, for want of another example. When the symbolic center around which an empire's name revolves is destroyed, historians tend to embrace a new nomenclature. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The center of the power had shifted earlier. The change manifested as the Crisis of the 3rd century. Diocletian's and even more Constantine's rule solidified the birth of basically a new state, which we may or may not call the "Byzantine" "Empire". 89.24.101.226 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Diocletian, like many emperors, avoided Rome because citizens there did not respect him (he did I recall one visit in his reign). The empire collapsed and he (and Constantine, and less talked about Auerelian before them) remade into what effectively was a new state for its survival: a professionalised army, a professional bureaucracy, and yes a new (permanent) capital and a new religion (that was the same for "east" and "west"). Where the emperor was no longer a Princeps, or first citizen like Augustus, but a lord that was inaccessible. Which is why we call it the Dominate period.

...But why we call it Byzantine has more to to do with 8th century politics with Charlemagne and that was later blown up into the Great Game. Its been documented in Greek texts but only recently in English that the term Byzantine itself was invented by Laonikos Chalkokondyles as a way to reframe this portion of Roman history into a neo-Hellenic identity and that influenced Hieronymus Wolf. Elias (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Charlemagne emancipated the Frankish empire. Now he was "on a par" with the Constantinopolitan state. He wanted the legacy of Rome too. So he couldn't continue to refer to the Constantinopolitan state as the Roman Empire. Now there were 2 Roman Empires, and for us (the Frankish civilization) the other one became illegitimate of course. I guess. 89.24.101.226 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You aren't guessing, that's exactly right. It's one of the most significant yet also misunderstood geopolitical events in Europe's history.

To understand how this links all the way to the Crimean war and the adoption of Byzantine in history books check Kaldellis, Anthony (2022). "From "Empire of the Greeks" to "Byzantium"". In Ransohoff, Jake; Aschenbrenner, Nathanael (eds.). The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. 349–367. ISBN 9780884024842 Elias (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There are several accepted historical consensuses ignored to come up with such a conclusion, Byzantium could be characterized as a notoriously different entity from its Roman predecessor from the 6th century onwards given the important social changes, Christianity being the most relevant of these acquiring characteristics and interpretations native to the eastern Roman provinces, something that could be and is widely called "Byzantine" with good reason, thus sowing a doctrinal and philosophical difference with the West, it is entirely compatible to assume that a more direct Greek cultural link would not made them any less Roman. Pablo1355 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You are coming to the heart of the issue: that Greek culture and Byzantine are philosophically different from the “west”. We don’t need to inject this bias.

The Byzantine Empire if we had to define it starts when Constantine moves the capital of the unified empire. But the yard stick keeps moving for a variety of inappropriate reasons: to when the “western empire” was (re)created, to when Christianity became official, to when Justinian last expanded the realm again like traditional Rome, to when Latin fell out of favour, to when Heraclius lost Egypt and more to the Arab’s, to when the pope ordained a new emperor for the first time, to when Orthodoxy became distinct from Catholicism... Elias (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is again digressing far too much into an exchange of personal opinions and editors' favorite theories about history. Can we please set those aside and concentrate on a simple editorial decision about the wording of a sentence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried that. I asked we use a more universal "Christianity" not "Eastern Christianity", nor make any mention like the previous related edits of Roman Catholicism which we already agree on.

I also proposed we don't say the Byzantine Empire adopted Greek culture, but that it influenced Greek culture instead. So avoid this by using the fact that Greek as primary language, versus the dual use with Latin, is what distinguishes it from Ancient Rome.

All well documented in sources and WP:NPOV. But editors who disagree with me seem to have a different understanding of the history which is why I am dissecting this to reveal the implicit bias. Elias (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm calling time of death on this repetitive, meandering, verbosity-laden, tangential thread. As far as I can tell (and tbh the thread is such a mess it's difficult to tell anything) there are 3 editors that want to make a change and 3 (at least) that don't. Whatever the numbers, there's an obvious "no consensus" here. Having said that, they way that it has developed, no additional editors would particularly want to contribute it. I would suggest that any editor who wants to make a change arranges an RfC with a specific proposal. I would also suggest that WP:BLUDGEON is front of mind when contributing to such an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The gif should be slowed down, right?

The newly added gif is great but it's lightning fast- it's so fast that it basically doesn't even provide any information. Could we slow that down a tad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8700:DA00:A8A8:FC9A:74F5:FE6D (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I notice it was added by @NeimWiki Elias (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, slides last 70/100 of a second now, the thumbnail should update soon too, usually it takes wikipedia a bit to update them. NeimWiki (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@NeimWiki: I really like the gif, but I still think it's way too fast. I would suggest slowing it down to be similar to this gif. Additionally, I suggest adding a key so people know what all the various colors stand for. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree to be honest- the gif is still a tad fast. Any way it could be slowed down further? 2A02:8388:86C0:1700:BD61:FEFB:B022:CB3D (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC distinguishing Byzantium in first paragraph

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is weak consensus to change the wording of the lead paragraph to option B. However, editors are encouraged to discuss the targets and/or use of the wikilinks in the proposed wording. Additionally, editors should consider discussing improvements to the wording using B as a base case so that issues with it brought up in the discussion can be addressed.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the text in the first paragraph that currently says

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians prefer to differentiate the Byzantine Empire from Ancient Rome as it was centered on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity. be

(A) left as is, or

(B) replaced with Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, its integration of Christianity, and its use of Greek over Latin. 17:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• (B) My reasons are here. Read the Talk discussion to see how we got here. (In Talk, you will see a source review in the second indent "I've reviewed the page reference of the sources".) Elias (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• (B) Primarily due to the point about it being a generic Christianity-centric empire initially, with Eastern Orthodoxy specifically developing and becoming pre-eminent only with time. The other changes are generally more specific and precise. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• (A) Prefer the wording as simpler and more grammatically coherent; dislike the extra links (the one on "Roman Empire" is redundant and the one to "New Rome" is an easter-egg link). Slight preference for naming "Ancient Rome" rather than "Roman Empire" as the thing being contrasted with, since it's making it clearer we are talking about a period division, not a distinction between two states. As for the difference between referring to "Christianity" or "Eastern Orthodoxy", I'm honestly not too fussed about either – I see nothing wrong with calling the entirety of the religious tradition that was ultimately characteristic of Byzantium "Eastern Orthodox" retroactively, no matter if there was no formal schisma in the beginning, just as I would equally have no problem with calling the entirety of the religious tradition represented by the Bishops of Rome "Roman Catholicism" in an article about them, both before and after the schisma. Also prefer retaining the status quo on purely procedural grounds, as the wording of this sentence simply isn't worth the amount of fuss made over it by a single editor, an activity that includes this RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  (Update): Agree with the suggestion by User:Tomorrow and tomorrow below, of removing the "prefer to" from the status-quo wording. In fact, that bit was only added last month in a not-very-well-thought-out rewriting [1] that was later incompletely reverted. The long-standing version simply had "modern historians distinguish …" Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• (B) as stated earlier. Furius (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• (A) Composition is full and accurate as it is, there is no irrelevant additional information. Pablo1355 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• (B) I don't believe most historians "prefer", not as a blanket statement, that they do it willingly, more like because no-one will sort out the situation. The imposter Roman Empire was the Papal-Germanic empire, there should be a section on actual historical facts on what was the real Roman Empire and what wasn't - just provide the truth. Let people choose in their mind, don't deny the b-word has been used, but don't claim it is what the empire actually was. Also, I don't like the word "continue", it could imply the real Roman Empire ended and then someone formed a continuation. In real life it "still was". Middle More Rider I would like to see a Wikipedia rule that any article on the Roman Empire would allow one single use of the b-word for reference and then the correct term Roman Empire must be used for the rest of the article, unless refering to the town of Byzantium, pre-Constantinople (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• (A) per Future Perfect at Sunrise etc, with the important caveat that the article uses British English, so "centered" should be "centred"! Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• (A) But remove "prefer to" - (A) is more coherent and simply phrased. That said I think the use of 'prefer' implies that it's an intentional preference (in which case we ought to cite a source for this preference) whereas leaving it at "differentiate" more accurately reflects what it is, a which is just a widespread practice. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional (B), with (A) elements - the RfC was brought to my attention even though I am monitoring the article and watching the discussion on this talk page. I agree the original sentence Option (A) would use some improvements, but, IMO, Option (B) is not satisfactory enough and would use some further improvements for it to be considered worthy over (A). That is, to retain (A)'s more precise and encyclopedic wording regarding culture in the part where it writes: "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture". Because, when it comes to culture -not just language here- the Option B's "its use of Greek over Latin" feels a bit strange choice of wording; culture is not exactly a tool to "use", is something that characterizes the people. The Option A's term "orientation" is better here. I hope more improvements can be made to this, because this article is a highly-visited one, and would need something better than the two options the RfC does currently offer. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• (A) per Future Perfect at Sunrise, Jonbod et al. Also, I think "integration of Christianity" pipe-linked to Christianity as the Roman state religion unnecessarily opens a can of worms of confusion. That reference can apply to both the Western (pre-476) empire and the period immediately prior to what's generally called "Byzantine". It doesn't sufficiently distinguish "Roman" from "Byzantine", which is really what the passage is about. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• (B) is better, even if its language is less simple, as the B version gets rid of major mistakes. a) Getting rid of "traditions were maintained", as its inclusion unnecessary, because traditions change continually. b) Getting rid of "prefer to". c) The change of "ancient Rome" to "the earlier Roman Empire" - this is a good change, because the version with "ancient Rome" might lead readers to think that the ancient (i.e. classical) Rome directly evolved into the Byzantine Empire. But the Byzantine Empire is in fact instinctively used for the times after the loss of North Africa and Levant/Syria, when the empire was left only with Greek regions of Anatolia and European Greece, so approximately after 640 (which also nicely coincides with the perceived change of the empire's character, as the emperors became bearded again and Latin ceased to be used in the high administrative affairs. d) Getting rid of "Eastern Orthodox Christianity", because its a major factual error. "Christianity as the Roman state religion" is much better, even if I don't visually like the beginning bolded sentence "Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire" in that article. e) Getting rid of "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture". The "Latin culture" was no more when the Late Antiquity began some time in the 3rd century AD. The "Latin culture" is the culture of the classical antiquity Rome. There was no classical Latin culture as we usually understand it, in the Late Antiquity western Roman provinces. We need to start accepting the western Roman provinces in the Late Antiquity didn't have the classical culture any more. f) "the imperial seat moving to Constantinople" - I like "as it was centered on Constantinople" as it is more simple, but why not. There is already a link to Constantinople earlier in the article, so we probably can link to New Rome. g) Overall, the B version is much better, even if it has disadvantages. It would be an immediate improvement if we accepted the B version. 89.24.101.226 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please create an account so we can associate your commentary from a unique person (and not another Wikipedia user). Your contributions are appreciated. Elias (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Elias, while I understand IP comments can be hard to follow at times, I think we need to remember that IP editors are human too - there is no need for them to make an account if they choose not too, and their comments are valuable regardless. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• (B) has better flow and, I think, more accurate to not say "traditions" continued, since much of old Roman empire was wrapped in pagan worship. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• (B) Gets us closer to what the sources actually say MeteorPhoenix (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• It is clear to me that option (B) is better. The reference to the preservation of Roman "traditions" in (A) is superfluous and vague, while, as far as the bit about Constantinople is concerned, (B) is more precise in its expression and the link to "New Rome" is a welcome and useful addition to the introduction. However, what is definitely an improvement is the rewording of the part about Christianity. Most of those opting for A have declared to simply not care too much about it, but to present the first thousand years of the Christian Church as "Eastern Orthodox" is actually a major distortion of the historical past. Again, the inclusion of the link is very apt. I am wondering, however, about what others would think about somehow including a reference to "Orthodox Christianity" with the epithet linking to the Eastern Orthodox Church, as this was in a sense distinct for the better part of the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire. The same holds regarding the Greek vs Latin phrase, with (B) being preferable because of its focus on the undoubted fact of linguistic change in stead of the more tenuous claims about culture. The claim contained in (A) is much stronger than the one in (B) and I doubt it is universally accepted by Byzantinists -- it has been argued that Byzantine culture was Roman culture translated into Greek and that high culture in the Roman Empire was already Hellenised. What, it seems to me, differentiates the Principate from later periods of the history of the Roman state are (i) the continuation of the gradual restriction of the use of Latin in the higher levels of the administration, with its eventual total abandonment, and (ii) the shrining of the state in provinces that were mostly inhabited by Greek-speaking Romans. I am wondering whether (B) could be ameliorated in this respect to indicate that Greek was already in vogue both in the Roman administration of the eastern provinces during the Principate and in the high culture of the same period, but, even if no such amelioration is considered, option (B) is by far preferable. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding religion: Not sure I understand. Are you proposing that the phrase "its integration of Christianity" is better because it accounts for the first 1000 years not as a denomination, but the text is linked to Eastern Orthodox Church?

  Regarding language/culture: I agree. As you point out, Greek was heavily utilised and Hellenistic culture imparted strongly during the days of Republic but what changed was the abandonment of Latin as language in government. Refer to the discussion below I started, I tagged you on another revision that takes this into account. Elias (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

B. Eastern Orthodox is an anachronism for a large part of the existence of the empire, prefer seems unnecessary and would have to be referenced, I also agree with the IP editor's comment regarding the earlier Roman Empire being preferable to Ancient Rome. Alaexis_¿question? 20:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• A per Future Perfect and for grammatical reasons. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Srnec What are the grammatical reasons? I'm aware of the issue with A which uses the passive voice, what are the issues with B? Elias (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The antecedent of "its" is unclear. What is "it"? The empire or the imperial seat. Srnec (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. So if "its" was replaced with "the" this would address your specific concern? Elias (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

As editors give their considerate survey responses, I want to share some perspective to help us uncover consensus. I'm structuring this off Wikipedia policies.

• WP:COPYVIO. The sentence component which says ..."oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity" is WP:CLOP. One of the sources that was always attributed to the sentence is a recent book (James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0. P.5) "...orientated towards Greek, not Latin culture; and it was a Christian empire”. Copyright violations require the text to be rewritten or deleted. Facts are not copyright but creative expression is, so the fact about religion needs to be presented in a different order in addition to replacing the "oriented towards" phrasing.
• WP:V. No source that was originally attributed to this sentence says "Eastern Orthodox Christianity". They all say "Christianity". While it is true the Byzantine Empire is where Eastern Orthodox Christianity originates from, it's not what any of the sources say about what distinguishes it.
• WP:NPOV Contrasting the Byzantine Empire to Ancient Rome which, according to the opinion currently adopted by Wikipedia, includes the Western Roman Empire . This means a period which also overlaps with what some historians consider the Byzantine Empire. I considered different views and think a new landmark book coming out this year "The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium" by Anthony Kaldellis as note worthy. He marks the imperial era of Byzantium starting when Constantine refounded the city Byzantium as New Rome. As both the Western Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are invented terms by historians, there will always be a debate on this. For our purposes, we need to contrast it to what distinguishes the Byzantine Empire. "Earlier Roman Empire" is the best compromise I could come up with.

Elias (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

As of March 3, we have had 15 editors comment with 9 B's, 1 conditional B, and 5 A's. Reading the commentary, I think I made this more complicated than it needed to be as we are interweaving text, facts, and links so I feel consensus is hard to determine. In an effort to uncover consensus this is my attempt to dissect to focus it on the remaining issues:

1. "Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire". I believe there is consensus to have the first part written as presented.

2. Comparison made "from Ancient Rome" vs "earlier Roman Empire". Two valid points were made by Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise: the link to Roman Empire is redundant as it appears earlier in the article, and making this a contrast between periods is my intention as well. 89.24.101.226 interprets that (B)'s "earlier Roman Empire" does this as it disassociates with "Ancient Rome" which from a periodisation point of view, is correct. So while Fut.Perf claims a slight preference for "Ancient Rome", I believe we are all aligned on the point. It can be said "earlier Roman Empire" is consensus due to WP:NPOV

3. "centered on Constantinople" vs "imperial seat moving to Constantinople". A is simpler, B is more precise. Differing opinions on whether we link to New Rome. Not sure how to interpret the consensus on this.

4. "oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity" vs "its integration of Christianity, and its use of Greek over Latin". A is WP:CLOP and cannot remain and needs to be reordered in the sentence.

(a) B's "its integration of Christianity" is WP:V and consistently pointed out by people who voted B. As there has been discussion generally that the text could be written better, we could strip it down to just the fact mentioned in sources (ie, "Christian") and not have it linked (to the event that made this happen) if editors think this is better.

(b) The text about Greek and Latin, points have been raised about this and more discussion is needed on this to determine consensus and my view now is we need something else. My revised proposal is to say "saw the ascendancy of Greek over Latin".

Elias (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

On "oriented towards", it feels wrong anyway, not something really terrible, but like they chose to go with another version of Christianity, when really it is a 'just was', situation, the eastern region had that religion. I don't get why historians, with all the facts, can't comprehend that there was one Roman Empire, with varying territory over time, the last part of Italy lost in 1071 and other land in the 1100s, and that some emperors in the western area were appointed from Constantinople, for example.

Middle More Rider (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Reflecting on the responses so far, here is a new version of text (assuming there is consensus on the facts being corrected): Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire as it was centred on Constantinople, Christian, and saw the ascendancy of Greek over Latin. Elias (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119 What do you think of this version? The question of language (and culture) is complicated for the reasons you stated, which is why I phrased it as "saw the ascendancy of Greek over Latin." Elias (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Eliasbizannes: First of all, don't change your posts after others have responded to them as you ahve done here. Secondly, you begun this RfC and are a participant. It's not for you to determine consensus as you appear to be doing in this sub-thread. Consensus should be determined by an uninvolved closer. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies. Yes, let's get an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. Do we do that now or wait a bit longer? My personal view is there needs to be more discussion on words around Greek and Latin to create the best version (as both options are correctly called out as not adequate) but otherwise it's ready for someone to determine consensus. Elias (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:RFCCLOSE for that. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll rephrase. Do we need to extend discussion to assist in identifying consensus before the bot automatically closes this? We've had 16 editors, with 6 supporting A, 10 supporting B and with the most recent less than 24 hours ago. Elias (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography for references

• Millar, Fergus (2006). A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24703-1.
• James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0.
• Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement – The Foundation of the Western World. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-88515-2.
• Ostrogorsky, George (1969). History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
• Baynes, Norman Hepburn; Moss, Henry St. Lawrence Beaufort, eds. (1948). Byzantium: An Introduction to East Roman Civilization. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
• Kaldellis, Anthony (2007). Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87688-9.
• Kazhdan, Alexander Petrovich; Constable, Giles (1982). People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-88402-103-2.
• Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium. Ringwood, Vic.: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-025960-5.

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.

Building on the RfC

The RfC has concluded whereby the main issues of the sentence can to be corrected but stylistic expression and links need more discussion. Stronger consensus is desired before making the edit and this is structured to achieve this.

Using Option B as the base per the closer Ixtal's recommendation, here it is for reference: Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, its integration of Christianity, and its use of Greek over Latin.

Revised proposal:

(A) Text

1. replace "due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople" back to the original but with the active voice "as it centred on Constantinople" which makes it flows better
2. replace "its integration of Christianity" with the words "became Christian" as less words and clearer
3. replace "and its use of Greek over Latin" with "saw the ascendancy of Hellenism" as it captures the transition with more accurate terminology, with a nod to both culture and language and less implied judgement of a definitive state change

(B) Links

1. Link "centred on Constantinople" with a link to New Rome as its informative to the reader of why and when there was a change
2. Link "Christian" with Christianity as the Roman state religion as its informative to the reader of why and when there was a change
3. Link "Hellenism" to Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire as it's informative to the reader about the complex cultural and linguistic transformation that have historians regard it a "different" empire

The revision from B as proposed would be as follows

"Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire as it centred on Constantinople, became Christian, and saw the ascendancy of Hellenism."

To help us uncover consensus quicker, please respond with yes/no in reference to the point and limit discussions to just that point ie

• A.3) yes for "saw the ascendancy of Hellenism" or I think it would be better to say "witnessed the dominance of Hellenism" or the terms Greek and Latin would be more appropriate etc
• B.1) Don't have a strong opinion here but if it came down to it, no link

Elias (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The earlier, "Classical" Roman Empire was also Christian for a long period. This fails to distinguish the Eastern Roman Empire from the Western Roman Empire, as the Western Roman Empire was also Christian. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. So to restate your concern, you do not agree to my suggested change for A.2 and prefer to stick to the option decided by the RfC of "its integration of Christianity". In the absence of any other proposed wording, I interpret your feedback as such unless you write otherwise. Elias (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I like neither A.2 nor B.2 Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding as asked. Do you have a suggestion on something better? Otherwise your response assumes the default which is to move forward with the RfC's "its integration of Christianity". Elias (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• to A.3: "Hellenism" is a very opaque term, "saw the ascendancy of" is uselessly pretentious. This idea should definitely be explained in simple terms using the words "Greek", "Latin", "language" and "culture", whichever way you want to combine them.

to B.1: don't use easter-egg links. "Constantinople" has of course been linked to previously, so no link is needed at all here.

to B.3: Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire is a very poorly written article, so not useful here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

A.3: My issue with the word "Greek" is that it only started getting used during the Greek Enlightenment by Adamantios Korais and it has modern connotations, in English, with the modern state of Greece that resulted. Whereas with Hellenic it references Ancient language and religion which came before the Byzantine Empire, and during the Byzantine era represented pagan culture over the more recent Christian which is why it's more accurate to include here.

"...saw the ascendancy" yes I can see your point there. What I am trying to capture is Greek and Latin where both spoken in Ancient Rome and the early Roman Empire; and Hellenistic culture and religion heavily influenced. But sometime between 330-800AD, Latin was dropped and Hellenistic culture and religion metamosphised into a different beast that came to differentiate the Byzantine Empire.

The RfC "its use of Greek over Latin" achieves this so if we don't find consensus we have that as backup but I'm all ears to how we can express this better.

B.1: Noted. That said, the decision to move to Byzantium which is what that page is is different from the page of Constantinople. This sentence is explaining the why and that link shows the fundamental change that changed the Roman Empire forever. But to your point, the page to Constantinople is already linked and talks about this history

B.3: Yes, I agree it's poorly written. But as a page, perfectly captures what we want from a link here. If we get it linked, it might create some focus to improve it. So my retort it, is this target link fundamentally flawed as an article or just needs to be improved? If the former, then we should drop it; if the latter, we should include it. Elias (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your issue with the word "Greek" is that it only started getting used during the Greek Enlightenment by Adamantios Korais? You lost me there. Adamantios Korais influenced the use of words in English? What word exactly only came into use during the Greek Enlightenment, in what language? (I suppose you're thinking of the word ελληνικά, in Greek, referring to the modern language – if so, this is doubly irrelevant to what we're dealing with here.) In English, "Greek" is and has always been the only commonly used term for all forms and stages of the language, and all forms and stages of the associated culture. "Hellenic" is never more than a learned affectation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hellene, which are what pagan "Greeks" were lumped into, influenced Christianity. And it's why I think it's relevant. The period before the Romans which influenced them is called in English the Hellenistic period, not Greek period. Greek has been simplified to be one language over the millennia as opposed to Latin and the Romance languages, but culture is different.

Happy to leave A3 with the ambiguous "and its use of Greek over Latin" but we need a link to explain the point it was language and culture, and by culture, ancient Hellenistic ideas that shaped what we now call Byzantine which can be either Hellenization#Eastern Roman Empire or Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire and also perhaps contrast it to Romanization (cultural). Or a better way to express this idea as this is difficult to concisely state. Elias (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"integration of Christianity" is good as is. The empire didn't "become" Christian, it was that from the start.

I think a link to hellenization in the Byzantine empire is a good idea. The fact that it's not a good article at the moment means that it needs to be improved, not quarantined. Furius (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. That's good perspective on both A.2 and B.3. Elias (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the feedback so far, we have

A1 No comment on either option as better so will depend now on flow.

A2 A rejection of the new proposal by several editors so the RfC "its integration of Christianity" remains

A3 A rejection for the new proposal by one editor, so the RfC's "and its use of Greek over Latin" remains

B1. One editor, a rejection, as it's an easter egg link.

B2. A clear rejection for the link by one editor, no one in support

B3. One editor rejecting Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire but another saying a link to hellenization is a good idea, with my alternative suggestion Hellenization#Eastern_Roman_Empire?

Will still appreciate people to comment. Below is a revised proposal which takes into account previous discussions but closer to the RfC version:

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, in how it integrated Christianity, and in its use of Greek over Latin. Elias (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's grammatical to use "in how" "and in" here. Furius (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I was trying to address @Srnec's feedback during the RFC that "The antecedent of 'its' is unclear. What is 'it'? The empire or the imperial seat."

Can you please propose a version based off the RfC that is grammatically stronger? Elias (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I just ran the text into Grammarly which said it was fine and into ChatGPT which gave the response: "Yes, the sentence is grammatically correct. It is a complex sentence with a dependent clause and an independent clause. The dependent clause is "Although the Roman state continued," and the independent clause is "modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, its integration of Christianity, and its use of Greek over Latin." Elias (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence produced by the bot is grammatically correct. If "its" is felt to be unclear (I'm not sure it is), one could write "the empire's" instead. Furius (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So taking on feedback of a confusing antecedent, not linking to a relevant but poorly written article, and dropping all other links and changes, this is what we have:

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and its use of Greek over Latin.

Does this have support? Elias (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I should like to first note my thanks to Elias for his handling of the matter and his efforts to navigate us other encyclopedia contributors through the RfC. I will try to put my thoughts in words in accordance with the structure indicated in the beginning of this section.

As far as (A1) is concerned I will repeat that I find a reference to the move of the imperial seat more suitable compared to the phrase about the empire being "centred on Constantinople", as the latter is quite vague, but I think that including a link to the article on "New Rome" is useful. The move of the capital from Rome to another city presupposed and practically came to confirm a shift in the meaning of Romanitas, in the relationship of the empire's centre with the provinces and the dissemination of the adoption of Roman identity in the East and was a conception that found expression in other cities being called "Rome" (for all this see the remarks and sources mentioned in Kaldellis, "From Rome to New Rome: From Empire to Nation-State", 399). I think the words "imperial seat moving" could be wiki-linked to the article on "New Rome" without it being what has being described above an "easter egg link".

It is for a similar reason that a wikilink to the article on "Christianity as the Roman state religion should be included in the phrase about "the Empire's integration of Christianity" (which I agree is preferable to the other option), as it points the reader towards the process and by which this change occurred. Somedboy objected to it, but didn't even bother to explain the reason.

When it comes to (B3) I am strongly opposed to linking to the article on "Hellenization". There was no "Hellenization" of the Byzantine Empire. The article itself is misconceived. First, the Roman East had already been linguisticaly and culturally Hellenized by the time the Romans first arrived there as a conquering force. Second, the article's introductory sentence claims to discuss "the spread and intensification of ancient Greek culture, religion and language in the Byzantine Empire". Language, culture and religion and three distinct entities. It is only with regards to the first of the three that the Byzantine Empire can be indisputably said to have been "Hellenized". The inheritance of ancient Greek civilization and, of course, religion were elements of Byzantine/East Roman culture at tension with Christianity and Romanness. Besides, I think that it is to language that the phrase "the use of Greek over Latin" points to. This phrase can be taken to denote either the frequency of use of Greek/Romaic in east Roman society or its displacing Latin as a "super-high language" (NB: Greek, as testified by payrological evidence from Egypt, had already been used an official language of the Roman administration in the East since at least the imperial period -- see Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin language, pp. 547-9, 600-608). I would suggest formulating the phrase as "the predominance of Greek in lieu of Latin", which can be taken to refer to both notions, with the words "Greek" and "Latin" pointing the readers to the articles to the articles on the two languages, "Medieval Greek" and "Latin" respectively. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I was waiting for a response from you in the original RfC on how best to draft this but better late than never so thank you as this is a complex issue. My intention with "its use of Greek over Latin" is to reflect what the sources, or at least the ones associated with this sentence, which is "Greek language and culture". But you make a great point: Greek culture, Greek religion and Greek language already existed in the provinces so what changed was the increased usage (to the point of domination) of Greek language in government and high society, with Greek religion and culture morphing into the Roman religion we now call Christianity (which is separately stated in the sentence). We need to be careful to not say the Byzantine Empire "adopted Greek culture" (as opposed to what it did, which is shaped it) as this reflects a particular bias on this historiographical topic. As such, I accept your feedback that the link to Hellenization is not appropriate.

Your comment on the link to New Rome: only one other editor commented, and although it's a knowledgeable Wikipedia admin, I appreciate your perspective as a PhD in History and agree it's important.

Your comment on the the link to Christianity as the Roman state religion: one other editor with no reasoning, so compared to your feedback, yours is stronger so I accept this as more persuasive.

Incorporating your feedback would be as follows

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek in lieu of Latin. Elias (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes, you have done a good job of incorporating everyone's further thoughts. However, I do wonder if, as a final tweak, it might be worth inserting "from Rome" in front of "to Constantinople" ... for the sake of absolute clarity and unacquainted readers. And should it be "to Byzantium" (or "to Byzantium (later Constantinople)"/"to Constantinople (then Byzantium)")? The pre-existing name of the city is of course fairly central to the Roman -> Byzantine transition in historian lingo, and is more precise as the name at the actual time of the move. The city was not renamed to 'Constantinople' at the time of the move (Constantine was not so arrogant); that name is only attested from the 400s. The actual naming gets murky. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are some good points you made. Building on the version by Ashmedai 119 (which I forgot to link New Rome and I now see a style issue), let me try to accommodate your request to it, and see if this works.

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin. Elias (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I prefer it, but as a further comment I would question whether the New Rome is a useful article to link to. The idea that Byzantium was renamed 'New Rome' is actually a very dubious supposition, and the linked article is not well sourced or verified. There are holes a mile-wide in the evidence for such a name. As an alternative, it might be better to link 'later Constantinople' to the page Names of Istanbul, which outlines the history and usage of each name for the city in better detail, and, perhaps more pertinently, with better sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your link to the mile-wide holes is restricted but thank you for pointing that out. As you are now also against this link, have provided an expanded explanation, and provided an alternative this is persuasive enough. Further, I believe the addition of "Rome to Byzantium" and the link to Names of Istanbul creates a more powerful statement for the reader and makes a link to New Rome redundant.

I will now restate the latest iteration and we'll see what others think:

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin. Elias (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The double naming of "Byzantium (later Constantinople)" is quite unnecessary and detracting from the substance of this statement. Even if you want to go by the (pedantic) argument that it wasn't Constantinople just yet at the time of the moving, that difficulty can quite easily be circumvented if you refer not to the moment of "moving" the capital, but about the capital "being" at Constantinople later. What matters for this statement is not what happened at the precise moment of the move, but what was the case throughout the period we call "Byzantine". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It can be circumvented, yes, but the city name of "Byzantium" is central to the whole nomenclature here, more so than any of the other distinctions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says "...when its capital city was Constantinople" so there is no need to mention Constantinople or that it was the capital through the period again. That said, less words is always better. Perhaps where we say from Rome to Byzantium, we link Byzantium to Names of Istanbul?

Restated:

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium, the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin. Elias (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense - no need to duplicate. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to @Furius @Ashmedai 119 @Iskandar323 @Fut.Perf. ☼ for your commentary revising the text and links. Thank you PrecariousWorlds Laurel Lodged for your feedback as well.

For those that wish to provide more feedback that is welcome, but my request is you explain why you think so and with what is a better alternative.

Below is the latest revision which takes into account all the discussions and balances people's views as best I could.

Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium, the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin.

Do we have consensus on this revision of the RfC baseline?

Further, I reached out to one of the historians from the sources that will be added to this statement to confirm if this is appropriately expressed (Anthony Kaldellis). His response was "In a narrow, technical sense — that is, reflecting what historians have traditionally done as a matter of fact — this statement may count as correct. However, the statement makes no commitment as to whether this practice is correct / proper or whether this practice is about to change...to what alternative, however, remains to be seen. I personally don’t agree with the grounds on which Byzantium is distinguished from the earlier Roman empire, so I don’t agree with the practice. But the statement, as a description of this practice, is not wrong."

I would like to propose, separately, a note is added to the text "modern historians" that references what this historian has said in regards to this proposed text." Elias (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Furius (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Same thoughts. Your thoroughness and collaborative attitude in all this is commendable. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Very much opposed to the extra "[note]". Such notes containing content-related disclaimers are almost never a good idea. Either a disclaimer is important for the reader to understand the article, then it should be in the main text, or it shouldn't be anywhere at all. Besides, without a an actual published statement in a reliable source, such a disclaimer would remain OR. This is POV editorializing of the worst sort. Also, I have very little patience with the idea of yet another month-long, multi-round process of tinkering with your proposed wording just to get your poor grammar and writing to an acceptable level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the note can't really be added without a source, interesting though the input is. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm calling this a consensus to make the edit. (I'll wait a few more days as I may be wrong.)

No note noted. Yes, this belongs in the body. As this is a published author and a leading practitioner, exploring this is essential for this article's integrity. Elias (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No, of course it does not belong in the body. What's difficult to understand about "OR" and "POV editorializing of the worst sort"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this, does not I agree. A published (and accessible) historian who is referenced all over Wikipedia who gave feedback is only POV or OR if we used his email to me in the article. Not, the worst, but bad yes.

Taking my word for what he is saying for perspective and finding published sources that discuss the disagreement occurring with academics with -- wait for it, your favourite -- Roman and Byzantine historiography in an article page which is a historiographic invention is not OR or POV. Elias (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Flag in infobox again

I've read Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_14#Banner_instead_of_Coin?, and there doesn't appear to be any kind of consensus to include the flag in the infobox. It was only briefly used for the very last stage of the Byzantine Empire and it's not clear that it was that frequently used in its time to begin with. It's popularity seems to be derived from its often anachronistic use as an icon represent the empire in video games and the like, when during most of the Byzantine Empire flags weren't really a thing. I think it might be worth calling an RfC because the symbols/flag in the infobox just seem to change semi-frequently depending on the whims of various drive-by editors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. No need to call an RfC just yet. Biz (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Succeeded by the Ottomans?

The succeeded panel in the info box, seems generally wrong in claiming Byzantium was succeeded by the Ottomans, were there any other successors to Byzantine? 165.234.101.97 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(I don’t know a single person with either Greek of Turkish ideology who claims the Ottoman Empire was the successor to Byzantium.) 165.234.101.97 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

or* 165.234.101.97 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A single person? How about Mehmed the Conqueror, who was pretty quick to take on the title Kayser-i Rûm. Or the editors who've worked on Ottoman claim to Roman succession. But in any event, the infobox just refers to the succession in territorial terms which is the standard way its presented in former state infoboxes. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but when large empires are succeeded by multiple successor states in different parts of their former territories, the infoboxes tend to reflect that diversity. It's not like a game where only taking the capital counts. The Umayyad Caliphate was the much more immediate successor in all of the Byzantine empire's eastern and southern provinces; the Ostrogoths in Italy. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes are hopeless when they try to cover anything with the slightest complexity. I wouldn't object to taking out that parameter in this infobox. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be better without; it adds little except confusion, and it will not be readily improved in a way that does not generate yet more confusion. The Byzantine empire also expanded and contracted several time, so the sequencing of surrounding states with it is frankly a mess. Also the Roman Empire being before it is obvious/there's an ongoing ideological battle over whether it is still the Roman Empire, so the infobox has: the Roman Empire, preceded by the Roman Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll happily agree with having the fields removed from the box. Although, for the record, I think the present state with just a single predecessor and single successor worked okay, and has probably been better than any other way of filling them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Serbianman123 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Flag:

•  Not done, it's been discussed frequently on this talkpage; we're not going to use that flag in the infobox, assuming that's what you're suggesting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

19th century mention in lead

In January 2006, the lead made mention that the term Byzantine was introduced in the 19th century. It was mistakenly removed made a reference in August 2008 and then evolved out sometime later. The nomenclature section clearly establishes the origin of the term which I've just spent some time validating. Given this is the English Wikipedia and the debate that exists around the term Byzantine is growing, I think it would be appropriate that this is mentioned in the lead.

It could look something like this:

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, is the term used since the 19th century for the continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. Biz (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, how often are you going to blindly try to stick that use-mention mismatch back in? No, the Byzantine Empire is still not a "term". Apart from that, the sentence is also patently false, because the term was not used only since the 19th century, but (at least) since the 16th. And most of all, it is grossly undue weight to stick this entire pet ideological obsession of yourself and a small clique of Wikipedia editors, of distancing the article from this name, into the lead section, let alone the very lead sentence. The lead should be about the actual historical facts about the empire, not about some ideological quibbles over its modern name.

And now, most importantly: please, please, please do not start again monopolizing this talk page with a month-long obsessive campaign of tinkering with your wording, presenting us with dozens and dozens of new "proposals" of how to stick this or something similar into the article for weeks after weeks after weeks. Just don't do it. Just, please please please, give us all a freaking rest for a change, and simply shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Walk away from the DeadHorse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know; it does seem like there's a bit too much terminology for MOS:FIRST. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No need to get your knickers in a knot. It used to be in the lead; it's discussed in the article -- and I simply proposed what it would look like to be productive. However, you've now made clear with your emotive response that you believe it's a standalone empire and not a period of Roman history, despite claiming otherwise. Like Laonikos Chalkokondyles, you're smoking the same thing that the radical Platonist philosopher Pletho handed out. This article not mentioning the word historiography like it used to, is a remarkable position. I've seen how this article has changed in 19 years, I can wait another 19. Biz (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit of a technicality. While the English term "Byzantine Empire" may only have been used since the 19th century, the Greek term Byzantion - tantamount to the same thing - was used in the middle ages in reference to the empire [2]. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. I've validated and updated the nomenclature which accounts for all this. It wasn't until the 19th century that the term was broadly adopted in western sources, before that it was inconsistent. Biz (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Per Fut. Perf. this article is not, and could not be, about a "term". See WP:REFERS. DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate use-mention in the lead being an stylistic issue. But the branding of history is something different as that impacts narratives. Is the article for Byzantium comparable to Principate and Dominate? Or Roman Empire? It's intended, broadly speaking as an academic field, to be like the former, and its become the later. When use-mention is used to create a new reality, that's no longer a stylistic issue.

(Yes yes, Wikipedia follows the sources and it's not on us to decide.) Biz (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The comparison with "Principate"/"Dominate" vs "Roman Empire" is indeed instructive, but not in the way you think. Linguistically, "Byzantine Empire" just happens not to behave like "Principate". "Principate" and "Dominate" are clearly designations for time periods – i.e. you could say "X happened during the Principate". But you would be unlikely to use these terms when referring to the state as a geographical territory, i.e. you wouldn't say "X was a city located in the Principate", or "X invaded the Principate", or "X travelled from India to the Principate". In all these cases, you would use "Roman Empire" instead, that being the name of the state in question. And here's the crucial difference – with the Byzantine Empire, people can and do say things like "X was in the Byzantine Empire", or "X invaded the Byzantine Empire", or "X travelled to the Byzantine Empire". In this sense, "Byzantine Empire" is really linguistically more on the same level with "Roman Empire" than with "Principate" etc. This is not a matter of whether it "really was" like that, or whether you or I would like it that way; it's not even a matter of whether some academic authors think it should be that way – it's simply a matter of how the English language has chosen to handle things. We write in the English language, so we follow what the English language does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Principate", "Dominate" and "Roman Empire" are all somewhat anachronistic terms that are used in scholarship for periodising an entity that was referred to mainly as "Rome" at all times, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this comparison. Furius (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. The point I'm making is "Byzantine Empire" as a topic of history is akin to the Rome (the state) in the middle ages, like how the terms principate and dominate reflect a time period of Rome, or at least what it should be. But it's a term that's developed a life of it's own -- like a twin of the Roman Empire (but when it declined and got weird) -- and language has a lot to do with it

Which is why I believe use-mention is inappropriately used on topics of history. It's not just me: the analytical tradition has been critiqued for ahistoricism. Names without context shape new narratives. Case in point: refer to Delogu and Kaldellis in Nomenclature.

We are seeing a generational shift in scholarship and new research has been coming out which will create a revision. So in other words, we think it's "Rome" but that's because we are part of this new wave. Biz (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you're talking about when you say "use-mention". Sounds like you never understood what that concept is all about – whatever you think it means, it's not that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. Let me try and you can elucidate.

The Byzantine Empire is the term used by historians since the 19th century to describe the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

That, as I understand it, is use-mention because the thing is the Byzantine Empire and it doesn't need to be explained where it came from. Instead, you would say: The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages

Whereas what I'm saying is the use of the term is bias and without flagging when it started getting used as a convention the reader believes the Byzantine Empire is something that existed, linked to the Roman Empire but different, and changes the narrative of history. Hence, inappropriate. Biz (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

But almost all of the concepts in that sentence are terms used by convention that never really existed. If claiming that one of them really existed is biased, then surely so is claiming the rest did. Why shouldn't it be: The Byzantine Empire is the term used by people who are termed historians since the century that is termed the 19th to describe what has been termed the Roman Empire in the periods that are termed Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages?

Furius (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Funny. But there can only be one subject in a sentence. And the title of the article is the subject being defined.

Labels that represent other concepts like late antiquity for a time period are hyperlinked and can be explained there. Questioning every noun that is not the subject is not practical. They can be questioned, just not on this article. But at issue is creating a proper noun to replace an existing noun. Framing that a name has always been the same is how words are used to manipulate for new meaning. And in this case, embedding bias from the 8th, 15th, and 19th centuries which was used to change narratives to take/keep power (for legitimcy, land, people etc they were competing over) serves no purpose today to continue the lie except for the appropriately slow-moving evolution in convention. Biz (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Just stop this tedious tedious nonsense. Historians call this thing the Byzantine Empire. That's the term we use like the vast majority of mainsteam English language historians. There's nothing shocking biased or surprising about it. Just as there's nothing shocking biased or surprising that it evolved out of the late Roman Empire. Just stop. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense? Majority of historians, sure. Let’s explore that.

There have only ever been two single author historians that have written a narrative on the 330-1453 Constantinople-centred Roman imperial administration at an academic level that this article purports to reflect. That is to say, graduate level narratives that take into account the latest research.

The first was ~85 years ago by the Russian-Yugoslav George Ostrogorsky, the second ~25 years ago by British-American Warren Treadgold. A third is coming out this year by Greek-American Anthony Kaldellis. Other than the subtitle of the book, he has said this new history never uses the terms Byzantium or Byzantine.

So I’m clear, I’m not asking we drop the thing Byzantine. Just merely state it’s a 19th century convention — research that’s in the article already — as to why we use it so that the reader has the opportunity to ask why and this article has credibility given the changes happening.Biz (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. There are dozens, hundreds, of works of modern scholarship on the Byzantine Empire and calling it that. We call it that because they call it that. That's it. Stop this preposterous nonsense. It's tendentious, disruptive and as far as I can see you're on a trajectory to end up sanctioned. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine empire and Greece

byzantine empire became Greek state in 1204/1261 because the term Greek appeared and the Greek language. 89.210.89.117 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not quite. But yes there is some truth to what you said.

Greece became a state in 1830 for the people of the Rum Millet so there's a link yes. And yes, modern Greek identity has a strong connection to the post-1204 period of the Byzantine Empire as anti "western" Greek-speaking Eastern-Orthodox became the identity of the Romaioi who won back Constantinople that later would become the Ottoman subjects of the Rum Millet. But the convention is that the Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 not 1204, and it was the same empire the whole way through not a new one, with the state of Greece forming four centuries later. The Empire used the Greek language during its entire existence but the term Greek as we know it was only popularised by western Europeans later from the 6th century to describe the eastern Romans (Romaioi), and then when Adamantios Korais resurrected it in the 19th century to replace the term Romaioi during the Modern Greek Enlightenment. That said, the term Hellenes was used and after 1204 but that's different from Greek. Biz (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The term "Eastern Roman Empire"

Moved discussion from user talk pages as others may be able to add perspective

Hello Barjimoa I saw your edit on Ammianus. Can you provide a source for this? Ammianus often does not use technical terms for things, including offices, so it is entirely possible that he refers to an eastern empire and a western empire, or the same for emperors, or the “parts” of the empire, etc. But that does not mean that there was a formally constituted Eastern Roman Empire (with capital letters), that we then have to treat as a separate state. Biz (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, for the Romans the ERE and WRE were not two different states, but two geographical parts of the same empire ruled by two rulers and courts. However, it is still just wrong to say that these two concepts were coined after the fall of Constantinople like the term "Byzantine empire" (Claudian, Ammianus and others constantly use terms like Hesperium Imperium, Imperium Orientale, and several variants); Byzantine empire was an actual invention, but the first is a correct geographic term. I think your point would be made better if you write "the term Byzantine empire was an invention, whereas ERE was a geoghraphic term" cause they are not "invented" in the same way. Barjimoa (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Barjimoa Thank you for the response. It’s why I asked for the source that mentions it like this to see the context.

You may be right. But I also do think it makes a difference in how it is written. As a modern equivalent, writing something such as the eastern Federation is different from the Eastern American Federation (if we are describing the USA). Capitalisation, other words, and the context it was written in a paragraph make all the difference. For example, Marco Cristini last year said it was highly uncommon to use Orientale imperium before the 6th century and its usage may have more to do with Zenobia than anything else.[3] Biz (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

From Augustus to Constantine XI there was the Roman Empire, they called themselves Roman. There were regions, there was not which I have seen on Wikipedia plenty of times, a supposedly western empire that fell, apart from there just wasn't, how would Justinian have been able to get back territories that were not his under 'barbarian' occupation. The last part of Italy, Bari, was lost in 1071. Strangely, unknowledgeable people call the tetrarchy with 4 divisions, the singular Roman Empire, but they call the diarchy with less divisions something other than a singular empire!!! Also, various western region emperors were appointed by the emperor in Constantinople. There was no such thing as a byzantine empire that ever existed, some people called the Roman Empire by a fake name after 1453, but two wrongs don't make a right. Also, Constantinople being maybe 14 times bigger than Byzantium, most of Constantinople was never previously Byzantium ever.

Middle More Rider (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Diarchy is a good term to describe the Empire following 364 CE. What historians have you come across that say this and that we can reference?

Also, I'm more looking for perspective on primary sources that used the Latin term Orientale imperium and/or research from scholars that can support or oppose a view that the term "Eastern Roman Empire" was a state name or just a descriptive term during the existence of the Roman/Byzantine state. Biz (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I have seen it written as "a diarchy" or "the diarchy", can't remember where. I haven't seen it as a Roman state name The Diarchy, but I can't imagine the empire ever called itself The Tetrarchy, just later historians, maybe they did, my interest is more Constantinople onwards. I would guess they absolutely never called themselves The East Roman Empire, because as mentioned it was the empire with varying amounts of territory. But diarchy is a grammatical term or technical term, however to describe it, so not going against anything.

Middle More Rider (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox title

Shouldn't the title in the infobox reflect the page title? And even so, I feel as if simply calling it the "Roman Empire" from a historical standpoint is pedantic and can only lead to confusion. At least call it the "Eastern Roman Empire" if you're unwilling to have the word "Byzantine" in the infobox. 85.164.238.72 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it should, and it always used to. This was a changed sneaked in without discussion back in March, which unfortunately went unchallenged [4]. I've reverted it to the long-standing prior version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Shocking how bad wikipedia can be. The Roman Empire was the Roman Empire for every single second of its existance, how can the simple plain 100% truth be confusing? How can it be pedantic to call something that which it was, the whole time that existed?

Middle More Rider (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

By this logic, should the article for Finland really be titled "Suomi?" Should Germany be "Deutschland?" Are exonyms untruthful? 85.164.238.72 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Does that really add up though? 65.95.160.222 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine empire isn’t even an exonym, it’s a common name. Created decades later after the ERE's fall, also its English Wikipedia of course there’s exonyms. Should Egypt be جمهورية مصر العربية? Also if a page is Called by the native name maybe someone can’t search it because it’s in a different writing system Emmanuelbruh (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Furius (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As per the template, the name of the state given in the country infobox is meant to be the official name. I'm sure you all know that the term "Byzantine Empire" was never used in any context until centuries after the actual """Byzantine""" Empire fell. Right up until the Fall of Constantinople, the official and common name of the state was the Roman Empire.

Now, precedent has been established that, as per WP:COMMONNAME, the name of the article will remain as 'Byzantine Empire'. That's fine. But, the official name of the state was the Roman Empire, and so this should be reflected in the infobox for...the official name of the state.

The page for Transnistria has the official name of the state, Priednestrovia, in the infobox. The page for Taiwan has the official name of the state, the Republic of China, in the infobox. This is long-standing precedent. Why should we make some weird exception to the universally accepted format of Wikipedia infoboxes for this one page?

The idiocy of keeping it "Byzantine Empire" is further reflected in that the Greek and Latin translations below don't translate to Byzantine Empire, but rather, as they should, the Roman Empire. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This has all been debated to death multiple times before. Contrary to what you say, there is actually no rule that the "conventional_long_name" field in the box is "meant to be the official name". There may be an editorial habit to that effect across many articles, but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue. The only thing the guidance in the template says is that it's meant to be the "full name in English". The full name of this state, in English (which automatically means: the full modern name), is "Byzantine Empire". What goes in that field is an editorial decision that has to be made on a by-article basis. In the present case, setting it to "Roman Empire" would be problematic because it would create confusion. Any reader would ask themselves: why does the box say something different from the page title? In the interest of the reader, the box should only display something different from the page title if the relation between the two versions is self-evident (as in: any reader would naturally understand that the title in the box is a fuller, more official version of that in the page title). That's not the case here; the difference between the two expressions raises questions that need explanation. Anything that raises more questions than it answers should not be in an infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding my support for what FP said. And by the way, "official name" for pre-modern states is pie in the sky. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well in every historical source for the time period it is referred to as the 'Roman Empire', or the 'Empire of the Romans', so I think that's enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually do think the Taiwan comparison is relevant. Republic of China is what it calls itself, but most media and academics do not use that in day-to-day conversation. That parallels the Byzantine/Eastern Roman situation very closely -- it called itself by another name than what foreigners (or other empires claiming the same lineage) called it. And it does not create confusion for readers for the article to be called "Taiwan" but for the Info Box to say Republic of China. If anything, it shows them that there is a controversy, something unexpected, and points them in the direction of wanting to learn more.

One last comparison: the article for Western Roman Empire has "Western Roman Empire" in the info box. Not "Roman Empire". Maybe that's a good precedent to follow, a good compromise, and just put "Eastern Roman Empire" in the info box.

TL;DR Eastern Roman Empire would be best for the infobox 157.131.48.34 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've come across one recent source that boldly uses East Roman Empire over Byzantine: https://doi.org/10.1353/joc.2020.0014. But this is not enough to justify a name change. Though this is a trend so I expect us to see more and more of this. Biz (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Based off of precedent, having the title be 'Roman Empire' is most accurate to convention.

I don't think it would be confusing as it is clearly outlined in the first paragraph that Byzantium was the Roman Empire and nothing else. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but based off of precedent I still think we should include it. Many would be surprised to find that Taiwan actually holds claim to being the "One True China", and styles itself as China. This could, and has, caused confusion in the past, so should we rename the infobox from 'Republic of China' to 'Taiwan'?

Same applies here. The differentiation between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire is made abundantly clear in the opening paragraph. The goal of this article is to educate about the ""Byzantine Empire"", and that includes writing its real name in the infobox. We shouldn't step around that and make one exception in spite of so much precedent just to avoid confusion that is very easily resolved in the first sentence of the article. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"The full name of this state, in English (which automatically means: the full modern name), is "Byzantine Empire".

SEZ U! 2001:818:DE97:3200:B8A7:6637:BEE2:FE9 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Right now, based on Wikipedia policies, Byzantine Empire is what it should be.

That said, there is a generational change occurring with scholars and Anthony Kaldellis’s book coming out later this year will set a new standard for Byzantine history. He does not use the word Byzantine anywhere but in the subtitle on the cover which is quite a statement and will be following up with more research on appropriate terminology.

What I mean by that is the next time a modern graduate-level historian covers what he has (I’m talking about the Warren Treadgold’s and Mary Beard’s) they will have to justify reverting the term back to Byzantine which based on the latest research is no longer justifiable.

Until this book comes out, this discussion is dead in the water. But editors should be prepared for this. Biz (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Is that the same Anthony Kaldellis who wrote The Byzantine Republic; A Cabinet of Byzantine Curiosities; Ethnography after Antiquity: Foreign Lands and People in Byzantine Literature; Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium; Byzantium Unbound; Hellenism in Byzantium and had a podcast called "Byzantium & Friends". Or a different one? DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. His next book is The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium. Based on my pre-order, it looks like it will arrive November 1 2023. Biz (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect you will be sadly disappointed. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I expect if you read this book, something will click that change is afoot. Biz (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I rather doubt that - "Eastern Roman Empire" already means something else, & to make a change work, something like "Later Eastern Roman Empire" or "Medieval Eastern Roman Empire" would have to become generally accepted. The fact that a historical term has problems and is disliked by some is no bar to it remaining the standard term - look at "Celtic". Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Tbh, I think the best historiographic term would be either the Late Roman Empire or Medieval Roman Empire, considering that the accession of Odoacer to the Italian throne effectively ended the "Eastern Roman Empire". PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't you mean "Western Roman Empire"? "Late Roman Empire" also already means something else. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No, contemporary Romans at the time of the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire actually viewed the event as a reunification of Rome, as the new Italian Kingdom pledged allegiance to eastern imperial authorities in Constantinople. There was now no longer a Western or Eastern Roman Empire, just the Roman Empire.

Of course, this would not last, but any 'Eastern Roman Empire' was effectively ended after this, as there was no west or east. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the subtitle shows that the term is still well and truly alive. The fact that a scholar who wishes to avoid the term still feels the need to include it on the front cover of his book(s) is a strong indication that it is the common name. Furius (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is also that twitterstream on Constantinople, never uses the b-word unless talking about the town of Byzantium that became a small area of Constantinople, there are not crowds of people demanding that Roman should not be called Roman.

It's a strange situation, this, the b-word came out of indentity theft, hate, racism from the west to the east. Just because past authors from hundreds of years ago used terms, does not always make it right, check out the Agatha Christie book name, or any other authors that used the n-word, or words for gay people, jewish people etc.

I posted an example of western hate behaviour on here but someone removed the link, their loss.

I think this page should actually be scrapped, and the history of the Roman Empire that is here moved to the Roman Empire page where it belongs. Obviously keep a page on the genuine town of Byzantium, pre-Constantinople.

Everyone should stick with the truth, small steps, snowball rolling down a hill etc. The truth can win if everybody lets it win.

Middle More Rider (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize how you sound? You're acting like you're from the Byzantine Empire. You're coming off like a troll when you say "the b-word" and attributing its use to "western racism." It's clear you have absolutely no intention to view history without bias. 85.164.238.72 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You can do your trolling insults, or you can research the word and find out.

Middle More Rider (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What research do you have that 'Byzantine' is a slur and in any way comparable to the n-word? Genuinely curious by this, considering the term has been almost universally embraced, and really the only people who use 'Eastern Roman' are those with a special interest in Roman history.

I agree that the term has its origins in 16th Century Mediaeval politics and propaganda, this is a little bit of an overreaction. I don't think keeping it as the 'Byzantine Empire' is some great mistruth either, considering that in recent years an emphasis has been placed on cultural continuity between the Classical Roman Empire and its later form, as evident by the first paragraph of this article. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is something from Anthony Kaldellis and its use in the computer world as something nasty,

...........

"On the podcast, he explains:

It’s not only the meaning of Byzantine as something excessively complicated or convoluted which is a meaning that has only really been in use for 80 years. This reaches back to medieval times when Western Europeans would call the Greeks treacherous and unreliable and deviant and effeminate.

In one of the submissions asking to remove the term ‘Byzantine’ it was noted that the word was being used in all sorts of derogatory ways, including as a synonym for ‘malicious’, ‘faulty’, ‘irrational’, ‘evil’, ‘dishonest’, and ‘terrorist’.

While Kaldellis has not received an official response to his request, the word has now appeared on the Words Matter list, explaining why it should be replaced and what terms would be more appropriate:"

............

On the YouTube videos, note the replies, virtually every single one that refers to the name situation agrees that it is wrong. It is not me out of step with Wikipdia, it is Wikipedia out of step with society. If it is wrong to use a term, then people just won't use it, in general society. Unless it is this enclave of b-word fanatics on here who think rules should blindly be obeyed if they are in some situations, wrong.

On authors, if they are set in their ways and just keep using it, or they think it will cost them book sales, that is not good. It won't make me buy a book, it might be the lone factor that stops me buying a book.

Middle More Rider (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? "virtually every single one [randoms posting on the internet] that refers to the name situation agrees that it is wrong". "On authors...it might be the lone factor that stops me buying a book." Just stop with the crank nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You should go away and stop harassing people. And those you insult as randoms were posting on a site that is available to anyone, so they potentially could have all told the videomaker he was wrong.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to research, this video is useful viewing, it would probably take me all day to type what the narration says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN9sg2XKuuo . And to give an example myself, imagine if the US renamed California 'France', then called the real France 'Gaul' and through diplomatic pressure and trade threats got everyone else to call France 'Gaul', how would French people feel? How would anyone else who cares about justice feel?

Middle More Rider (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

a. 1 YouTube video providing a subjective commentary on the term is not enough to reverse the long-standing precedent on the page. Now, I actually agree with your main point, and in an ideal world I'd like to see the name of this article be 'Eastern Roman Empire' or 'Mediaeval Roman Empire', but Wikipedia does not function like this, and we can't get everything that we want.

At the end of the day we have to compromise, and I think we have reached a pretty reasonable one (though not without my own gripes. I do think the infobox title should be 'Roman Empire', and I dislike how cluttered and disorganised the use of the term 'Byzantine' is, with no real start or end date for when the term should be used. I've seen figures from the 300s AD referred to as 'Byzantine', and others from the 700s AD still referred to as 'Roman'. In my opinion, the cutoff date should be the death of Heraclius in 641, but I digress.)

b. To entertain the scenario you mentioned, if California really did rename itself to France and the vast majority of contemporary sources referred to it as such, and the same with France being Gaul again, then yes, as per convention and precedent and how this site works, the California article would be renamed to France, and the France article renamed to Gaul.

A contemporary example of this is the Turkey article. Despite the fact that the country has renamed itself to Turkiye, the article title is still Turkey, as that is what the majority of sources refer to the country as (though I do think we are approaching a point where Turkiye is more used than Turkey). This is how Wikipedia works. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Middle More Rider I watched the video. I've not seen any evidence that it was an intentional smear campaign by the Holy Roman Empire.

My reading to date has had me find that Hieronymus Wolf was looking for a word to differentiate ancient and medieval Greek authors, and Kaldelis posits that his publisher Anton Fugger likely forced him to use it as the title of his book (as he does not mention it anywhere else). It also wasn't how the term was invented: it was first used by a "Greek nationalist" Laonikos Chalkokondyles, who wanted to reframe the eastern Roman Empire as part of a Greek history connected to the ancient Greeks, and who was one of the authors Woff included in his edition. It also was not how the term was popularised: in English, the Greek history by George Finlay in the 19th century did and Kaldellis's recent research proposed that it was a neutral term that "became convention" that replaceed the 8th century "Empire of the Greeks". This was in the context of great power politics where Greece was expanding its territory with its irredentist politics after 1844 ("Megali Idea") with the support of Russia (who had played in my readings such as with Ottoman sources and the opinion of Karl Marx the biggest role in Greece's independence). For what its worth, the 8th century rebranding was due to "western" competition over land and people. Leonora Neville calls it colonialism (aka the Crusades) and the east presented in a way to justify the renewal of the West (aka the renaissance) which it distinguished itself from.

I appreciate your energy for the truth. But the challenge is academia and the veteran Wikipedia community that watches them will not change this article until conventions change. It's a chicken and egg issue. What more useful, before the term changes, is helping address the Western bias that exists in English-written history. The topic raised by Basil675 below is an example of where further discussion is needed

The best thing to do now is generate awareness of people like Kadellis's work which will encourage other academics to follow and get even bolder in their work. For example, check the first footnote of this recent study of what I mean. Case in point and as Furius points out above: even Kaldellis is being careful in how he publishes material as convention is a real constraint. Convention will change once more academics start writing differently, and we are are turning point right now (Kaldellis's work has questioned the field at its core, budgets are consolidating so departments are merging and history is being rethought more globally, and there is a generational change in scholars who are aging out) but it needs encouragement. So to put it bluntly, unless you are posting links to academic studies where knowledge originates from that can support incremental narrative changes to this article (and not using social media) this conversation will never move forward in the way you want it to. Biz (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for a sensible reply. There is also this video, Anthony Kaldellis and some other historians discussing it, he says that he expects the truth to be the standard eventually and that there is no valid reason for that not to happen. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oMIwE3DoU3U&t=950s . On my tablet the video starts at 15 or 16 minutes, so you might have to put it back to the start? Middle More Rider (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

True for whom and for how many? Why aren't you just as self-aware of the clear and disproportionate bias that your proposals entail and that for some reason have eminence over conclusions drawn from academic consensus? Should they be labeled as such because they don't meet certain expectations?

I do not believe that there is a definitive truth about a particular subject and even less that someone has more prominance over another to determine it, but the hidden intentions between the wordiness and the self-proclaimed "truth" that is constantly trying to be imposed deserves extensive observation. Pablo1355 (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

How is the truth of historical fact biased?! The emperors were connected from Augustus to Constantine XI with no break or end or restarting. They called themselves Roman from Augustus to Constantine XI, pre-Augustus they called themselves Roman, post-Constantine XI they were calling themselves Roman up to 1912 on Lemnos.

It will be professional historians who give the truth priority, and make it the norm, not me.

Middle More Rider (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It will be professional historians who give the truth priority, and make it the norm, not me.

Fair enough Pablo1355 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There comes a point when repetitively expressing such absurd, bizarre WP:FRINGE views ceases to be just risible and becomes disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's me you are trying to defame, how are you going to change historical fact on what the Roman Empire was called?

And you've come up with some rubbish about fringe. From the start of Augustus' reign up to 1557AD and the book of Hieronymus Wolf, that is 1584 years of people calling the Roman Empire the Roman Empire. From 1557AD to 2023, that is 466 years of some people calling it by the other name, and that would be depending on how badly that name spead and all the people that never use that name, so which is the actual fringe name for the Roman Empire?

Outside of Wikipedia, as for learning, I have found that people who only know basic Roman Empire stuff, like Augustus, Caligula, Hadrian etc. are happy to learn about the Roman Empire going up to 1453 with no issue at all, and people who use the b-word themselves, no problem with anyone calling the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire.

Middle More Rider (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Instead of trawling the internet for conspiracy theories, read a few standard academic works on the subject. DeCausa (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

To play Devil's Advocate, throughout the Mediaeval period the empire was also referred to as the 'Greek Empire' or 'Romania'. The notion of Byzantium being the successors of the Classical Roman Empire was frequently challenged as well, being one of the most contentious issues of Middle Ages politics, as to who could claim descent from Rome.

And also, we don't use anecdotal original research for these topics. It remains a fact that an overwhelming amount of people use 'Byzantine' instead of 'Eastern Roman'. I understand you're arguing in Good Faith, but this inflammatory rhetoric is not helping the reliability of the article and topic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a perennial thing - I note the only wp language versions that use an "Eastern Roman Empire" type name are Pontic, Breton, Welsh and Catalan (there may be others). Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Latin Wikipedia does as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Government and bureaucracy

The section that outlines the structures of Byzantine political system is based on an extremely eurocentric view of Byzantium as an absolutist world. There have been dozens of studies which have called into question this settled approach. Plenty of historians, including Anthony Kaldellis, Georges D. Contogeorgis, Averil Cameron, et al, have refuted this claim. Sadly the article is not open for edit and it is impossible to add contrasting views, motivating further research for such an inconclusive topic.

There is nothing written in said section that lacks its respective academic support (which certainly still maintains its corresponding academic hegemony).

There is a recent wave of self-proclaimed exquisite revisionists on any topic that does not highlight a sufficient relationship with Rome, such is this case.Pablo1355 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Basil675 That's a valid point you make. If you would like to propose changes and links to studies here, I can support you in making the edit. Biz (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Kaldellis's laureate work is remarkable but even his Magnus opus seeks to fit into mainstream Byzantine politics scholarship, not the other way around.

Still, his revisions include the reinterpretation of various substantial current subjects, in many cases widely exaggerated and conceived in problematic ways, such as a "implicit" strict use of Roman law, (which is well known to be an eclectic matter) an alleged popular will expressed in mass revolts (of which 4 are known to have been successful in an entire millennium of Byzantine history) nor does it go so far as to explain at what time or in what way a eastern populus totally detached from said current of ideas through cultural and linguistic barriers came to simultaneously adopt the batch of republican roman values. (In the way that we know that Eusebius and the eastern fathers did lay the political seed of any Byzantine political philosophy onwards as any literary text betrays)

This are all ideas that certainly lack a broad stroke to be considered first-hand material as expressed in the skepticism and mixed reactions of many of his peers. The information written, on the other hand, is the same whose validity and reputation are maintained in spite interesting and still debatable "observations" by a known number of academics. (Warren Treadgold accurately summarizes his attributes as well as his faults) Pablo1355 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Kaldellis makes some good points. Certainly, not all of his points are correct. This applies for almost every academic work.

When it comes to mass revolts: it is not true that only 4 were succesful. One has to triangulate data to find good evidence of cases where emperors were overthrown by others and popular protests or disaproval played a significant role.

History is not written only from a western perspective, unless you only consider valid the western approach, which is an exceptionalist position. Basil675 (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

To make this discussion productive @Basil675 may I suggest you propose new text with sources and we can then focus the paragraph rewrite with a discussion on the content. Otherwise this general discussion will devolve into nothing productive. Biz (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Just because the section is supported by academic evidence it does not mean that conclusions are correct. Revisionist positions can be accurate as well. History is a subject we constantly study and re-examine, and assumptions change according to new interpretations. History is not always written from one perspective. Basil675 (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This is all very general and therefore difficult to form an opinion on. What specific changes would you like to see? Furius (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes and, Basil675, being "correct" is not a reason for any point of view appearing in an article. Any "positions" (revisionist or otherwise) can only appear in the article to the extent justified by WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As others argued, changes should not be made in the manner of proposing new opinions as valid, removing references to previous sources. One could only enrich articles by saying, for example, that "while scholars have argued the X, other sholars have recently refuted this chalim suggesting the Y". Evidence, of course, is of utmost significance. I am an academic researcher and, thus, fully aware of that. Basil675 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Early history of the Greek-Roman east?

It's been a while since I looked over the whole of this article but I'm puzzled by this section. It really jumps out as just being off topic - as well as being completely unsourced except for one citation. There's far too much detail for background. Given that this article (as recently tagged) is too long anyway, I can't see why this sub-section shouldn't be removed. I think the following sub-section, "Crisis of the third century and reforms of the empire" could also be removed or at least slimmed down to a few introductory sentences at the beginning of the next sub-section "Christianisation and partition of the empire. DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree Biz (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't entirely. Something is needed, but I see that History of the Byzantine Empire actually has much less on this, only a brief "Tetrarchy" section. A straight swop might be a good idea, plus a sentence or 2 on earlier periods. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain why either article needs 6 bulky paragraphs detailing the 4th century BCE to the founding of Constantinople? It's hard to understand why an article on the Byzantine Empire or its History has, for instance, the sentence At the start of the 3rd century BC, Rome had emerged victorious from the Samnite wars and was at that point the dominant hegemon of the peninsula, though Rome had yet to be challenged by another great power.! That's a fairly typical example of the level of unnecessary detail. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE should enable the background section to perhaps have 3 or 4 pre-330 sentences with links to appropriate articles for more info. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No doubt some trimming can be done, but I think that at least in the History article more than "3 or 4 pre-330 sentences" are needed to explain to the general reader why the Roman Empire suddenly bases itself in Turkey. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. That's more of a shortened version of "Crisis of the third century and reforms of the empire". I don't think there's much/anything in "Early history of the Greek-Roman east" that does that. DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The relations between the Roman Republic and Greek city states probably deserves its own article. Useful for many articles and it's appropriate background given the complex co-evolution of Roman identity between Greek and Latin. The other things of note that occurs after the accession of Augustus, is the Constitutio Antoniniana and the relocation to Byzantium. So as long as those are covered in some way, we could definitely make this 3 or 4 sentences. Biz (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

I have been thinking for some time about the lead section of the article. I tried to rewrite the lead section, but it was rejected since the B.E/E.R.E. was the continuation of R.E. I also think about the earlier par orientalis of the Roman Empire, which I should decide to change the lead section to the following:

The Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces, with Constantinople as the centre of the empire, which spanned from late antiquity to the medieval period. Collectively, the term Eastern Roman Empire refers to the imperial court that controlled the eastern moiety—preeminently from 395 onwards when the western and eastern courts were permanently splited, and lasted until the fall of Constantinople in the mid-fiftheen century, that transited to the Renaissance period. During most of its existence, the empire remained the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean world. Its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire and to themselves as Romans—a term which Greeks continued to use for themselves into Ottoman times. Modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium, the Empire's integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin. 

Phaisit16207 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Here is my revision to assist with the process which strengthens your proposal and takes into account what I currently understand as the latest scholarship.

The Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire when Constantinople was its centre, which spanned from late antiquity to the medieval period. Collectively, the term Eastern Roman Empire refers to the imperial court that controlled the eastern administration—typically from 364 onward, and lasted until the fall of Constantinople in the mid-15th century. During most of its existence, it was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean world. Its citizens continued to refer to their Empire as the Roman Empire and to themselves as Romans. {note 3} Most modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium, the Empire's integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin. Biz (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

References

I'm sympathetic to the effort of shortening and tightening the prose, but I'm afraid I'm seeing a lot of grammatical and linguistic weaknesses in this draft, which will take a lot of work ironing out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You can say that again! The lead is 6 paras long - I think the last para can be dispensed with in the lead, except for a sentence on 1453. There are oddities in the current text - some preserved in these drafts. How about:

The Byzantine Empire was the later continuation of the Roman Empire after Constantinople became the capital, spanning from late antiquity to the medieval period. 364 is often taken as its start, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as its end. In this period, especially the earlier part, Eastern Roman Empire is an alternative name. For most of this period, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean world. Its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire and to themselves as Romans—a term which Greeks continued to use for themselves into Ottoman times.

The empire was strongly Christian and soon became Greek-speaking, rather than using Latin. During the high period of the Roman Empire known as the Pax Romana, the western parts of the empire went through Latinization, while the eastern parts of the empire maintained to a large degree their Hellenistic culture. Several events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire's Greek East and Latin West diverged. Constantine I (r. 324–337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the capital, and legalised Christianity. Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the state religion, and other religious practices were proscribed. In the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), the empire's military and administration were restructured, and Greek was gradually adopted for official use in place of Latin.

-the second para has a short (first sentence) and a long version - one might be dropped. Thoughts? I've just kept the old notes, which I've not looked at. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I also intend to replace the Notetag template with Efn; this also applies to the infobox, and I will cut out the infobox's footnote and merge it with the article's footnote. Phaisit16207 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of Johnbod's re-write, with two minor caveats: "In this period, especially the earlier part" should maybe be "especially in the earlier part of this period" and "For most of this period" --> "For most of its existence" Furius (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - fine with those. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I like the re-write! Succinct and well-prioritized. One minor comment: "364 is often taken as its start" presents that date as at least somewhat of a consensus, but I don't think I'd heard that date nearly as often as 330 (Constantinople founded), 395 (Empire divided for the last time), 610 or 641 (accession of Heraclius and Arab invasions). Given that the date is so ambiguous, do we really need to set a start date in the lead? Here is a suggestion, simply describing events and avoiding the impression of a consensus:

Constantinople was founded as a Roman capital in 330, and the Roman Empire was divided multiple times, notably in 364 and permanently in 395. Most scholars agree that the Empire had attained its distinctive characteristics by the seventh century. The Empire ended with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Diegojosesalva (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That is no doubt correct, but seems too long for the lead. There is obviously no right date, and that sort of detail should be lower down. My "is often taken" is deliberately mild and unassertive. See Biz below too. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I like how this is being reduced. But I really do not like "The empire was strongly Christian and soon became Greek-speaking, rather than using Latin."

• "strongly" Christian does not seem like the best adjective
• "Soon became Greek speaking" is false. The Roman Empire as bilingual from the start. Rome as a city was bilingual, that by the second century you could even live and work there without speaking Latin (like I suppose say how Berlin and Amsterdam today with English today's equivalent of Greek). All educated people spoke Greek in the Empire from the second century BC until the 4th century. What actually happened is spoken Latin stopped across all of Europe -- partly because the state stopped enforcing its usage that local populations stopped talking to each other and prioritsing their preferences -- not that Greek "replaced" it.
• I appreciate the usage of "period" but would like to see this consistently applied (ie, stop making this era of Roman history it's own Empire). So "The empire was..." becomes "It was". Time, not anything else "that makes it distinctive" as Diegojosesalva writes should be the primary thing that truly distinguishes the Byzantine Empire against the rest. (Greek language preferences, Christian religion, and geography -- things that existed in the "Roman Empire" -- it's just they became more in focus).

Separately, it completely removes the text from the recent RfC. I'm fine with moving this to a note, but not completely as it explains the historiography behind or the existence of this article.

Regarding 364 that's the recent consensus that's emerged from historians I've read. After the death of Julian, Valentinian effectively created two administrations that did not mix like before. This should be seen as replacing the often touted 395 that Theodosius was the last unified emperor. Which, also, he wasn't: there was Theodosius II (425) and, nominally, Marcianus (456–457), and Leo I (457, 461, 465–467, 472–473), during vacancies in the West. Biz (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The empire was strongly Xtian, rather agressively and intolerantly so, and some such adjective is needed I think. Alternatives? On the language, Rome was not part of the BE. Equally, Latin had a role for the first centuries of the BE, but then died away. Open to other ways of putting this (restricted to the BE). As in a repoly above, the lead needs a single start-date, even if weakly expressed. The other stuff can go below. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How about "notably Christian"?

Rome came back under control of the Empire following the fall of the western roman empire by the eastern, under Justinian, a Byzantine Emperor. Based in Ravenna, the Praetorian prefecture of Italy following the death of Constantine from 337 had authority over the diocese of Rome, including after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 and was replaced with the Exarchate of Ravenna (and the Duchy of Rome) from 584 to 751 following the Lombard invasion in 568. After which the Franks took it and gave it to the Pope.

...But the point I was making was even in Rome, during the classical Roman Empire, Greek was one of the main languages. So to use it as a point to distinguish is incorrect.

And yes, Latin having a role and died away is a much more accurate way to say it. The Byzantine Empire did not "become" because of Greek; it's just what western historians have used to distinguish it, rooted in 8th century politics.

For a date, I think 330 for Byzantine which is the foundation of Constantinople is the scholarly consensus I feel most comfortable with. With 364 best for the Eastern Roman Empire as it effectively was its own separate region after 364 (not 395). This is because a separate administration for it begins to coalesce then. Biz (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your second paragraph looks good, but it is still large and confluent with the above. This is my second para:

The pars occidentalis of the Roman Empire were latinised, while the pars orientalis maintained to a large degree their Hellenistic culture in the high period known as the Pax Romana. Several events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire's Greek East and Latin West diverged. Constantine I (r. 324–337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the capital, and legalised Christianity. Theodosius I (r. 379–395) officialised Christianity and proscribed other religious practices. The empire's military and administration were restructured under Heraclius (r. 610–641), as well as the Greek adoption for official use in place of Latin. Phaisit16207 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This is well written. The only thing missing is the Diocletion reforms and their impact. The division of the Empire by Diocletian and the creation of new administrative centers (Treveri and Milan in the West, Nicomedia and Antioch in the East) is part of what created the decline of Greek in the West.

The Greek East and Latin West is an article that needs additional verification and something I've had my eye on, so not as keen to keep it. Biz (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A few obvious points: pars occidentalis and pars orientalis won't be understood by the general reader and are unnecessary. Don't use them. "Officialised": not a word, at least in this context. "...in the high period..." is at best clunky. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all these. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Re pars occidentalis and pars orientalist: I’m noticing that this may be an emergent new consensus. For example, Rochette and Kaldellis have been using these terms in their writing for at least the last decade. That said, Treadgold doesn’t and does not seem to care on either approach (or rather, that any approach is best). See: Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood review by Treadgold and The Byzantine Republic review by Treadgold. If the current generation of sources are using the proper names and not the interpreted names, it’s worth considering. Biz (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No it's not, at least in the way they've been used. This is about intelligibility to our global, educationally diverse, reading-skills diverse, significant proportion of English-as-a-2nd-language audience. If they were to be used (because of RS "emerging consensus" which is dubious), then they would require a full explanation in the article. But, ultimately they are an unnecessary (other ways of expressing the terms in English) and rather pretentious barrier to reader understanding. We are after all here to explain things to a diverse global readership... aren't we? DeCausa (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure. But this is not the Simple English Wikipedia either. We follow the sources, and we place more weight on the higher quality sources, a principle I wish we considered more when having these points of difference.

And since this is a recurring issue: the highest quality sources on this topic are Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis who form the backbone of secondary scholarship. People who also have discovered and translated primary sources and grown our knowledge. We should be making decisions based on what they all say as consensus, not anything else. Biz (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge gulf between Simple English and introducing gratuitous Latin (WP:TECHNICAL). This list of "highest quality sources" is far too limited. Establishing that something is scholarly consensus (especially that something is the consensus terminology) means establishing that it is used by most scholars, not the majority of the scholars that one respects. Furius (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm using this as an example of how we should make decisions on opinions, not that I care about this as a point. (Although we did recently have an editor who interpreted a primary source incorrectly and is support for why the translated named are problematic).

I said "it’s worth considering" and "We should be making decisions based on what they all say as consensus" so let me expand. My request is we follow sources, and we acknowledge not all sources are equal. When you say "most", this is what I'm addressing.

Living historians who have introduced new evidence are the best sources for us to identify consensus on facts and opinions, like Warren Treadgold who is the most recent person to write a full narrative. To me this is 80% of how we need to discuss the issues.

That is not to say deceased historians are useless, but they lack the same information we have today so their explanations and narratives are distorted and so we need to take it with closer attention (AKA why Gibbon is a relic of the Enlightenment more than a useful history any more). But when they specialise in areas, say like the recently deceased Walter Kaegi on Heraclius , they are like a first tier for us to identify consensus. But on the other hand, primary sources sit in the second tier for similar reasons, but also because we understand their bias better or can make educated assessment as so. To me this is 15%

However, people that write about the Byzantine Empire, and especially for the general population like Norwich, are a third tier. That is not to say their work is not valuable: but it is not valuable to identify what is consensus because his (and others) work like his is is a colorful narrative based on third-hand reports in other books. George Finlay, with all the best intentions, is probably the biggest reason why we call this part of Roman history "Byzantine" but he was also a journalist similar to Norwich not a professional historian aware of all the issues. When professional modern historians pick up on what popular writers say, then that's when we should be taking notice, not the other way around.

I also believe anything else used, included policies that are meant to guide not dictate or google hits talking about every other publications, sit in the third tier. This combined is the remaining 5%.

We should discuss issues in Talk and that's fine. But when we have living historians that have opinions, that is the best way for us to identity consensus. Biz (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point and gone off on a unnecessary tangent. This is nothing to do with RS and everything to do with understandability. There's absolutely zero reason to use Latin, especially where it's not even wikilinked, where perfectly good English terms are available, no matter how many scholars use it. And that has nothing to do with Simple English Wikipedia, Norwich, third tier writers etc. It's about WP:COMPETENCE for a Wikipedia editor. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Comprehension of a reader, yes, that's clearly important. But you're missing the different, but related, point which has nothing to do with if its Latin. This issue was brought up by a different editor implicitly and was a separate discussion from another edit I reverted a month ago on someone's personal interpretation of primary sources. I was intending for a constructive discussion on how we can make decisions on what's appropriate for recognising consensus as it evolves (with professional historians). Biz (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

One issue I have with Johnbod's rewrite is temporal sequence. With "soon became Greek-speaking", we are entering something that sounds like a narration in temporal order. But then, with "During the high period...", we are effectively taking a step back, jumping into a period before the Byzantine one, and then this is followed by a sequence of statements about the transition process, with the last statement leading back to the issue of language use. I think this needs to be either restructured or grammatically clarified with signals such as use of pluperfect or temporal adverbs to make the sequence clearer. There's also a confusing link on "Greek East and Latin West", which seems oddly misplaced because the topic of the Greek/Latin and East/West distinction was already introduced in the sentence before it. I'm also not sure introducing the term "Pax Romana" is more helpful than distracting at that point. Finally, I'm also not very convinced of the "strongly" in the description of its Christian-ness (but "notably" isn't any better). – As for Phaisit16207's rewording proposals (both the initial and the subsequent one), I'm afraid there are so many weaknesses I hardly know where to start listing them, so I wouldn't recommend using that draft as a basis of discussion at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable points - do you want to try a version? Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

How about "deeply Christian"? Furius (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think that before users begin to edit the article, it'd be better to make sure that a consensus has been reached in the talk page. Currently it seems like editors are still working on it and we might wanna wait a bit for more opinions to come. Personally, I do not have very strong opinions about the lead, eventhough I did not necessarily see anything too wrong with the previous wording. As I mentioned in an edit summary a few days ago, If we really need to reduce the size of this article a bit, we might wanna focus on the early history section, which includes history prior to the B.E. in great detail (beginning from the 4th c BC). I was also questioning whether this article really needed to be reduced in the first place, considering that it talks about a major empire with more than a thousand years of history. Its size (249K bytes) is a few thousand bytes more than the Roman Empire, less than the Ottoman Empire and still way less than the articles of many celebrities, for example. Piccco (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. I'd be in favour of removing the whole "Early history of the Greek-Roman east" sub-section or reducing it to a sentence that directs readers tot he relevant articles. Furius (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Principality of Theodoro

The article mentions the Principality of Theodoro prominently in the lead as the last rump state of the Byzantine empire and it is mentioned at some length later in the article as well. I've not previously heard it cited in this context (usually sources stop with Trebzond) and there is no citation here or on the Principality of Theodoro page with a WP:RS for the claim that Theodoro was a rump state of the empire. Should it be mentioned here at all? If so, should it be given the amount of attention that it currently receives? Furius (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I guess the more unobtrusive reference to it further down in the "aftermath" section is ok, but the statement in the lead is undue weight at least, and probably amounts to poor-quality WP:OR. It was added there sometime in April 2021 without discussion as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)