Talk:History of the Byzantine Empire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


History of the Eastern Roman Empire

This article was created based on a discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire/Archive_5#Resolving_the_Roman.2FByzantine_mess. The current text was taken from Byzantine Empire#History (the section there should be reduced in time). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

GPrint:

Hence I suggest renaming this article to the "History of Byzantium". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the above searches exclude some books (probably by mistake), as far as I see Google Books returns the following results:
However, as far as I see, the term "Byzantine Empire" or "Byzantium" has some problems with the NPOV rule (the following wiki articles, Derogatory use of Byzantine, Byzantinism#Criticism, prove that it also has (or at least had) a negative meaning) and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict:
"A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:
  • Is the name (Roman Empire) in common usage in English? ("Eastern Roman Empire" is also in common current English usage, although probably lesser than "Byzantine Empire")
  • Is it the official current name of the subject? ("Byzantine Empire" was not an official name, it is anachronistic, not used in the empire's time)
  • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (The official names were "Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans")
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name (Roman Empire)?
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name (Roman Empire)?
  • Does the name (Roman Empire) infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
  • Is the use of the name (Roman Empire) politically unacceptable?" [1]
"Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically." ("Byzantine Empire" is anachronistic.) [2]
"Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name). Articles should report the objective fact that such names are used; if another nation or group disputes the right to use that name (Roman Empire), then information about that dispute (if it is notable) should also be given in the appropriate place. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be (Byzantine Empire), only what it is (Roman Empire)." [3]
Historians don't claim that there ever was a state called "Byzantine Empire", they claim that (between 330 and 1453) there was a state called "Roman Empire", which they (or rather, a part of them) prefer to call "Byzantine Empire" (because of their own subjective opinions). Wikipedia should give more importance to what historians objectively describe as historic facts, rather than their subjective opinions of the facts (which should, of course, also be mentioned in the article). Naming this article "Byzantine Empire" as far as I see (according to wikipedian rules), is considered subjective criteria. Since the name "Byzantine Empire" is controversial (for example the historian J. B. Bury uses the name "Later Roman Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" "A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. -800 A.D.)", the following book claims that this state should be called "Romaion Empire", instead of "Byzantine Empire", the following articles[4],[5] are also against this name, there is also an web page here which prefers to avoid "Byzantine Empire", and there are also several books here which consider 1453 as the end of the Roman Empire,) the rules from Wikipedia:Naming conflict should be applied. As far as I know, most people know what "Eastern Roman Empire" is, and since History of the Byzantine Empire is a redirect here, I doubt there is a problem of confusion (and the article explains anyway to what is refers), while "History of Byzantium" may refer to the history of the ancient city of Byzantium as well. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said on the discussion page of Byzantine Empire, searches on Google Books like the ones above must be treated with suspicion. If you take a closer look at the sources you will see that many (most?) of the hits for "History of the Eastern Roman Empire": 740 hits are caused by the occurrence of the title of Bury's book "A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I." in texts that may or may not use the word "Byzantine". Iblardi (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just don't see your criteria is being a valid justification for such a drastic endorsement. Since when should those kinds of things be used to validate history? That is the Historian's fallacy, in that what we are doing now has no true bearing on the history itself but we go into fallacy when we start to think it does by distorting it by way of hindsight bias. You can say what you want and you can probably win this debate strictly by consensus, however that will not make this logical. Your also engaging in a fallacy by saying that statistical data makes your statement valid. As now we are to believe that President Obama is not Christian just because a majority of people think so. Could this be addressed or is this going to continue to be ignored? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to History of the Byzantine Empire. When we have a clear WP:COMMONNAME, that's where the article should be. In this case, it is clear that the common name of the entity whose history is the subject of this article is known an the Byzantine Empire. Other arguments are generally secondary to using the common name and the only one that carries some weight is the pejorative one. However, the extensive use of the term (even the Metropolitan Museum of Art routinely uses it), tells me that it is not viewed negatively, at least when used to describe aspects of that empire. --rgpk (comment) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the Eastern Roman EmpireHistory of the Byzantine Empire — per WP:COMMONNAME, the Eastern Roman Empire is far better known as the Byzantine Empire. The discussion on whether to favour "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine" has been carried out again and again at Talk:Byzantine Empire, and the consensus is to remain at "Byzantine". The main article and all other articles related the topic use "Byzantine" (Byzantine art, Byzantine army, Byzantine music, etc), it is only logical to have the "History of" page there as well. Constantine 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support (a) "Byzantine" in modern historiography is overwhelmingly more common so WP:COMMONNAME applies; (b) it's confusing to mix "Byzantine" and "East Roman" in the related article titles. Should all be the same. DeCausa (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for the following reasons:

  1. On Google Books "History of the Byzantine Empire" currently returns less than 200 results, while "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" returns more than 500 results, and this means that "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" is encountered more often in academic books and can be more recognizable for the topic of this article. (Also currently in strict searches for books on "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", although the first pages return more results, when checking the last pages of the search, "Eastern Roman Empire" on last page (40) is shown as having around 397 results, while "Byzantine Empire" on last page (26) appears to have around 252 results, and this can show at least that "Eastern Roman Empire" is quite as common as "Byzantine Empire".)
  2. The term "Byzantine" is pejorative and misleading/inaccurate according to sources[6][7][8][9], and this is against Wikipedia's principle of "Neutral Point of View" ("neutral terms are generally preferable"), and there is no need to have more articles titled with pejorative terms (and the fact that other articles are titled with pejorative terms is not a reason to title more articles in this way). Pejorative or non-neutral terms should normally be used only as redirects ("In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term"). The following guideline from Wikipedia claims that "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity" (but as said on point 1, "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" seems to appear more often on Google Books).
  3. It can also be strange to have articles titled "Sultanate of Rum" and "Rumelia" while there is no article titled with "Eastern Roman Empire" for these periods.
  4. "Byzantine Empire" is ambiguous since it has no clear beginning. There are many historians who place its beginning in 610 or even 717. This article was constructed to cover a period from around 285 to 1461, and the term "Eastern Roman Empire" has been used to refer to periods as late as 1453 or 1461 (and this article does not deal with the cultural part of the "Eastern Roman Empire" which was also termed "Byzantine Culture", it only discusses about the political evolution of the Eastern Roman state). And according to WP:UCN "...ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.".
  5. Also, the fact that the discussion on whether to favour "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine" has been carried out again and again at Talk:Byzantine Empire does not prove that there was a real consensus about this issue, it actually shows that it is a controversial topic (which until recently was agreed to be avoided from discussions), and true consensus must be unanimous (and decisions on Wkipedia should not be made through voting). I would also add that this article was already stable for a period of around 2-3 years.

Cody7777777 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I can not understand what you mean by reason 3, but reasons 1, 2 and 4 are sophistry, not arguments: "Byzantine" is clearly recognizable and the Byzantine Empire is the primary topic for "Byzantine" all over the world and especially in scholarship (whose conventions we are bound to follow). The Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are the same entity, a discussion on where they begin or end is irrelevant to the naming. The term "Byzantine" may have pejorative connotations, but that does not subtract from the primary topic. As for the Google Books search, searching "History of XXX" is not indicative of actual prevalence, simply because the ERE/Byz. Empire is a purely historical entity. "History of" is redundant in this case, since it is de facto implied whenever you refer to the empire. Constantine 13:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
As also said earlier this article was constructed to begin at 285 (before the foundation of Constantinople in 330), and there are sources which explicitly describe "Byzantine Empire" as referring mainly to the period after the seventh century, this is of course not the only point of view, but the existence of multiple points of view on this issue shows clearly that there is ambiguity about this expression. On point 3, what I meant to say was that, in my opinion, it doesn't make too much sense to have all articles about this topic titled with the word "Byzantine" while using the Turkish word for Roman when referring to the "Sultanate of Rum" (and to me it nearly looks like saying that the turks are more "Roman" than the eastern Romans). And the article which should've been renamed was probably "Byzantine Empire", and also "Byzantium under the Constantinian and Valentinian dynasties", "Byzantium under the Theodosian dynasty" and "Byzantium under the Justinian Dynasty". Cody7777777 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
First, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument: Byzantium under the Theodosian dynasty should be moved to Byzantine Empire under the Theodosian dynasty, but that is not a reason for not moving the present article. Second, the point you are trying to make about the "East Roman" conveying different starting points than "Byzantine" is flat out wrong. "Byzantine" can indeed be used as early as 284 (cf. Treadgold) or as late as 717, but throughout the period, "Byzantine"="East Roman" or indeed, "Byzantine"="Roman". Where you put the starting point depends on what criterion you choose, political structure, religion, uniqueness of imperial claim, cultural criteria, etc. It does not mean that we should create differently-labelled articles repeating the same information about the same state, but with a different starting date. The issue of the "start date", as well as the "Roman-ness" is dealt with at Byzantine Empire adequately and prominently enough, IMO. On the Rum Sultanate, you'll notice that "Rum" is the term used not only by the Turks, but almost universally by the scholars alongside terms like "Sultanate of Iconium" etc. We also don't call it the "Roman Sultanate" or the "Sultanate of the Roman Empire", so the relevance is marginal, for most people don't recognize the connection of "Rum" with "Roman" either way... Constantine 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Sultanate of Rum" gets around 2900 results and it is the article title of the Sultanate of Rum, and since "Eastern Roman Empire" gets around 36.000 results, I cannot understand why it is so problematic as a title ("Byzantine Empire" gets more results, but as said before it is pejorative and also has ambiguity, since there's no clear start date). Also, most people reading the article about the "Sultanate of Rum" will easily realize that "Rum" means "Roman". Also, if WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument, then it also means that there's no problem if this article is titled "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" while we also have an article titled "Byzantine Empire". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Additionally:
  • On the Google "hits", per Ibladi (above): "As I said on the discussion page of Byzantine Empire, searches on Google Books like the ones above must be treated with suspicion. If you take a closer look at the sources you will see that many (most?) of the hits for "History of the Eastern Roman Empire": 740 hits are caused by the occurrence of the title of Bury's book "A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I." in texts that may or may not use the word "Byzantine". Iblardi (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009. (UTC)" And of course, that book was written in the 1920s.
  • A better view is obtained by looking at the references in the Byzantine Empire article (which I believe is applicable to this artuicle but the full referencing hasn't been carried accross yet): here Virtually every single reference is to "Byzantine" with the exception of Bury.
  • "Byzantine's" negative connotations are nowadays wholly disassociated from the academic and indeed popular use of "Byzantine" in the context of the empire. In other words, one can safely assume that in the modern world (whatever the Victorians felt) no one draws a negative conclusion about the empire because it is called "Byzantine".
DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Subsequent Comment I've noticed that Cody7777777 has been amending his initial post (and other postings) several days after the original posting, despite there being subsequent responses. The amendments either introduce new points or seek to answer points that were made by other editors after the original post was made. The purpose of tgis post is to respond to this change, this change and this change to point 5 on his original post above. Firstly, consensus is not unanimity, see WP:UNANIMOUS. Secondly, this article has been "stable" for the last 2 years only because it is an ignored back-water. When Cody established it, he cut and pasted the history section of Byzantine Empire. However, he did not reduce the original section in Byzantine Empire to a summary in accordance with WP:Summary style. The history section of Byzantine Empire therefore remains the main history article and this article is largely ignored. This needs to be sorted out: either delete this article or take out the main article history section. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed that there is a large degree of overlap between this article and its parent. I'm not sure if an intermediary between the broader historical narrative and the individual episodes such as Byzantine-Arab wars etc. is really needed. Iblardi (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, "rough consensus" applies only in cases when there are editors making bad faith edits. The history section on "Byzantine Empire" was nonetheless reduced, however it should probably be reduced more. (And that article currently has around 152.984 bytes, it should have less.) And regardless if this article was ignored or not, it was still stable for more than 2 years. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I also wish to rebate the points raised by Cody.
'Byzantine Empire' is as ambiguous as 'Eastern Roman Empire'. However the name 'Byzantine Empire' is way more popular and used way more often by writers and historians.
The term 'Byzantine' is indeed pejorative, but this move request is not about that term, it is about the 'History of the Byzantine Empire'.
It can be strange? It is strange that we have an article called Byzantine Empire but that the article about its history is called History of the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore please look at the name of the Template:History of the Byzantine Empire.
The Google books results are unwise: most books about the history of the Byzantine Empire will simply not use the title 'History of the Byzantine Empire'. They will simply use the title 'The Byzantine Empire', 'Byzantine Empire' or something similar. Flamarande (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"History of the Byzantine Empire" includes nonetheless the term "Byzantine" which, as you also agree, is known to be pejorative, and the principle of "Neutral Point of View" is actually considered to be above the other guidelines of Wikipedia. "Google Books" is useful since it provides access to many academic books, and the proposal is to rename "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" to "History of the Byzantine Empire" (not to "Byzantine Empire" or "The Byzantine Empire") which has less than 200 results on "Google Books". Also John Bagnall Bury's books are not the only ones which appear in the search for "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" (which returns around 574 results). Also, the fact that John Bagnall Bury's books were reprinted and cited many times proves that his works are still being read and continue to have a lot of influence today. And this article is also a sub-article of "History of the Roman Empire" (not just of "Byzantine Empire"). And especially since this is a controversial topic, we do not need to name all articles with the term "Byzantine" (Wikipedia should not favor a single name for articles about controversial topics), and this article was already stable for a period of 2-3 years. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Your point on NPOV is absolutely wrong. The relevant policy is WP:POVTITLE, which is worth quoting in full:
"When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL"
Please comment on the near entirety of the Byzantine Empire article referenced works being to "Byzantine" rather than "East Roman".
DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
But it is not me (the editor) who's passing the judgment that "Byzantine" is pejorative, the sources are explicitly claiming it is pejorative, and according to the following "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity"..., "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" looks clear enough for the period 285-1461, (and "History of the Byzantine Empire" seems less clear about this period). Also, the examples mentioned there ("Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal") are different from the case discussed here, since they include self-identifying names of these places (Boston, Belgium, Teapot dome) with a description (an equivalent in this case would've been "Byzantine Roman Empire", and "Byzantine" is a historiographical term, it is not a real name). (And regarding the sources mentioned in the "Byzantine Empire" article which use the term "Byzantine", these sources probably do not have a "NPOV" policy like Wikipedia, but anyway these sources are not claiming that "Byzantine" is not pejorative.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Cody, you are repeating the same arguments you have brought forth without avail so many times at Talk:Byzantine Empire. It does not matter if the term is deemed by some (notice that last part, please) to be pejorative, because it is universally established as the prevalent term. Unfair to the medieval Roman Empire, yes, but a fact nonetheless. The scholars studying the empire are called "Byzantinists", their journals and publications have "Byzantine" everywhere on them, whether in English, German, French, Italian, Greek, Russian, you name it. Until and unless this usage changes, we are bound to follow it. Constantine 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that the reasons I'm repeating these arguments, is because you raised the same issues here, which were also answered before. "Eastern Roman Empire" is a well known term (and "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" appears more often on "Google Books" than "History of the Byzantine Empire"). Also, I do not see where it says that we are bound to use only "Byzantine". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Cody, the policy is quite clear: the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources. The most common name trumps NPOV. It doesn't matter that a few sources say "Byzantine" is pejorative if the overwhelming number of sources refer to this polity as "Byzantine". It couldn't be clearer. One other point. You refer to this topic as "controversial". Actually, it's not. In the real/academic world, this is barely mentioned. It's not a scholarly issue of interest. It's only controversial within the Wikipedia bubble. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The principle of "Neutral Point of View" is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so common name cannot trump NPOV here, and it is clearly claimed here that "neutral terms are generally preferable". Also, as it was already explained above, it is not my desire to pass judgment that "Byzantine" is pejorative, it is the sources who are describing "Byzantine" as pejorative (as the guidelines state "the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources), and since there aren't any sources claiming that "Byzantine" is not a pejorative term, I do not see any reason to doubt that "Byzantine" is pejorative (that could actually result in "Original Research"). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Btw, have you noticed that all the sources (save for one) which you cite saying that "Byzantine" is pejorative actually use "Byzantine" rather than "East Roman" in the rest of the text to refer to the Empire. Clearly, the point they make about it being pejorative is a minor one that doesn't in their eyes affect how they themselves use the term. The one that doesn't (the foreward to a translation of a history by Al Tabari) isn't about Byzantine history. And while they also say that "byzantine" has become a pejorrative term when applied in a context outside of Byzantine history (as in referring to, say, politics as "byzantine") none say that it is pejorative to refer to the empire as the "Byzantine Empire". You are therefore using these sources out of context and they do not in fact support your point of non-NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see where these sources say that "Byzantine" is pejorative only when used outside the context of "Byzantine history". The sources mentioned earlier are explicitly saying the word "Byzantine" (which is obviously also included in the expression "Byzantine Empire") is a pejorative term, and the fact that they use also the word "Byzantine" in their text, doesn't change the fact that they describe this term as "pejorative". And if even sources, which do not deal with this state as their main topic, claim that "Byzantine" is pejorative, then this is more proof that it is a well known fact that "Byzantine" is a pejorative. Also, more sources claiming it is pejorative can be found, and the following book (which deals mainly about this state) states clearly enough the controversy about this topic "The terms 'Byzantium', 'Byzantine' and 'Byzantine Empire' also pose problems. The term 'Byzantine Empire' was coined comparatively late in European history to describe the eastern Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople as distinct and separate from the western Roman Empire ruled from Rome...In this way, the 'Byzantine Empire' was disinherited from the Roman legacy and mainstream European history...". Cody7777777 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That last quote has nothing to do with it being pejorative. As for the rest, it's no different to modern deprecatory national stereotypes and slurs. Just because some (depending on the culture) use such stereotypes such as "Italian disorganization", "British stiffness", "German authoritarianism", doesn't mean that references to Italy, Britain and Germany are pejorative. That's effectively what you are trying to say and it's incorrect. But this is an irrelevance. The policy is quite clear: "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids...In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment...This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources." DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
In your examples the words "Italian", "German" and "British" are not pejoratives, (but "Byzantine" is described as a pejorative term in sources). And since it seems you're starting to repeat the same argument about these guidelines again, I have to state again, that it is not my desire to pass a personal judgment that "Byzantine" is pejorative, it is the sources which claim that it is pejorative or in some way non-neutral. The examples mentioned in the guideline about "Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal" are also different from this case, since the names "Boston, Belgium and "Teapot Dome" are not pejorative (at least as far as I know, but "Byzantine" is). And the naming section from WP:NPOV, claims that "neutral terms are generally preferable", and there is also this Wikipedia guideline stating that "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity. (And regarding the last quote, I forgot to mention the following part "Byzantine' rapidly came to stand for everything that was degenerate, corrupt, oriental - in other words, the perceived antithesis of Roman".) Cody7777777 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "Eastern Roman Empire" should refer to the empire only as one part of a two-part Roman Empire. The western emperors are abolished in the late 5th century however; Eastern Roman Empire shouldn't refer to anything after that point as there is only one Roman Empire, the emperor at Constantinople ruling both halves again. Support Roman Empire in the Middle Ages too, though that's what Byzantine Empire refers to really: stupid neologisms! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that this state would be better described as simply the "Roman Empire" (and also as "Roman Empire in the Middle Ages", "Medieval Roman Empire", "Later Roman Empire" or perhaps even "Byzantine Roman Empire", although "Byzantine" is a pejorative), I do not think "History of the Byzantine Empire" is an improvement (for the reasons mentioned earlier). Indeed "Eastern Roman Empire" has been used to refer to the eastern part of the Roman Empire, but it could also be used to mean Roman Empire ruled from an eastern capital (and this term is used in sources referring to the empire as late as 1453). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "Byzantine Empire" certainly gets more hits on this ngram. The term "Byzantine" has to be stretched a bit to cover the early centuries, but to talk about an "Eastern Roman Empire" in the 14th or 15th centuries is just goofy. Kauffner (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"Eastern Roman Empire" is used in in sources to refer to the period until the 15th century. I am not denying that "Byzantine Empire" has also been used to refer to the earlier periods too, but there are still historians who use it for the period after the seventh century. And the proposal is to rename this article to "History of the Byzantine Empire" (not "Byzantine Empire"), and as said before, a strict search on "Google Books" for "History of the Byzantine Empire" appears to return less than 200 results, while "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" returns more than 500 results (and this can mean that "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" is encountered more often in academic books). But anyway, commonality is not the only criterion we have (we should also avoid using terms which according to sources are pejorative[10][11], at least when there are more neutral alternative common names, like in this case). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
When article XXX becomes too long, an article entitled "History of XXX" is created and the overflow is transferred to that. It is not appropriate to Google "History of XXX" since this convention is peculiar to Wiki. My preferred solution is two articles, "History of the Eastern Roman Empire (330-610)" and "History of the Byzantine Empire (610-1453)". Kauffner (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that - fits with historiographical convention. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree too, if there were a clear cut-off point between "East Roman" and "Byzantine". 610 is common, but so is 476, and 641, not to mention other dates like 565 or 717, while many authors continue to use "Roman" plain and simple up to 1453. If there is to be a split, it'd be better to use the more or less established three-way division of Byzantine history: early Byzantine period (330-Heraclius), middle Byzantine period (Heraclius-1204) and late Byzantine period (1204-1453), and we need to be consistent in using "Byzantine", otherwise we are implying that the East Roman and the Byzantine empires were different political entities. Constantine 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it does imply that - although it does imply a "cultural/political" distinction (reflecting historical reality) - which is why scholarly use of "East Roman" is quite common in the earlier period and "Byzantine" is the norm in the latter periods. All the dates you give are arguable - it's always invidious (and unscholarly) to have "dates" for the begining and end of historical periods. Personally, I'd prefer to have an East Roman article expressed as going from "late antiquity to the early middle ages" and Byzantine going from "the early middle ages to the mid 15th century", with the first article begining with the first division of the empire and with overlapping coverage of a "long" 6th century in both articles. But I don't know if that's "allowed" under the rules. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you. For me too, and in most sources I've read, "East Roman" refers to late Antiquity, and "Byzantine" more to the medieval, post-Muslim conquests empire. However, if we begin splitting that and naming the early period with a term other than "Byzantine", why not split the Byzantine Empire article as well? We should IMO retain the "Byzantine" label per the main article, and then we can judge about splitting the "History of" article per above. Constantine 11:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Although, I'm still not really sure if it is necessary, I'm not against the idea of also having other more detailed articles about the periods 330-610 and 610-1453 (which can be titled as "History of the Eastern Roman Empire (330-610)" and "History of the Byzantine Empire (610-1453)", although these articles should avoid giving the impression that "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine" can refer only to these specific periods), but we should still have an article about the period between 285/330 and 1453/1461 (like this one), and I do not see any real problem with it being titled "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" (for the reasons mentioned earlier, and it was already stable for 2-3 years). As mentioned earlier, there are sources which place the end of the "Eastern Roman Empire" in 1453 or 1461, and I have not seen yet sources to explicitly claim that the existence of the "Eastern Roman Empire" (as a political entity) ends in 610, although, I have seen sources claiming that the (concept of) "Byzantine Empire" begins in 610. Also, I do not see what is the problem with searching "History of XXX" on Google Books, commonality (along with the other criteria) could also apply when naming descriptive titles (like "History of", and as mentioned previously "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" got more results). I would also add that currently in strict searches for books on "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Emprie", although the first pages return more results, when checking the last pages of the search, "Eastern Roman Empire" on last page (39) is shown as having 390 results, while "Byzantine Empire" on last page (25) appears to have 241 results, this could suggest that the expression "Eastern Roman Empire" can be encountered in more books than "Byzantine Empire", and in that case this, I think the article which should be renamed is "Byzantine Empire". Also, in my opinion, the articles "Byzantium under the Constantinian and Valentinian dynasties", "Byzantium under the Theodosian dynasty", "Byzantium under the Leonid Dynasty", and "Byzantium under the Justinian Dynasty" should be renamed as "Roman Empire under the Constantinians and Valentinians", "Roman Empire under the Theodosians", "Roman Empire under the Leonids" and "Roman Empire under the Justinians", and this would only show that historiography has favored to use "Byzantine" more often for later periods. And having this article (which deals mainly with the political history of the Eastern Roman state during the period 285-1461) titled "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" while have also having the article "Byzantine Empire" (for the period 330-1453, which also deals with the cultural changes, and the cultural changes are probably the main reasons white it was also called "Byzantine") can show more clearly that the terms "Eastern Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" can be used to refer to the same entity. (I would also add that in my opinion, the term "Byzantine Roman Empire", although it still includes the pejorative "Byzantine", could also be another term for describing the entire period, but having this article titled "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" while also having "Byzantine Empire" is fine for me.) Cody7777777 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
These are all points you've already made and already been answered. There's not much point in keep repeating yourself. DeCausa (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not like to assume bad faith, but to be honest, I think this is proof you have not even bothered to read the above post when you wrote this (there are also things which I did not say before), and the repetitions appear because you're raising the same issues again. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments above. In English we should not be talking about the "Eastern Roman Empire" in the 15th century. And for consistency with other articles like Byzantine Emperor, Byzantine art etc. The pejorative aspect of "Byzantine" has greatly diminished over the last 50 years - now it's "medieval" that gets the heat. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think these arguments were already answered earlier, "Eastern Roman Empire" is used in in sources to refer to the period until the 15th century. It was also mentioned that in recent sources[12][13] that "Byzantine" is a pejorative term (and I have not seen any evidence that it no longer is pejorative). Also, if other articles are titled with pejorative terms, it is not necessary to title more articles in this way. And I could also mention that there is inconsistency between Byzantine Empire and Sultanate of Rum or Rumelia. Please check the above discussions more carefully. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Although you "already answered earlier" the same points subsequently keep coming up. You should take the hint that your answers aren't accepted rather than keep repeating the same thing. DeCausa (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that, refusing to accept answers (without explaining) nearly sounds like "I just don't like it" (and in this case, regardless if we like it or not, "Eastern Roman Empire" has been used in sources to refer to the empire as late as 1453 or 1461). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources in the first link are hardly impressive: "Travel Rome, Italy for Smartphones and Mobile Devices - ..." et al! Those in the 2nd link aren't much better; none seem to endorse the pejorative use themselves. Given the very widespread use of "medieval" as a pejorative term, should all articles using that be renamed? The Rum Sultans are neither here nor there. You should check the titles in the bibliographies of recent academic works more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't the only source mentioned, but regardless of their names, these sources still mentioned the "Eastern Roman Empire" as lasting until 1453 or 1461, and if even sources whose main topic isn't about this state, claim that the Eastern Roman Empire existed until the 15th century, this actually more proof that it is a well known fact. And more sources can be found if really necessary. And the other sources have explicitly stated that "Byzantine" has pejorative connotations (and we do not need to analyze which sources use it in this way, that nearly sounds like doing Original Research, in this case all that is necessary, is secondary sources claiming it is pejorative). And as far as I know, "Medieval" is not a name used for a specific people or state, it usually describes a historical period. And actually I have rarely heard about it being a "pejorative" (but maybe I'm mistaken). Also, we probably do not have alternatives for "Medieval", while for "Byzantine" we have "Eastern Roman" as an alternative. (And regarding, the Turkish Anatolian "Sultanate of Rum", it was called "Rum", because the "Byzantine Empire" was the (eastern) Roman Empire, and it is called this way by many historians.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This is POV. [14] There is no basis for this other than Euro-centric opinion. As if the Eastern Roman Empire should not be called that. This is disinformation being disseminated by Wikipedia, to people whom might not be informed. As if a consensus on Wikipedia is justifiable to rewrite history. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the bibliography in the Byzantine Empire article. "Byzantine" hugely outweighs "Eastern Roman", which would be pretty much non-exitent if it weren't for Bury. It's Wikipedia's role to reflect the sources not to pioneer a crusade to right perceived wrongs. DeCausa (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The section you mentioned does not include all the existent sources. "Google Books" does not include all sources either, but I think it is obvious enough that it has access to a larger database than the sources mentioned on Wikipedia. "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" returns more than 500 results, while "History of the Byzantine Empire" returns less than 200 results. (Also currently in strict searches for books on "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", although the first pages return more results, when checking the last pages of the search, "Eastern Roman Empire" on last page (39) is shown as having around 390 results, while "Byzantine Empire" on last page (25) appears to have around 241 results, and this could suggest that the term "Eastern Roman Empire" can be encountered more often in academic books than "Byzantine Empire", but at least it can show that "Eastern Roman Empire" is quite as common as "Byzantine Empire".) But regardless, it is obvious enough that "Byzantine" has subjective connotations (there were enough sources shown to support this), and in such cases we should use more neutral alternative common terms (at least when there are such terms, and in this case we have "Eastern Roman"), and according to the following guideline of Wikipedia "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity". (As far as I see, the article which should be renamed is rather "Byzantine Empire", but having this article called "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" while also having "Byzantine Empire" is an acceptable compromise for me.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're repeating all that you've said before which has already been answered. Repeating it so often doesn't make it correct. Google books has beeen answered. "Pejorative" has been answered. WP:POVTITLE v alleged NPOV has been answered. Really, there's no point filling up this thread with lengthy paragraphs repeating the same thing. DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I see, in your response to LoveMonkey, you repeated some issues about commonality and neutrality which were already answered earlier. The reasons I repeated some arguments was that instead of assuming bad faith on your actions, I preferred to assume you did not understood them clearly enough. Regardless if we like or not, it was already explained that WP:POVTITLE does not support "History of the Byzantine Empire" (you can check the posts from the dates "17:09, 1 April 2011 ", "17:59, 1 April 2011", "21:15, 1 April 2011" and "22:57, 1 April 2011"). And if you do not want to see repetitions, please stop raising the same issues again. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I responded to LoveMonkey - he had not posted before. That's not repetitious. You were responding to me and just re-posted what you previously had said to me! What's the point in that? Clearly, I don't accept what you are saying and much of what you say is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. On WP:POVTITLE you really are claiming black is white. There isn't really any doubt about it, I'm afraid. DeCausa (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
When you responded to LoveMonkey you have nonetheless repeated some issues (related to commonality and neutrality) which were already discussed earlier (and as far as I know, this is called "repetition" regardless to whom you're repeating them). I do not like to speak this way, but regarding WP:POVTITLE, this looks like more proof that you're refusing to hear (or see) what was said in the earlier posts (mentioned above). More specifically in this case, it appears you have not heard/seen that WP:POVTITLE speaks about article titles which have common names with non-neutral words which are distinct from the proper name, like "Boston Massacre", "Rape of Belgium" and "Teapot Dome scandal", not about common non-neutral names for states or people (like "Byzantine"). The proper names mentioned in the examples ("Boston", "Belgium" and "Teapot Dome") are not pejorative (or non-neutral), while "Byzantine" is pejorative (and this is not based on the judgment of Wikipedia editors, it is explicitly mentioned in secondary sources, as it was shown several times earlier). You also appear to have not heard that "neutral terms are generally preferable", and in this case we have "Eastern Roman" as a more neutral alternative to "Byzantine", (in the cases of "Boston Massacre", "Rape of Belgium" and "Teapot Dome scandal" there are no neutral alternatives, at least as far as I know). You also seem to have not heard that "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity". Except the previous, I would also add the following guideline which claims "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term" (so in other words, when there are neutral titles available for articles, the pejorative or non-neutral terms should normally be used only as redirects). (I'm sorry in case you feel offended by this post, but you wanted it this way.) Cody7777777 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
For goodness sake! No matter how many times you post it, it doesn't make it right!! (Oh and by he way stop quoting out of context "neutrality trumps popularity" that's specifically about seach engine searches - and you're the only one who keeps repeating Google!!!). DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I have to say that at least to me, this looks more like an attempt to avoid most of the arguments mentioned. Personally, I have no problem if you disagree with what I wrote, but as far as I know, in these discussions we should normally try to give clearer explanations when we disagree. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Goodness sake or not. Cody is not alone in his position. This renaming looks to him and me like more political correctness. Also why is opposition to this revision so wrong? I mean do the Serbs not see themselves as being bombed by NATO for standing up to Islamic fundamentalism? And now that is not acceptable? How dare they, right? Why is your opinion the only valid one when it is an opinion not endorsed by the very people it represents. But then I guess that is whats being lost in the debate here. You will need the Greek on here to attack and undermine Romanides. Thats called a sell out to seal the deal. That of course is the next step, destroying people's identities and undermining their cultural history in order to strip them of their uniqueness. Why that's the Western way isn't it? Assimilate. The East has this history too but it is not applicative to this situation. Just like Romanides states [15]. And yes I understand that there is a Heliocentric view (opposed to geocentrism) that pre-dates Galileo and that it's total B.S. what children are taught in the West about the East in that it was not until Western Astronomers that people everywhere did not believe that everything revolve around the earth. Byzantium is as much a Western creation as is that example and Palamism all are good old fashion ignorance that history does not support. And just because allot of people are ignorant does not make it OK. Again why was Constantine as Serb head of a thing called Byzantium or Theodosius I a Spaniard? Because they where genuine Roman Emperors of the genuine Roman Empire. Your not saying that they weren't, but you are. People have literally told me to my face that the Turks are Byzantium and a continuation of the Byzantine Empire. THE TURKS. Why because of this kind of disinformation. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. I've always been puzzled by the strength of feeling by some Wikipedia editors about this Byzantine v Roman thing. I've engaged in not many of these discussions (a couple of times only) and just couldn't figure it out. It just seemed unaccountably bizarre. I suspected it must have had something to do with modern politics because people don't generally get that heated about medieval history, but I couldn't really understand what it could be. I'm sorry you feel this is about destroying an identity. Unfortunately or fortunately (not sure which applies) it's not quite as grand as that. I don't think it would cross anyone's mind in "the West" (if such a conspiratorially coherent thing exists in this context) that this is about denigrating an "Eastern" culture. It's just a convenient way of describing a polity that lasted a long time in different guises - just as we say "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom" or "New Kingdom" for Ancient Egypt. Well anyway, I've learnt something new today! (Doesn't change anything about this move request though.) DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you learned something new (I also learned many new things during discussions on Wikipedia). But regarding the term "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom" or "New Kingdom", as far as I know, they are not described as pejorative terms in sources. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't really tell if you really believe that "in the West" applying "Byzantine" to its name is pejorative. It really isn't. If it were otherwise, you wouldn't have the NY Met having an exhibit called the Glory of Byzantium and many other titles of books, exhibitions, conferences, articles using "Byzantine" in a similarly positive way. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I see, the website you mentioned, does not state that "Byzantine" is not pejorative (and assuming it somehow suggests that it is not pejorative, may lead to Original Research). Secondary sources claiming that "Byzantine" is pejorative were shown several times (and I don't think it is really necessary to post them again). Cody7777777 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Guys, all this is well and fine, but these argument still pertain to the naming of the Byzantine Empire. This has been debated to death to death at its talk page, and the consensus is known to all. This is not the point here. The point is that this page is about the history of this entity, which we already call everywhere (and academia calls everywhere) as "Byzantine Empire". If the main article has a name, per common sense we should call the "history of" page by the same name. I still haven't seen an argument against this, other than the typical OTHERSTUFF. Constantine 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There has also been (at least partial) discussion about this issue earlier (for more details, please check the post from the date "15:07, 3 April 2011"). The term "Eastern Roman Empire" is also a well known common name (as discussed in earlier posts). And the fact, that some articles are titled with pejorative titles is not a reason to title all articles using pejorative titles (and Wikipedia should not adopt a single subjective point of view, especially on controversial topics), and this seems only like common sense. And as you also agree, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason for renaming an article. This article is also a sub-article for History of the Roman Empire (not just for Byzantine Empire), and this article only discusses the political evolution of the "Eastern Roman Empire", while "Byzantine Empire" also discusses about cultural issues (which were probably among the main reasons why it was also termed "Byzantine"). And the fact that this has been so often debated on the talk page of "Byzantine Empire" (and its archives), does not prove there was a consensus (and anyway, true consensus must be unanimous), it rather proves it is a controversial topic (it was probably at most agreed to try to avoid discussing this issue, until you decided to reopen it here). As far as I see, the article which should be renamed is "Byzantine Empire" (either to "Eastern Roman Empire", or at least to "Byzantine Roman Empire"), but as I also said earlier, having this article titled "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" while also having "Byzantine Empire" is an acceptable compromise for me. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"And the fact, that some articles are titled with pejorative titles is not a reason to title all articles using pejorative titles (and Wikipedia should not adopt a single subjective point of view, especially on controversial topics)" You forget that "Byzantine" is overwhelmingly used for the Empire, which is its primary topic. You forget that naming it "Byzantine" is not "controversial", when the entire historical field devoted to the study of the empire uses the term, with "Eastern Roman" or simply "Roman" used secondarily and in specific contexts. As for the worn-out pejorative argument, spare me the "political correctness" talk. It is equally an attempt at political correctness to try to reverse a centuries-old, well-established and universally accepted historiographic term just because it doesn't suit your POV and ideology. Perhaps we should rename China as the Middle Kingdom across the board while we're at it... "This article is also a sub-article for History of the Roman Empire (not just for Byzantine Empire), and this article only discusses the political evolution of the "Eastern Roman Empire", while "Byzantine Empire" also discusses about cultural issues", sorry, but this is nonsense. First, we all know that this article began as a content fork from the history section of the Byzantine Empire, and covers exactly the period that the Byz. Empire occupies. Second, for all intents and purposes everywhere in the world, the Byzantine Empire = Eastern Roman Empire. For God's sake, in what historical study is "Eastern Roman" used a political term and "Byzantine" a purely cultural one? Which historical method uses different names for the history of a state/culture and for the state/culture itself? This is a completely OR, not to say unscientific view... "As far as I see, the article which should be renamed is "Byzantine Empire"", again, that is not what this discussion is about. Until the main article is moved, all the articles relating to it should use the same terminology. Your campaigning here is in the wrong page and hence off topic. Constantine 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the arguments mentioned earlier can apply to "Byzantine Empire", does not mean they cannot apply here too. You have also repeated some issues which were already discussed earlier. Regarding commonality, this issue was already discussed, both "Eastern Roman Empire" and "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" are well known common terms (please check the earlier posts). It was also already shown that the term "Byzantine Empire" is controversial, "The terms 'Byzantium', 'Byzantine' and 'Byzantine Empire' also pose problems. The term 'Byzantine Empire' was coined comparatively late in European history to describe the eastern Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople as distinct and separate from the western Roman Empire ruled from Rome...In this way, the 'Byzantine Empire' was disinherited from the Roman legacy and mainstream European history..."Byzantine rapidly came to stand for everything that was degenerate, corrupt, oriental - in other words, the perceived antithesis of Roman", "no Byzantine Empire ever began to exist". You also raised the issue about neutrality again. As far as I know, China is not described as a pejorative term in secondary sources while "Byzantine" is described as pejorative in secondary sources (it was shown in earlier posts). According to the principle of NPOV (which is a pillar of Wikipedia) it is preferred to use neutral terms (at least when they are available), "neutral terms are generally preferable", "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity", while pejorative or non-neutral terms should normally be used only as redirects ("In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term". Also, regardless from where the article's content was taken, it is currently also used as a sub-article for "History of the Roman Empire". And there are indeed some sources which refer to the political state as "Eastern Roman Empire" while referring to its culture as "Byzantine Culture" ("Constantinople, which for eleven hundred years and more had been the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the centre of Byzantine culture", "The eastern Roman empire developed a Greek Christian, or Byzantine, culture", "...the influence of Byzantine culture emanating from the Eastern Roman Empire"), and this article does not have a culture section like "Byzantine Empire". Cody7777777 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you really choosing to ignore a published corpus of thousands of books and articles that consistently use "Byzantine" in favour of a handful that use other terms? You are seriously bringing "Folklore of other lands", "The Western Heritage: Since 1648", "The English Bible" as expert sources on the Byzantine Empire? This is a textbook example of POV-driven source cherrypicking, and the fact that you couldn't find better (and more pertinent) sources speaks volumes both on the weakness of your position as well as on your WP:IDHT attitude towards overwhelming scholarly usage. I am done discussing with you. Constantine 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The reasons I shown the last sources above, was because you claimed earlier that no one speaks of "Byzantine Culture" while referring to the political state as "Eastern Roman Empire" (and the fact that the main topic of these books is not about this state does not change what they claim), but anyway that was not the main argument. The commonality issue was discussed already in several posts earlier (like the the one from 13:03, 1 April 2011, and I don't think it's really necessary to re-post the links mentioned already several times), as already discussed "Eastern Roman" is also a well known common name. And regardless which one is the most common, even if we like or not we should normally not ignore the other criteria mentioned (like neutrality, especially since NPOV is considered a pillar of Wikipedia). I'm also done discussing with you about these issues. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It’s preposterous to argue that “Byzantine” is not the predominant nomenclature and is overwhelmingly more common than “Eastern Roman”. (The google search you keep referring to is disproportionately affected by the many references to Bury’s book from the 1920s.) Any bibliography of the subject demonstrates that this is the case. Here are two examples:

There is a reason why, apart from Bury, the Byzantine Empire article bibliography overwhelmingly refers to “Byzantine” not “Eastern Roman”. It is equally preposterous to claim there is an NPOV issue with “Byzantine”. It is hardly credible that all the leading scholars in the field have a POV to push and use a disparaging title. In fact, it appears from LoveMonkey’s outburst in this thread that there is some sort of POV-push against “Byzantine” for reasons connected with East European nationalist feelings. Innany event, WP:POVTITLE makes the NPOV argument irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that "Eastern Roman" is the most common, but it is a common name nonetheless, and a more neutral one. If the books of John Bagnall Bury have so much influence to affect the results of Google Books, this is more proof of the importance and popularity of these works. The fact that on Google Books (which has a large database), "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" returns more than 500 results, while "History of the Byzantine Empire" currently returns less than 200 results (and even in strict searches for books on "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", although the first pages return more results, when checking the last pages of the search, "Eastern Roman Empire" on last page (39) is shown as having around 390 results, while "Byzantine Empire" on last page (25) appears to have around 241 results), this looks like enough proof to me that "Eastern Roman" is a common term, even if it may not be the most common one. (And we do not always name articles by their most common name, especially when it has other problems, for example you can check on Climategate, a redirect which is much more more common than its article name, "Climatic Research Unit email controversy".)
The issue of WP:POVTITLE was also discussed several times (like on 22:37, 4 April 2011), so I have to say that I cannot really understand why you're raising it again. It clearly refers to cases when there are no other alternatives in common usage (like in the cases of "Boston Massacre", "Rape of Belgium" and "Teapot Dome Scandal"). (The guideline's version from february 2011, was more clearly stating "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)", and this topic has more common names.) Also, in the examples mentioned on POVTITLE, refer to events ("Boston Massacre", "Rape of Belgium", "Teapot Dome Scandal"), not to names of states and people, and "Boston", "Belgium" and "Teapot Dome" are not pejorative, while "Byzantine" is (according to secondary sources[16][17], not the judgment of Wikipedia editors). The guidelines, speaking about neutrality are clear enough, "neutral terms are generally preferable", "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity", "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term" (so when there are alternative more neutral common names, the pejorative or non-neutral terms should normally be used only as redirects). Cody7777777 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do you just repeat the same posting word for word (more or less) over and over again. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's really quite bizarre and I've never seen any thing quite like it on Wikipedia before. I'm done here. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that it is quite bizarre that you are raising again the same issues (which were already discussed several times), and then you keep refusing to hear/see these discussions. I'm sorry to say this, but in my opinion, this looks more like you don't like the arguments (and I do not have any personal problem, if you like them or not, but as far as I know, discussions should not be done this way). Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:canvassing. Cody, to avoid any suspicion of canvassing could you clarify the criteria you applied to determine which editors you notified of this discussion. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified editors whom I observed from earlier discussions might be interested about the topic of this article and the issues discussed here. The language I used in the notifications seemed neutral enough to me (I did not attempted to influence them in either opposing or supporting specific views). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But why exactly those individuals? There are many others who post on Byzantine subjects, and more recently, who you didn't inform: Dr K, EdJohnston, Iblardi, for instance. Indeed, Iblardi, along with yourself and LoveMonkey are the only ones to post on this page prior to this discussion. Please explain how your selection complies with the expectations of WP:Canvassing. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I tried to inform mainly people who appeared to have shown more interest about the naming issues, and the users you mentioned did not seem to me very interested about the title issue. In case I have misunderstood or forgot someone, I apologize. Cody7777777 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, to date, the only two editors who you approached and have shown up on this thread are both "oppose": Jmacwiki and LoveMonkey. You approached 6 others, but they have not shown up yet. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any problem if these editors had the occasion to discuss about this request (and I have not attempted to convince them in a specific direction). And regardless if you believe me or not, I did not know if the notified editors were going to either oppose, support or ignore (or not see, in case some editors are currently inactive) the request for renaming made here. (But anyway, normally decisions on Wikipedia should not be done through voting.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency. Unless there is a specific argument for naming this differently than its parent article, I suggest you put in a move request there. I was not canvassed and arrived here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DeCausa because he had edited an article on my watchlist. Jabrol (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Deacon of Pndapetzim ("Eastern Roman Empire" should refer to the empire only as one part of a two-part Roman Empire), WP:UCN (use common names), and consistency (unless there is a good argument why this article is different from the other Byzantine articles). —  AjaxSmack  01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Jabrol and AjaxSmack:
A specific argument for naming this article differently than its parent article, would be that the title of the parent article has problems (regarding neutrality, and there are also some ambiguity issues about it), and I don't think we need more problematic article titles (and in my opinion this looks more like common sense). (For more details on these issues regarding neutrality, ambiguity and commonality, please also check the previous posts in this long discussion, unless you have already done so.) "Eastern Roman Empire" can indeed refer to the eastern part of the Roman Empire, but it could also be understood as meaning Roman Empire ruled from an eastern capital, but nonetheless there are secondary sources which use the term "Eastern Roman Empire" to refer to this state until the 15th century (and this article is constructed to refer to a period between around 285 to 1453/1461, and currently this article is also used as a sub-article for "History of the Roman Empire", not just for "Byzantine Empire"). It was also proposed earlier to rename "Byzantium under the Constantinian and Valentinian dynasties", "Byzantium under the Theodosian dynasty", "Byzantium under the Leonid dynasty" and "Byzantium under the Justinian Dynasty" to "Roman Emprie under the Constantinians and Valentinians", "Roman Empire under the Theodosians", Roman Empire under the Leonids" and "Roman Empire under the Justinians" because there are historians who prefer to use the expression "Byzantine" only after 610 (and if this is done, the inconsistency would be reduced). (I would also mention again, that "Byzantine" can also cause some inconsistency with the articles Sultanate of Rum and Rumelia, if we refer to a Turkish sultanate from the 11th-14th centuries, as "Rum", then I think we should also have at least one article using the term "Eastern Roman" which also includes this period.) Cody7777777 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cody. The Greeks above all are to be respected as long as it is documented that they are who they are in history (Eastern Romans and part of the Roman Empire as leaders, thinkers and contributors). LoveMonkey (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Most of our readers are NOT the academics who use the specialized vocabulary of their field with full understanding. For this article, many are people who have no memory of learning that BE = ERE. The name "ERE" reminds anyone of the reality, that the political entity continued in the Eastern lands long after the "dark ages" began in the West.

I pass along the following anecdote, which I believe represents our readers: I recently discussed a point with someone (quite well educated, but not in humanities) about the longevity of the RE, and its dominance in Late Antiquity. He expressed surprise, saying that there were other important Mediterranean empires at the time, "like the Byzantine Empire". I tried to explain, as gently as I could, that the BE was indeed such an empire. ;-)

So the questions, it seems to me, are: (1) Are our primary readers historians and Mediterranean-history students? I believe they are not. (2) Will showing them historians' general use of an anachronistic name somehow enlighten them on Roman history (instead of enlightening them on historians' academic culture)? I believe not.

Renaming this article will do our readers a disservice, to no offsetting purpose. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The text of the article does exactly that. It's not Wkipedia's job to right the perceived wrongs of its sources, it just reflects them - and certainly not throgh article titles. In any event, that's an argument about the parent article, Byzantine Empire, not this one which needs to follow it's parent's nomenclature. DeCausa (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again you seem to be raising some issues which were discussed several times. It is the secondary sources which describe "Byzantine" as pejorative and even misleading (so it is not just Wikipedia editors who perceive it as wrong). And if the arguments mentioned earlier can apply to the title of "Byzantine Empire", they can also apply to the title of this article, and we do not need more pejorative or problematic article titles. We do not need to use pejorative or misleading titles when we have more other alternative neutral common names (like "Eastern Roman" in this case), "neutral terms are generally preferable", "Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity. (And we already have other articles which have less common names, like "Climatic Research Unit email controversy", which is less common that its more controversial redirect "Climategate", since in most cases, especially when there are more neutral alternative common names, the pejorative or non-neutral terms are normally used only as redirects, "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term".) For more details please check the earlier posts (like the one from "21:12, 6 April 2011"). Cody7777777 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Nor, I would imagine, the major international journals:
....and universities, but to keep it to maneageable proportions here are four of the world's leading Universities:
DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few more:
DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
And a few more:
DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


I do not see where Departments of Byzantine Studies, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies (and the others added by DeCausa) are claiming that "Byzantine" is not pejorative. (Impressions may lead to Original Research.) And the issue of neutrality was already discussed, there are secondary sources which describe it as pejorative or misleading ([18][19][20][21]). (As shown earlier, "Eastern Roman" is nonetheless also a common name, and we do not need more pejorative titles.) Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You know what "preposterous" is? Its people on here claiming that academic sources they keep posting here on the talk page are telling them and us to rename this Eastern Roman Empire article on Wikipedia the Byzantine Empire. Why are any of the sources posted here to be believed to be saying that it is better to change a very clear and neutral name "Eastern Roman Empire" to an obscure name "Byzantine Empire" when one there was no "Byzantine Empire" because there was a larger Empire called "Rome". It is obfuscating to try and say that people can post this article under the title "Byzantine Empire" and claim that such a title encompassed two essential things.
  • That it was something onto itself i.e. Byzantine Empire when it was not. It was part of the Roman Empire.
  • That it saw itself and it's people as Byzantines and Romans.
This title implies such a thing. And implies that the Emperors did not consider themselves Roman Emperors but rather Byzantine Emperors. That's obfuscating some that is as it is now very clear and easy to understand. Why can the Greeks not be part of the Roman Empire why can their Emperors not be Roman Emperors? What academic sources says it is better to call them for historical purposes Byzantine rather then ROMAN? THATS THE POINT. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Eastern Roman Empire is indeed a common name. However Byzantine Empire is simply the most common name. That's why the article about that state is called 'Byzantine Empire' and NOT 'Eastern Roman Empire'. That also the reason why an article about the history of that historical state should be called 'History of the Byzantine Empire' and NOT 'History of the Eastern Roman Empire'. All of you are certainly free to disagree upon these matters. Flamarande (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, "Eastern Roman Empire" is a common name for the period from the 3/4th century to say the 5/6th century, (latest: Arab conquests up to 8th century). After that it's exceedingly rare (that's one of the reasons that Google book searches are misleading.) DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
We also have to acknowledge that there is simply NO clear borderline/date between the two names. AFAIK there is no clear definition telling us that "the Eastern Roman Empire ended HERE, and this is the starting point of the Byzantine Empire". Wikipedia will certainly NOT advance one; and lacking such a date we should use the most common name for that historical date. This is de facto what happenend with the name of the state itself ('Byzantine Empire') and IMHO should also apply in the article about the history of said state ('History of the Byzantine Empire'). Flamarande (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Eastern Roman Empire" has been used in sources to refer to this state until the 15th century, (and I have not seen sources explicitly claiming the "Eastern Roman Empire" ended as a political entity in 610/717, although there are sources claiming the "Byzantine Empire" started on this date, among other proposed dates). As far as I know, we use the most common names mainly when there are no other problems. But in other cases we can also consider other criteria (like in the case done with "Climategate" which was not titled using the most common name). (I'm sorry for the long delays in response, but I do not always have enough time for editing.) Cody7777777 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Strange how the "sources" in your "Eastern Roman Empire" has been used in sources to refer to this state until the 15th century link haven't been used in the Byzantine Empire article. I suppose "An Historical Exposition of the Prophecies of the Revelation of St John", "Color chemistry: Syntheses, properties, and applications of organic dyes and pigments", "The Origins of Violence: approaches to the study of conflict", "Essentials of Corrections", "The Greeks in Australia", "Cultural Anthropology: The study of Human Beings", and "Literature connections to World History"(being 7 of the 10 books on the first page of results) may not be entirely relevant. At least the other three are history books, even if they're not actually on Byzantine history. DeCausa (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Wikpedia articles do not use the sources you mention, does not look like a reason to ignore what the shown sources are saying. (And the fact that this claim appears in so many books, whose main topic is not about this state, can actually be more proof that it is a well known fact.) And more sources which speak about the Eastern Roman Empire after the 8th century can be shown (like this one). Cody7777777 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a good job you are comforted by these books "whose main topic is not about this state" since I've just looked through the entire list and not one of them (out of the 113) is about Byzantine (or "Eastern Roman") Empire history. But, I see from your last post you managed to find one publication (an Osprey booklet). Well done. DeCausa (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that this information can be found in more than 100 books, can prove it is known well enough. Except the previous, John Bagnall Bury's books should also not be ignored, and even if they are old, they were reprinted and cited many times, so they are popular enough. But anyway, I think it is clear enough that "Eastern Roman" is also a common term (even if it may not be the most common), and we should also consider the other criteria discussed in earlier posts. And if there is really nothing new to say, I would suggest we just wait, until the administrators review this discussion. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree there is nothing new to say - and for some considerable time. I think the discussion can be closed now. DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I am against the use of the term "Byzantine Empire" in all references to this particular state, and always have been. It was the surviving eastern half of the Roman Empire, and always referred to itself as the Roman Empire, and its people as Roman (Rhomaioi in Greek). It never called itself the Byzantine Empire, which was a term coined by Western historians who arbitrarily decided (out of cultural and religious chauvinism) that they wouldn't accept the Eastern Roman Empire for what it really was. While it is true that the term "Byzantine Empire" is very commonly used for this state in modern times, that's no reason for the Wikipedia to continue to affirm a major historical inaccuracy. It's perfectly acceptable, also, to call this state by its correct name, the Eastern Roman Empire, and that is where it should remain. Jsc1973 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I am now concerned that the only editors to oppose this move proposal (other than Cody7777777 himself) have been editors solicited by Cody7777777 to post on this thread: see post to LoveMonkey, post to JMacwiki, and post to Jsc1973. 5 others were also approached by Cody7777777 but have not yet posted on this thread. I raised this issue earlier and asked him how he selected these individuals to approach. His response was that he notified those he thought had shown interest in the subject of naming. I asked him why he hadn't included a number of named editors, including Iblardi. He said it was because they had shown no interest before. Iblardi had made one of the very few postings on this Talk page in 2009 on exactly this subject, and has now posted here to support the move. I think it is highly unlikely that Cody7777777 would not know the preference on this subject of the editors he approached and given that his soliciting has resulted in the only "oppose" comments on this proposal I believe, at minimum, there is a prima facie case to answer for breach of WP:Canvassing. I'd appreciate Cody7777777's response to that. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I see, in that post, Iblardi did not seem to be discussing about naming issues, but more about the results of a Google search. However, since that Google search was mentioned (among other things) during discussions about this issue, it may be possible I have misunderstood him, and in that case, I apologize. Cody7777777 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Iblardi posted to a thread (the only other thread onthis page) about the name of this article. Also, why didn't you notify Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus the only other editor to post on the subject of the article's name in that thread? I note he wanted to change the article name from the current one to History of Byzantium. DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa please refrain from leveling the whole Canvassing thing on Cody. As it appears that your saying that he is not allowed to bring other people in whom have a history of contributing on this subject (in one way, shape, form or fashion) and get their input or get their contribution to this subject. Treating his request for input here at a contribution based collective project in this way has the potential to have a chilling or negative effect on the very thing that is the heart and soul and driving force of the whole Wikipedia collaborative. Lets see if we can stay focused on the substance of what is at issue and please drop the attacks on style as that is a fallacy called style over substance. And the substance here is (again) a widely held belief in the East that renaming (and there by removing) their history as part of the Roman Empire is a form of historical revisionism that allows Europe to absolve itself of depicting the Eastern Roman Empire correctly. As "byzantine" doesn't not mean in a European context happy or Eastern Roman it means "full of intrigue and nefarious double dealing complicated and inflexible." As if Edward Gibbon spoke of it as anything less and of course even though Gibbon has gotten so much of his history wrong his work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is useless (in the East) as its nothing but Euro-centric backwardness. It's garbage and its this kind of garbage (Gibbon) that makes the Eastern historians upset. Just look at the same garbage in how Western historians treat the Northern Crusades, in that -they don't- or they whitewash it like the Battle of the Ice.
In 1983, a revisionist view proposed by historian John I. L. Fennell argues that the battle was not as important, nor as large, as has sometimes been portrayed. Fennell claimed that most of the Teutonic Knights were by that time engaged elsewhere in the Baltic. He also states that the apparent low casualties endured by the knights according to their own sources are an indicative of the small magnitude of the encounter.[1]
This is the same thing in the same vein and that is at least my objection to it. The slavs and Greeks never where the bad guys and its this kind depiction that the separates East and West. As if Alexander Herzen is not seen in the East as a pro-Westernizer whose movement won and got lots and lots of people in Russia killed. And people wonder why there was a Slavophile movement which tried to combat this negative backwardness phobia with sobornost. As it's ultimate failure was that Slavs took pride in being Slavs (meaning against others) and this undermine it's very message of reconciliation. As if it's OK to just post the European side of it and try call that valid history. Look at the Crimean War how can there be justification for Britain killing the Russian soldiers sent to liberate Constantinople from the yoke of Islam? People aren't even getting half of story. The East are Europe's favorite terrorist and villains and this kind of move is just validation of that kind of ignorance. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"The East are Europe's favorite terrorist and villains and this kind of move is just validation of that kind of ignorance." Are you for real? The proposal to move this article towards its most common name is done out of ignorance? I believe that we are beginning to see something here and I do not like what I'm seeing. Flamarande (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a personal attack. Go somewhere else and do that. This link here [22] is my concern.. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Presumably I must be some sort of West European secret agent for initiating this move request (can someone tell me where I collect my paycheck?). And I am doing this because if Byzantine Empire is renamed to Eastern Roman Empire, people in Eastern Europe will dance in the streets, the schismatic Latins will shed tears of rage, the hated Turk will vanish from the face of the earth, and the true Roman Empire will rise again. Get real, people... Constantine 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You can't rename the Byzantine Empire to the Eastern Roman Empire, because it always was the Eastern Roman Empire and not the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire never existed, except in the minds of latter-day historians with an agenda, and their successors who never bothered to correct the error. We're affirming a historical error that is now something like 300 years old. The fact that "Byazntine Empire" is the most common name is no reason to go on using the term. Pope Paul V insisted that the Earth went around the Sun because everyone said so, that doesn't mean he was right. 184.3.254.112 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
...That last post was by me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Jsc1973 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
...George Ostrogorsky and A.A.Vasiliev must have been picking up the same pay check then. DeCausa (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it could be said that the proposal to move this article towards its most common name, does ignore the problems (related to neutrality and ambiguity) discussed earlier. But I would prefer to not start repeating these things again. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Er, back on planet Earth...Cody, I'd still like the answer to my above question. DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus has raised the naming issue, but he has not detailed it too much, it seems he only mentioned some Google searches (which actually support the current name). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Er are any of you for real? That's how you counter Edward Gibbon's garbage is by attacking me. As if Ad hominem is going to change any of this actual history. So this is how Wikipedia creates articles by people acting like this. That's gonna right that wrong. Why is it that John Romanides is saying what he is saying? Let me guess it's because I created John Romandies and he's some sort of invention from some mental delusion. Like Edward Gibbons is some sort of figment of people's imagination. It is quite obvious you can not win this debate by actually countering people's objection no you have to try and marginalize it by claiming that the massive killing between these various people's is something only a few people are imagining. Pathetic. Logical fallacy after logical fallacy. There no such thing as Slavophobia I just invented that whole category. I supposed in my paranoid delusions I also happened to invent the human being John Julius Norwich too. Answer the objections with valid points and scholars and not irrelevant google searches and desperate looking Ad hominem attacks while trying to project that weak nonsense on other people. You have enough of an opposition on here to get an inconclusive consensus already. This is getting old and going no where. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Your incoherent ranting is more suitable for a blog somewhere, I'm sure you know plenty. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thats a personal attack. Your the one obfuscating and that word is synonymous with making this subject incoherent. Your pushing something that refuses to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. You keep projecting onto me. Eastern Roman Empire is a title that anyone can understand there is no need to rename it something obscure just because you don't like it. If your to thick to understand me, then maybe this is just a bit over your head and I can't fix that. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
"Obscure"? "Just because you don't like it"?...Me and these Universities, leading international periodicals and hundreds of scholarly books:
DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The "splendid civilization of Byzantium" (Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, p. xii) surely would not take offence. Konstock (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see where Steven Runciman is claiming that "Byzantine" is not a pejorative term. (Impressions may lead to Original Research, and as shown earlier, there are secondary sources explicitly claiming it is pejorative.) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Frankly, it's hard for me to believe that the issue is even disputed. Has "Byzantine" a pejorative connotation? Sure. But so have "Gothic", "Baroque", "Romanticism", "middle ages", just to mention a few, and nobody has proposed to change the respective articles. What we should be asking hee is what is the term most used by scholars? W£hat's the term used by the standard reference works? In the western universities do students take exams in "Eastern Roman History" or in "Byzantine History"? Anybody who has some decent knowledge of the topic is able to answer, I'd say. And as for Byzantine being supposedly anachronistic, exactly the same could be said for "middle ages".Aldux (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As said before, the term "Byzantine" has been described as pejorative in secondary sources[23][24][25] (and regardless if we like it or not, the principle of NPOV is considered a pillar of Wikipedia). And I have not seen yet sources claiming "Gothic", "Baroque", "Romanticism", "middle ages" are pejorative terms, but in those cases, we probably do not have alternatives, while here we have "Eastern Roman" as an alternative. Cody7777777 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Frankly I am disappointed that people's objections are being treated this way. Why is Eastern Roman Empire hard to understand? Why are you popping in here out of the blue and posting remarks that make it appear like people whom oppose this are stupid or something?
"Frankly, it's hard for me to believe that the issue is even disputed."
Why is no one even following policy and trying to compromise with the opposing position that me and others on here purpose? This is not collaboration this is shoving one position down peoples throats. I have posted where a Professor from the University of Thessaloniki (John Romanides [26]) opposes this kind of thing and people on here have proceeded to ignore that and engage in personal attacks rather than respectfully collaborate and address other editors here and their concerns. This is a joke, a terrible joke not collaboration. How can anyone say that Cody has been uncivil? This looks like the same old typical tag team hammer attack (while accusing the opposition in order to draw attention away from one's own hypocrisy). No one has a right to disrespect the Greeks. There is no sign in this discussion of compromise. This is the POV of User:DeCausa and crew and to hell with anyone and their objections. I mean why don't we got to the Gypsy article and post in there how they are a bunch of Romanian degenerates that steal people's children and sell them into slavery since I can find allot of articles on google that support that POV. How is that informative to people? How is that keeping it simple? Its not, because this is about whatever suites the fancy of the intervening administrator and the crew they support, right or wrong. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
"No one has a right to disrespect the Greeks" well, has it occurred to you that I am a Greek, proud to be a "Romios" and that still I don't find "Byzantine" as "disrespectful"? That several hundred Greek, Russian, Yugoslav scholars who work in the Byzantine studies, not to mention thousands of laymen, theologians, politicians etc are also using "Byzantine" without a problem, since that is the term people actually understand? That one can be aware of the "real" naming and nature of the Empire and still use the term "Byzantine" simply because that is the most common name? That this has nothing to do with political or ideological views on East and West, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, etc, but is merely a matter of established terminology? Until you understand that and stop accusing anyone who opposes you as having a secret ideological agenda, you won't get anywhere, especially since it is manifest that you yourself do have a very definite agenda. Constantine 07:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
So be it. If you speak for all of Greece then all of Greece has spoken. As for me, I was only reflecting what "other" Greeks have said. You don't seem to want to address that. Please address the concern then from a Western source [27]. Please address what the link I just posted says. Pretty please. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well said. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Our personal opinions about the term "Byzantine" should not really matter for Wikipedia. As said earlier, the term has been explicitly described as "pejorative" by secondary sources (so this is a sourced claim). And the term "Eastern Roman" can also be understood by people. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The most popular and most used term is 'Byzantine Empire'. 'Eastern Roman Empire' is simply not as popular and less used as far the English language is concerned (the same goes for German, French, Portuguese, Spanish, etc - wikis of languages which use another name are certainly free to use their favoured name). Therefore IMHO the best name for the article is 'History of the Byzantine Empire' especially on account that the main article is called Byzantine Empire and NOT Eastern Roman Empire. Flamarande (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, that I do not really understand why we need to discuss these issues again. It was already discussed that "Eastern Roman" is also a common name (even if it is not the most common), and I doubt someone will not recognize the article's topic. We do not need to use the most common name if it has problems (like neutrality or ambiguity). And if other articles have problematic titles, it is not a reason to title more articles with problematic titles (and since this is a controversial issue, it may be better to have articles using multiple names). (And there are other articles which do not use the most common name, like "Climategate" which for neutrality reasons, was titled by an uncommon name "Climatic Research Unit email controversy".) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It's misleading to say "Eastern Roman" is a common name. It's common for the 4th and 5th centuries. It's increasingly rare after that. Overall it's not common at all - see British Library and Harvard Univesity Library searches above. The point is Byzantine is overwhelmingly more common. For instance, I have not been able to find any University running a course with "Eastern Roman" in the title. But there are dozens of "Byzantine" courses and departments - I've given some of them above. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As discussed earlier, "Eastern Roman" has been used to refer to the empire also after the 8th century (until the 15th)[28][29][30] (and these searches also include books which were published by universities, like Cambridge). I have not seen yet sources claiming that the "Eastern Roman Empire" ended (as a political entity) in the 7th century, but there are sources claiming the "Byzantine Empire" started in the 7th century (among other proposed dates). Also, the fact that on Google Books (which has a large database), strict searches for "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" returns around 500 results, while "History of the Byzantine Empire" returns around 200 results (and even in searches for books on "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", although the first pages return more results, when checking the last pages of the search, "Eastern Roman Empire" on last page (40) is shown as having around 390 results, while "Byzantine Empire" on last page (26) appears to have around 250 results) is enough proof that "Eastern Roman" is also a common term. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As said so many times before, that Google search is not very enlightening because of the repetitive reference of a small number of books, particularly those of Bury. The catalogue searches I provided of the British library and Harvard provides a more accurate picture. The three links to show there are books referring to "Byzantine" to 1453 are smoke and mirrors. The first link contains no book on Byzantine/Eastern Roman history (instead they are on chemistry, biblical exegesis etc). The third link is all Bury. The second link is one booklet. The poor nature of these "sources" actually evidences the overwheming preponderance of "Byzantine" over "Eastern Roman". DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As also said earlier, the fact that even sources (more than 100) whose main topic is not about this state, speak about the "Eastern Roman Empire" as lasting until the 15th century, is actually more proof it is a well known fact. And regarding Bury's books, the fact they were reprinted and cited so many times, is proof that his books are very popular. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Except the "more than 100" are not sources on Byzantine/Eastern Roman history and are therefore irrelevant are at least are not reliable sources. They speak with no authority on the subject. Bury's books are from the 1920s, which partly explains the number of references to them. But in any case usage by one author does not make a term "common". DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
So more than 100 books, about different topics, have just decided in some sort of conspiracy, to claim that the "Eastern Roman Empire" lasted until 15th century. If this information would not have been known well enough, I don't think it would have appeared in so many books unrelated with each other. (And Bury is clearly not the only person mentioning the term "Eastern Roman", but the fact that his books have more influence on Google Books, can prove these books are also commonly encountered today, the latest reprints being from 2010.) If you really want to believe, that "Eastern Roman" is uncommon, it is your choice, but I think there is enough evidence it is also a common term. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
But to summarize your "sources", the only books on the history of the Byzantine Empire you have found that refer to the "Eastern Roman Empire" as lasting to the 15th century are those by Bury from the 1920s and the Osprey booklet. The rest - in the 100s - all refer to the Byzantine Empire only. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand very clearly what you meant to say, but the 100s sources referred to this state as the "Eastern Roman Empire". And more using "Eastern Roman" can be found, like John Haldon's books. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue more clearly stated

DeCausa simply refuses to act civil (what are his comments about my points be preposterous and rants supposed to evoke? They are to marginalize?) and answer the very clear question that is being presented here. That question is-other than his interpretation and without his interpretation, what academic sources say it is better to referred to this subject as the Byzantine Empire over and above the Eastern Roman Empire? Again what academic sources say that a better name for this subject is the Byzantine Empire and that should be used and the Eastern Roman title be rejected.
Not google searches that DeCausa then has to tell us here mean this or that. But academic sources that explicitly say that the better, proper and correct name of this subject should be "Byzantine Empire" and not the simple and direct "Eastern Roman Empire". In counter to this for example [31]. Not a single source I have checked that has been posted so far says the "Byzantine Empire" is more correct or more proper than "Eastern Roman Empire". I have no explanation as to why from the academic sources (which are not Eastern Roman) that DeCausa has posted that "Byzantine Empire" is more correct or proper and that it is superior to "East Roman Empire" as a matter of fact it appears to me that such a preference is the historian fallacy and we don't do things on Wikipedia based on fallacies.
DeCause has not addressed any of this and continues to push for what is clearly at this point an opinion and an opinion based on how DeCausa see or interprets his sources rather than explicitly what those sources actually say. As not one of those sources say "Hey its better to call it Byzantium rather than Eastern Roman"- not one.
Please keep in mind that when I say checked. I mean checked. This article outlines a history starting at 286 AD. Most of DeCausa's sources frame the "Byzantine period" (that DeCausa has posted in response to me) all at different historical points in time. They all start at different dates than the one that's in the introduction of this article. That's one very obvious problem. Another is that DeCausa is saying that people like say John Haldon [32] are telling the world as Professors of history is better to call the Eastern Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire rather than Eastern Roman Empire.
I don't see where Professor Haldon is saying that. I do however see where DeCausa is interpreting as a matter of opinion what might at best be implied by some of Professor Haldon's actions as supporting such a position. However this is still WP:OR as without Professors like Haldon explicitly saying one is superior to the other it is not the place of editor's on Wikipedia to interpret this for themselves.
I need to see an academic source or two that says that the title Byzantine Empire is superior to "Eastern Roman Empire". This is policy. If I am wrong I apologize in advanced but from experience on Wiki this type of editing is not supported. And I think that this is a simple thing and I have every bit the justification to ask for this within policy as these things have been asked of me.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that we end this useless debate and that we wait for a decision. This is leading nowhere. Flamarande (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm just asking for sources. That's all. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I can post my concerns. Win or lose for the better of the project. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a case of academic sources proving that one name is somehow "superior" to another - the question is, which is more generally used? JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
But there are also other questions which we should consider, like which is more neutral (NPOV being a pillar of Wikipedia), and also which is less ambiguous (for the entire period covered in this article). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. I came here intending to close this discussion, but having spent more time than I can spare wading through it, I find that I have a clear view on the question, but could not conscientiously say that amid these TL;DR walls of text I discern even a rough consensus. So I think it better to give my own opinion and move on. The reasons I find convincing are:
I have read, but am not convinced by, the counter-arguments - there is no need to rehearse them again. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll not rephrase the arguments again, but I would have preferred more explanations why they are not convincing enough. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ John Fennell, The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200-1304, (London: Longman, 1983), 106.