Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

FAR

This article has, once again, fallen below the normal FA quality, specifically in referencing. While the last year's worth of edits may have been thoroughly discussed, they have not kept the quality of previous revisions. So, per the WP:FAR guidelines, I'm hoping to resolve issues with the active editors here before dragging everyone through the laborious process that it is. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what problems do you see with the referencing? Can you be a bit more concrete please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, I seem to have confused some of the content in this article with that of Fall of Constantinople, which was open in a second tab, so there's some egg on my face, and I now don't intend on dragging this to FAR anytime soon. :-) Still, I have a few nitpicks: there's a few visible sentences without references, such as the first paragraph of "Political aftermath", "Whenever the Popes or the rulers of the West made use of the name Roman to refer to the Eastern Roman Emperors, they usually preferred the term Imperator Romaniae (meaning Emperor of Romania) instead of Imperator Romanorum (meaning Emperor of the Romans), a title that they applied only to Charlemagne and his successors.", "The Byzantines are also credited with several technological advancements, particularly in architecture (e.g. the pendentive dome) and warfare technology (e.g. Greek fire).", and "Influences from Byzantine architecture, particularly in religious buildings, can be found in diverse regions from Egypt and Arabia to Russia and Romania.", along with a few others.
• Why not use a normal footnote (aka annotation in this article) for the infobox's population?
• There's a lot of reliance on Browning for two sections.
• The referencing could be standardized with harvnb (ref 16-is the quote really necessary?, 60, 100, 117, 118, 138?, 141, 145, 146, 166, 175, 180, 181, 183, 202/206-where's the page number?)
• Do we need individual external links to Bury and the other authors? They're linked in the biblio, or at least should be.
• Why are we using passim in references? We need page numbers to be of the most use to readers. You can always put e.g. to show that it's on more than just the page you are citing.
• There's no listing for all but one of the Encyclopedia Britannica refs.
• There's an error in Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Maria (1970).
• The secondary sources could be split into manageable sections (books and journal articles?).
• Other, more minor things: standardizing/pruning the external links (and adding more relevant ones?) and cutting down on the twelve navboxes, most of which are surely not needed (they will be in the relevant subarticles). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at every instance, and some aren't specific enough to check, virtually all these issues were present in the FAR version that you reverted to the other day. Indeed, many of the passages and cites you reference haven't been changed at all (the quotes are the same, the Political aftermath paragraph is the same, the quote in n. 16, etc.). So it's odd that you find that version preferable per se. Raise your "nitpicks," by all means, but indiscriminately reverting a year's worth of edits and threatening a review is hardly constructive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I had been looking at the Fall of Constantinople version, so I thought this article had seriously degraded and it had to be reverted to a better state. Obviously, I was wrong. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems listed above was added in the past year, the mistake in the cite, which displays a Category within the cite. I cannot figure out how to fix it, so I have replaced it with the old version, which still links to the proper article but does not show the name in Greek. Here is what I removed:

• Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Maria (1970). "Συμβολή εις την χρονολόγησιν των Αβαρικών και Σλαβικών επιδρομών επί Μαυρικίου (582–602) (μετ' επιμέτρου περί των Περσικών πολέμων) [=Contribution to the chronology of Avar and Slav raids during the reign of Maurice (582–602), with an excursus about the Persian Wars"". Byzantina Symmeikta (in Greek). 2: 145–206. ISSN 1105-1639. Retrieved 10 March 2012.

Oddly, the Category doesn't show up here, only in the article. Clearly there is something going on with the coding, but I'm mystified. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a solution. You can't just replace a title with a translation into another language. A paper written in Greek and published under a Greek title must be cited under that title. What we can do instead is to remove the language tagging template {{lang}}; that's what introduces that category code and apparently conflicts with the URL coding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend it as a solution, just getting the Category out of the cite; that's why I raised the issue here. Thank you for repairing the problem. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Note on Coordination

This article tracks virtually verbatim with History of the Roman Empire throughout the Byzantine period. While I know that one should not simply copy text from one article to another, as I am making copy edits to one, I am making the same edits to the other. Since they are already the same, it makes no sense to leave one unedited. There are instances where links are left out in one because they were present before the tracking began, but I'm essentially editing them together. (To clarify, via a conversation at the other page, I'm talking about minor copyedits to exiting text, primarily for grammar and coherence, not new material.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My grand proposal 2!

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

---

To everyone on here, I am proposing to merge the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire articles into one article, given that they were both the same empire. What do you all think of this proposal? Do you oppose or support it? Keeby101 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a snowball's chance in hell; not even worth wasting time discussing on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Note: The discussion above can be found at Talk:Roman_Empire#My_grand_proposal_2.21 ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 22:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My grand proposal 2! Part 2! The true successor to the Byzantine Empire!

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

---

Since you all have put the Ottoman Empire as the main successor state to the Byzantine Empire, how about we merge the Ottoman Empire article with the Roman and Byzantine Empire articles as well? The new article will be called the "Roman Empire" and the new sections of the article would be called Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. What do you all think? Keeby101 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Just stop it. One more edit like this and I'll ask for you to be blocked. Go and do something useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the archive tags, please see talk page. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 23:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the talk page. Fut. Perf. was quite right to close this proposal on the grounds of WP:POINT. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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

My proposal on the entity's denonym. (Eastern Roman Empire vs Byzantine Empire)

Gather an honest opinion by a well regarded hellenic historian on why we should continue to use the denonym "Byzantine Empire" instead of "Eastern Roman Empire" for the past entity known contemporarily as The Roman Empire, centered in Constantinopolis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.37.135 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies everyone. Please accept.

Look, I was a bit ignorant on the proposals and I just wanted to say to everyone that I am sorry for making such proposals. I should have rephrased the proposal in the very first place. I should have actually proposed to make an article of my own called "Rome(Entity)" that would have consist of sections titled Foundation, Dominance, Christianization and Decline, Resurgence, Second decline Islamization, Resurgence and Dominance in the Early Modern Era, Final decline and Modernization, Fall and Legacy. Each of these sections would have had links to the current articles. With that being said. I apologize for that and do not hate me. I am not trolling. Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The name of the capital city

After wading through this talk page I hesitate to even suggest this, but I found it odd that the modern name of the capital city is not mentioned anywhere. I have no interest in whatever political dispute is involved, I was just curious where the seat of the empire was located, that is, how I could find it on a modern map. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First, good point, it should be there (and now is). Second, why not have "edited boldly" (WP advice), yourself? Third, clicking on Constantinople instantly tells you how to find it on a modern map. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The purpose of this map was to figure out where the remnants of the Roman Empire was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasshopper321 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose this sentence read: "Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally known as Byzantium." And I'm not "editing boldly" because touching the first paragraph of this article is like lighting a fuse. ;) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't something equivalent proposed a few weeks ago and rejected, because the name modern, post-Byzantine name Istanbul wasn't deemed important enough to include in the opening paragraph? As has been pointed out before, simply clicking on Constantinople will inform you this city is modern Istanbul. I don't have any objections to editing boldly, but it shouldn't be contrary to an established consensus, don't you think? Michael! (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a proposal and no objection was raised, so I made the change. It sets forth all three names concisely and trims the wordiness of the prior version. Previous discussions of the intro imagine a blank slate reader encountering the page, and establishing where the empire was in current terms without having to seek further seems useful. Also, the 'Ancient-Name (modern-day Current-Name)' construct is common usage on ancient and medieval pages. If there's a consensus otherwise, fine, but no objection has been raised in several days, so that doesn't seem so bold. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not at all opposed to it (in fact, I've proposed to change the second sentence to "It had its capital in Constantinople (ancient Byzantium, modern Istanbul)." before, at 10:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC), which was then rejected), but it seems odd that "(modern-day Istanbul)" is added on May 4, the day after "modern Istanbul" was removed on May 3. Nevertheless, I don't think it's important enough to start an edit war or any other conflict about. Michael! (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Michael's points including that Istanbul can be linked through Constantinople. I think that the current formulation is an anachronism but I did not want to start an edit-war. By the way I had not seen Lazlo's original reply to the OP of this section so I did not have the time to object when Lazlo made the reversion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

To Chewings72 regarding inapropriate language and incorrect use of "arrows" in infobox.

Original anonymous poster of the section which you edited here.

Yes, some of the language was inapropriate.

Yes, linking the "Byzantine Empire" article to the "Ottoman Empire" article through an "arrow" in the infobox, denotes an connotation that is also inapropriate and factually wrong as the "Ottoman Empire" is not a sucessor state to the "Byzantine Empire".

Hopefully Chewings72 and other "armchair" wikipedia editors find this new section, civil in nature and without inapropriate language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.33.75 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also consider that article needs to depict the truth

The term Byzantine wasn't used until 1558 by Hieronymus Wolf. That frankly needs to be mentioned prominently. We are talking the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, people who never referred to themselves as Byzantine,I did like that that was mentioned early on. However it isn't even mentioned in the opening that there is still contention between historians to this day over weather we should even use the term "Byzantine" at all, in my undergrad studies professor that wouldn't let us refer to them as Byzantines at all.. The reason I think this should be included early on is because most people frankly don't read past that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialaccount (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two about the academic controversy in the 'nomenclature' section could be useful. I don't think it is necessary to add more than what is already in the lede, since the lede does an excellent job of highlighting the continuity between the Roman empire and the Byzantine empire and gives an accurate history of the name already. I don't have any good sources right off hand for the academic controversy of the name, although if nobody digs one up before I get around to it I may indeed get around to it eventually. Chuy1530 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin Empire as potential successor?

After the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, the empire's territories were partitioned. The newly established state to take the Byzantine Empire's place was the Latin Empire: as a distinct country with different territory, a different religion, and different leaders, shouldn't the Latin Empire be recognized as a successor and antecedent to the Byzantine Empire? Although the Latin Empire lasted for barely 50 years, the re-established Byzantine Empire was much different from the previous one. For a model of how I suggest this article's infobox be structured, you can check out Northern Rhodesia's article. Thanks! B14709 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Too complicated. We had endless debates here over what (if anything) to include in those "successor" fields, and if we were to include all the different states that inherited all or some of Byzantium's position at any time, the list would grow out of all proportions. Moreover, having the same entry appear both in the predecessor and successor fields strikes me as exceedingly confusing to the reader. It's the typical kind of situation that boxes simply aren't good at. Entries in a box should be self-explanatory, otherwise they fail purpose of the box, which is to offer basic information that can be taken in at a glance. Having such a double link would present the reader with a puzzle, which could only be solved through additional explanations. If the box doesn't explain itself but is in need of external explanation for its contents to be properly understood, it is useless. For this kind of information, the reader is simply better off just reading the text. The information that there was a short-lived state that was established when the B.E. had been temporarily overthrown is quite easy to convey in prose, and much easier and faster for the reader to take in in that way than if they were to encounter it merely through these linked flags in the box. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Explaining the complexity/misconceptions

The central mistake the current lead makes is that it doesn't explain the often-misunderstood issue of what exactly this state was and how it "came to be"

The Roman Empire was never split in two, rather, it was a single state with two administrations. During such periods when it had two Imperial courts, the area administered by the Eastern Court in Constantinople is referred to by historians(!) as the "Eastern Roman Empire", while the provinces administered by the Western Court in Ravenna/Milan is called "Western Roman Empire", again - by historians.

Those two troublesome terms come with two misconceptions: that the Empire was split into two states; amd that the contemporary names of said states were "Eastern/Western Roman Empire". It must be made clear that the Empire was not split into two, and that the terms are historiographic, not contemporary (the latter is sort of done, but it could be done better).

Further, the term "Eastern Roman Empire" is even more problematic as historians sometimes use it to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole(!) - after there is no more "Western Roman Empire". This is all part of the simplified high-school-level narrative ("there were western and eastern empires; then the western fell, and the eastern continued on"). I know this is by no means the first time I myself am struggling to somehow correct high-school history.

So there are three points connected to the ERE term:

• the Empire was not split into two, but was merely administered by two imperial courts
• the terms WRE and ERE are historiographic, not contemporary (this was already done, I'd like to make it more explicit)
• If used after 476 (or rather after the death of Julius Nepos) the term "ERE" in fact indicates the whole of the Roman Empire. As an interesting side-note, the Western Province of Dalmatia passed into the hands of the Eastern Court when the Western was abolished.

I've tried to somehow address this in my latest lead draft. I'm not 100% happy with it, but I think its a step in the right direction.

A few further points:

• I disagree that the Byzantine Empire is a "continuation" of the Roman Empire. It is the Roman Empire. "Byzantine Empire" is simply the term for the Roman Empire, i.e. the same state, during a certain period.
• I don't think we should have two entries in the 'conventional long names' parameter. This is a parameter intended for a single name entry. We should chose one, and go with it. In my experience, that's how its almost always done when a country has several names. "Romania" is referred to in the lead, I don't think its necessary in the infobox.
• Finally, as one can see in the template instructions, the 'common_name' parameter is the one intended for the non-factual, "unofficial" name. 'Conventional_long_name=' is almost always utilized by the historically accurate, "official" name ("official" is in quotation marks).

-- Director (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The "common name" parameter isn't displayed at all. It only serves for creating links to categories, subpages and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the lead as FutPerf reverted it to today. I don't find any of the points in the above post important enough for the lead. They are points of detail which would be mildly interesting in the body of the article somdwhere - but, no they are not important unless one has an obsessional attachment to this tired issue. I find the theme that we shouldn't reflect the "misconceptions" of historians too close to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and outside the scope of Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Do we really have to go through the yearly morass of discussing all of this again, and again, and again? I quite agree with DeCausa that this obsessive insistence on something that most of the literature does in fact not stress in the same way has a feeling of "righting great wrongs" to it, and it certainly is an instance of WP:Lead fixation to have it monopolize all the first half of the lead paragraph like this. Last time we discussed this, the main outcome was that we wanted to free the lead section from this excess weight. I do actually like some of the wording Director suggested, but that's really for somewhere further down in the text. Where I also agree with Director is in the general aim of streamlining the naming section in the disinfobox (I said something about that last year at Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 12#Name variants in infobox). However, I disagree with removing the main "Byzantine Empire" heading (i.e. changing the "conventional long name" parameter). "Byzantine Empire" is just that, the conventional name, and that is precisely what that heading is for. Essentially, the main title of the box should always be the same as the title of the article, or at least stand in an immediately understandable logical relation to it. "Byzantine Empire" and "Roman Empire" don't do that; having the article under the one and the box under the other heading doesn't help to clarify things but only confuses. My personal preference would be to reduce the "native name" parameter (i.e. the smaller heading underneath) to "Roman Empire" – it's "native" in the sense that it represents the autonym, even if it's an English translation of it, and all the Latin and Greek is really not of prime interest to the reader, and, again, not easily to take in from a mere box entry without supporting prose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're all bored by all this, but rest assured I'm no "crusader" in this matter (no pun intended), but merely a user who's taken the time to do some research. I'm very muhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlistch interested in Byzantine history, myself.. but I'm not Orthodox, I'm not Greek, or Russian, or whatever. I don't have some ethno-religious bone to pick with you arrogant Latins :P

At the very least the infobox heading should be changed to "Roman Empire", as opposed to the a-historical term, and the intro sentence should do without the word "continuation". As I'm sure you know, I can easily show that the 'conventional long name' parameter is not used for the most common term in sources (which has the 'common_name=' parameter), but the historically accurate term. People who know how to read Wikipedia look to that entry to find out the full historical name of the state. Also I of course am opposed to the removal of the Greek and Latin native names, why would we do that? -- Director (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not listening. If you are not prepared to take in what other people are saying, it's no use continuing this discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm "listening". The 'conventional_long_name=' parameter is for the (quote) "full name in English", nothing else. "Roman Empire" is the "full name in English" of this state, I don't think anyone disputes that. As I said, Wikipedia readers look to the infobox heading for the "official", historical name of the former state, whereas the most common name in the sources is used in the title. In practically every former country article out there, you have the historical name as the infobox heading, supported by the translations of said name in the native language. Clear, direct, easy to understand - not this mess. We must make the actual name of this state more obvious to the reader. And I don't think this is a point to be dismissed offhandedly. -- Director (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the "actual name" in English is what it is in the present tense, by convention (hence "conventional name"), and that is "Byzantine Empire" and nothing else, period. That will remain the heading in the infobox, for the same reason as it remains the title of the article itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article and the heading of the infobox are determined by different criteria. To me it seems that "full name in English" refers unambiguously to the "official", historical name of the state. Nazi Germany is the "Greater German Reich" in the infobox, even though "Nazi Germany" is the term used "by convention". And, as I said twice, this is a situation practically ubiquitous to all such articles. Now you might say it "doesn't apply" to such an ancient state, but this has to do with the infobox itself and its parameter criteria. The bottom line, for me, is that the reader looks to the infobox heading to find the historical name in English - and he/she should find it. Consistency is important to at least diminish the detrimental effects of (dis)infoboxes. -- Director (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We should never assume that readers look for particular entries in infoboxes based on any implicit conventions learned from other infoboxes – average readers don't have that kind of automatic familiarity with whatever you or I might think are Wikipedia-wide habits. Readers look at the top of the box with nothing but a vague expectation that it will contain something fundamentally characterising the topic of the article; by default, that will be the same name as the article itself. If it isn't the same name, it has to be something whose logical relation to the article title is self-evident. With a case like "Nazi Germany" vs. "German Reich", that relation is indeed easy to understand – it will be self-obvious to any reader that "Nazi Germany" isn't what the Nazis themselves called it, so they can easily figure out that the string in the infobox will represent that instead. However, with "Byzantine Empire" vs. "Roman Empire", that link is far from obvious. It doesn't explain, but is itself in need of explanation. Anything that is in need of explanation and cannot be fully understood from the tabulated listing alone simply should not be in an infobox, ever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Director, per my first post, I wasn't accusing you of any political/cultural/religious agenda. I was accusing you of uninteresting literalist pedantry that's of no special value to the general reader. (Is that better?...) When I read the points you are making, I just have the overwhelming desire to say "so what?". They are footnote-level points only. (And, that's how they are treated in the historiography.) As to the infobox (ugh), agree with Fut.Perf. I think it just looks bizarre to have it headed with the name of a different Wikipedia article. Isn't it just common sense? DeCausa (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(Apologies for my absence, rather busy these days.)

I take your point(s). The link between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire is less obvious than that usually present between the title and the infobox heading. However, I view that as problem to solve rather than anything else - I still think the parameter must be used as its used throughout the project. I propose using a note that briefly explains to the reader why we're using "Roman Empire". -- Director (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what notes are for, and anything that requires an explanative extra note is not what an infobox is for, and your obsession on making the simple, conventional, standard name "Byzantine Empire" disappear from the top of the page for nothing but your private POV interests is becoming absurd now. Stop it. You will not remove "Byzantine Empire" from the top of the box, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I am at all "obsessed" with any of this, and I can't fathom what you could possibly mean by "private POV interests"? Infoboxes everywhere are of course absolutely teeming with explanative notes [1][2][3], in fact they have special parameters for them (including this one), and I'd like to point out that its you who believes the matter needs further elaboration. I'm fine with just using the infobox as it is used throughout the project. -- Director (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I absolutely do not think the matter "needs further elaboration". I believe it would need further elaboration, if we went by your very bad proposal of making the top of the box say something other than the top of the article, and that is precisely why it is such a bad proposal. And stop repeating that inane argument that that's what's done everywhere else; I just showed you in one of my last postings how it isn't. You are, again, not listening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to emphasize its you who believe "Roman Empire" is confusing to the reader. I don't really think we need a note, but I can see how one might feel the matter is not entirely clear.

If you hold that to have the infobox 'say something other than the top of the article' is a very bad proposal, then I'm afraid you have a lot of work to do changing existing infobox headings across the project. I can literally go to the former countries cat and just spam links here, one after the other, where the heading uses the full, historically accurate, "official" name, while the title uses a different, most common one. Of the three articles I linked above to show notes usage, two are good examples of this ([4][5]). But pick practically any country where the official name does not match with the commonname and you will get a good example of what I'm talking about [6][7][8][9][10][11][12], etc. etc. Its not that I'm not listening, I'm just not seeing your argument in this regard. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are not seeing it, because you are not listening. I know. But I'll say it again: Having different headings in the box and in the article title is okay if and only if the relation between the two is self-evident. That said, I'm not going to accept any argument on the basis of "other articles are doing it that way" in any case, where infoboxes are concerned, as a matter of principle. Ill-designed infoboxes are pretty much one of the most widespread evils of Wikipedia, so no habit based on other infoboxes in other articles will ever form a compelling argument to do anything here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• @"I'm not going to accept any argument on the basis of 'other articles are doing it that way'". - My argument is that the relevant infobox parameter is misused, as it does not sport the "full name" of this state. Note: not the common name, but simply the "full name". I base that interpretation on the fact that the entire project does not use the common name in the infobox, but the full "official" name.
• @"Having different headings in the box and in the article title is okay if and only if the relation between the two is self-evident." - Well, pardon me, but - says who? What are you basing that particular claim on? Because I'm not seeing such criteria in either the relevant infobox instructions or in common use? Certainly not below the level of "Byzantine Empire"/"Roman Empire". To pick the first example from just the links I posted above, the Kingdom of Naples is called the "Kingdom of Sicily" in the infobox (and I can't imagine changing it to "Kingdom of Naples").

Sometimes the names are completely different, sometimes they are naturally similar. But the point is to show the different criteria: the infobox name sports the historically accurate term, whereas the title uses the commonname.

I don't want to annoy you, Future. But I assure you I have no agenda here and am arguing in complete good faith. My only motive is to reduce the detrimental effects of the infobox by at least filling-in the parameters in a consistent fashion with the rest of the project. If we used the common name in the infobox heading (as we do with modern countries), I'd not be proposing anything here. -- Director (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Future, since the gist of your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) that "having different headings in the box and in the article title is okay if and only if the relation between the two is self-evident", then please support that claim with something or otherwise give this up. Far from it being a "personal" thing for me, it seems that the reverse may be true. Frankly I feel all these "orders" you're issuing are a bit demeaning ("No.", "You will not change this.", etc.). -- Director (talk)

It isn't in need of "supporting" with "something"; it is plain common sense. You, Direktor, have doggedly tried to replace the heading in this box for several years now, at least since mid-2012, going away whenever you found that your change didn't win consensus, only to come back repeating the same edit some month later. This is blatant long-term revert-warring. Stop it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not common sense - its nonsense. If we had some of the articles use a historical infobox heading and some use the commonname, because the former was arbitrarily decreed not to be "self-evident", - we'd have a terrible, even more confusing state of affairs. Fortunately - we don't: we use the historical name in the heading of the former country infobox, and I can attest to that, if I have to, by literally spamming this thread with 150 links or more.

I ask you again: who says that the link between the common name and the heading needs to be "self-evident", and who is it that decides what is or is not "self-evident"? And finally, why would you even object to that when an infobox note is proposed to dispel any hypothetical misconceptions you believe the reader may acquire??

If you wish to claim I have engaged in some kind of 10-year edit war here, you know where to bring that up, but I'd be much obliged if you stopped discussing your perceptions of my conduct here on the Byzantine Empire talkpage - because that looks like you're threatening me in loo of a credible argument. -- Director (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop "asking again" and again the same thing all over. I've given you my arguments. If you don't find them convincing, fine, that's up to you, but stop pretending you never heard them. I see I probably won't convince you here, and you certainly won't convince me, but then again, it seems you have so far failed to convince anybody else in all the three years you've been trying to push this change through. Long-term consensus on this page has been against you. I'm not willing to discuss this further with you at this point; it's a waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've not heard on what basis you claim that the connection between the names must be "self-evident" (whatever it is exactly that defines that). If it is indeed only your opinion that it makes "common sense", then I can't see how you can hold that up. My position is not based on anything I personally consider to be "common sense", but on conventions that the entire project follows (which, btw, I believe are a better indication of what is sensible). I'll post an RfC, I hope you'll participate? -- Director (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Director, this edit but was bad enough, but this is unacceptable. Not only did you make those edits while there was an ongoing talk page discussion on that point, no one has supported you in that talk page discussion. And this was after you were already reverted on 30 January here. This is just edit-warring against consensus. DeCausa (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, its not edit-warring. As I said above, if you feel I have engaged in edit-warring, then please express your opinion in the appropriate venue. Not on the Byzantine Empire talkpage. As things are, such comments appear to me as little more than rather unimpressive rhetorical ploys.

From my perspective, all I did was #1 demonstrate a different proposal that takes into consideration your objections to the original edit (making that clear in the edit summary), and #2 demonstrate the fact that infoboxes do, in fact, use "explanatory notes", through making use of the infobox parameter specifically intended for that purpose. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, all you are doing is wasting your time. Don't think you are the only person who has tried to push this through. Stop believing yourself to be some vigilante "Lone Ranger". User:Keeby101 attempted a similarly eccentric and out-of-context stunt, but at least he apologized for it. I believe you made a comment regarding User:DeCausa and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise describing them as "arrogant Latins", but in truth you were attacking the wrong people. You are the arrogant one here. You refuse to listen to and ignore the arguments of other distinguished Wikipedia editors. Please, Direktor, stop all this nonsense and cease creating havoc on this otherwise wonderful Wikipedia article. It should not be an advertisement for personal opinions. B14709 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was obviously joking (I'm a "Latin" as well, in every sense). What is wrong with you folks, why do you keep imagining this is personal somehow?? "Lone Ranger"? What? Fellas, pls stop commenting on me personally and produce a credible argument for using the commonname in the infobox heading in loo of the historical name. That just isn't done, certainly not in the vast majority of cases. Clearly, most people do not share the view that it is "common sense" to do so. -- Director (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to but in on this conversation! Especially given that I was mentioned and my username was linked to everyone! Dear B14709, its fine to mention me, but please do not link my username to everyone please!

Since I am here however... I will give my two cents on regards to this edit war or rather a discussion that is starting to escalate into an edit war. Personally, I think that the name of the article along with the article itself is fine as is, however the only problem that I have with it is the fact that the Ottoman Empire is shown/labeled as the successor state to it. In my opinion, the Despotate of the Morea and the Empire of Trebizond should be labeled as the successor states to the Byzantine empire given that they survived after 1453 and were not absorbed into the Ottoman empire until 1460-61. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That might make sense if we were to imagine that the Empire was somehow not inextricably tied with Constantinople itself, which it was. -- Director (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Kirby. Also, because the Despotate of the Morea and the Empire of Trebizond were created before the fall of the Byzantine Empire, it might not be the right decision to list them as the direct successors. As many, many, different countries ended up with the former territory of the Byzantine Empire, if we put all or most of them as successor states it would get pretty confusing. Thanks for pointing that out, though! B14709 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR

1. You've already gone to great lengths to point out how the Roman Empire was not inextricably tied with administration in Rome, but you will then argue that the Byzantine/Eastern Empire is conversely unable to detach from its original administrative centre?
2. At the risk of sounding too direct, I have to say that the lead as it is now is better in quality and readability than what you tried to replace it with. Furthermore, it already addresses the issue of "Byzantine Empire" really being a historiographical term for what started as "the eastern half of the Roman Empire".
3. I would like to point out that you appear to be overly sensitive to finding negative meanings in neutral wordings describing the Byzantine Empire. "Continuation" doesn't necessarily imply "separate from what came before", and it's a false distinction to draw a line between the splitting of the state or its administration (except in times when all emperors were in fact subordinate to one).
4. I feel like this is bordering on WP:Attrition (from continuing efforts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). This debate has been flaring up for years, and I can't help but notice how few of the people who took part even a year ago have come back this time around. Pushing on this issue until enough people are too tired to push back is the wrong course of action.

 —Sowlos  17:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Say what now? I see you're trying to make it look like I'm contradicting myself somehow, but uh - I'm obviously not. Rome was not the capital of the Roman Empire since the Crisis of the 3rd Century, and it only really ceased to be part of that state in 772 AD. That has nothing to do with the fact that the historical name of the state remained "Roman Empire" throughout its history (until 1453). That also has nothing to do with the fact that the Empire became inextricably identified with its new capital later on... Weird point.
2. Lets leave the lead aside, at least for now. The infobox heading, however, it just makes no sense.
3. See above.
4. I am not here to "right great wrongs" nor is this part of some sinister plan on my part. I have no interest in Byzantium besides finding its history fascinating. Seriously - can we stop discussing me? All I hear when these sort of comments pop up is "I have no relevant counter-argument".

-- Director (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, you are missing the point. Your proposal would only confuse readers instead of fulfilling the purpose of an infobox: " to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". Because nearly all historians currently use the term Byzantine Empire, the fact that at the time it was called something else isn't exactly "key" to the article. And as that fact is mentioned in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article, readers can easily access that information if they wish. B14709 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the parameter itself is called "conventional long name", and I think nearly all of us can agree that calling the state in question "the Roman Empire" is decidedly UNconventional. B14709 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And again, this subject has been discussed for years, and I think we all have better things to do than argue about this. Visit the archives of this article and you will find many debates about whether or not to change the name or the infobox. Can we please stop arguing? B14709 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but to me it seems like you're missing the point. Never mind that the parameter is called "conventional_long_name=" (and the various implications one could possibly draw from that) - the relevant instructions state its for the "full name of the state". Note: not the most common name in sources - but simply the "full name in English". Plus, there's the parameter directly below intended for the most common name in sources. Now, to me, that clearly seems to indicate that the parameter in question is simply for the real, actual historic full name of the state in English. And its not just me - everyone apparently sees it that way. Everyone? Everyone. Practically everywhere on this project in such circumstances - you have the common name in the title, and the historically accurate name in the infobox heading [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. And that to me is even more important than whether the parameter is used properly, because the infobox heading is where the reader looks to find the historical name - even though we must use the commonname in the title. Not to use one here implies that "Byzantine Empire" is the historical full name of this polity. Now, Future seems to think the practice of having different names in the title and the infobox heading is a bad idea. That can be debated. But as things are, its just how these infoboxes are written. If we had the commonname more often in the infobox (as we do in articles about modern countries), then we would have a different situation. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the bottom line point is that you have absolutely no support for your position, while you refuse to acknowledge that consensus is overwhelmingly against you. No wonder the conversation turns to you, as you continue beating this dead horse. Please accept the consensus of every other responding editor and move on. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You're all nuts.. :) sure, fine. Though, since I received no relevant argument from you guys (besides "we're against you, shut up"), I reserve the right to stir-up trouble with this again in the form of various DR; it makes no sense to me. -- Director (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it might be a little late to contribute but to reply to Panaflex: since, as you've mentioned, this gets brought up a lot might it be safe to assume that the "consensus" isn't as overwhelming as you imply? I for one think Director's proposal has merit and his argument is sound. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick post from a retired Wikipedia editor. I was working on this page back in 2005, and people were arguing over the name issue even then. Pages and pages and pages of discussions on this topic have been written and archived. In my humble opinion, the Byzantine Empire name dispute will never be solved to the satisfaction of all parties. Long after those who have just taken part in this round of debate have retired from Wikipedia, I am certain that others will come after you and continue the debate. :) Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, on that cheery note I think we should declare this thread closed...until the next one! DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

cfd note

No Wikiproject Byzantine Empire, huh?

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 1#4th Century in Israel.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 1#Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule.

I support both, the idea is to replace the use of modern or religious place names with the contemporary names. Of course it is being opposed by religious or nationalistic indignants. trespassers william (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page history problem

This talk page shows all history in the various archives, but the View history link does not show edits prior to the first archival in 2008. It looks like someone mistakenly deleted all of the history elements when archiving the talk page on June 15, 2008 (THIS edit). There is a redirect to the archive, located HERE, but there is no capacity to view history in archives. Or, rather, the history only shows the history of the archival. Does anyone know how to remedy this situation? I assume it is possible to recover the history from the underlying database (at least it seems to appear to be there and in exported XML).

I will also post on Village Pump (technical), since this seems to be a solidly technical issue.Wikipositivist (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at the technical village pump; as I said there, the history Is at Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 7. Graham87 06:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graham 87. I'll keep further discussion on Village Pump, since not all (or even most) is directly relevant to this article. For those interested, check here.Wikipositivist (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

Can't believe we have yet another infobox problem here (seriously, why is it that it's only ever the infobox entries that attract disagreement on this article?) Anyway, people have been reverting between two versions of the "religion=" entry, one of which simply describes the main religion as "Orthodox Christianity", while the other distinguishes between "Christianity" first and "Orthodox Christianity" only "after 1054" [22]. The "after 1054" version was first introduced about 12 months ago [23], apparently without significant discussion back then.

I can see the point for both sides, of course. On the one hand, some people are obviously reluctant to project the label "eastern orthodox" back into the pre-schism period. On the other hand, the version that emphasizes the distinction between "Christianity" and "Orthodox Christianity" seems to imply that the Byzantines suddenly changed their religion in 1054 – which is obviously wrong. So I personally prefer the plain version. The religion of the Byzantines didn't suddenly turn into something different, just because something else was branching away from it in some other part of the world. The form of Christianity that characterizes the Byzantine Empire is clearly the single, unbroken tradition which today, in hindsight, we describe as the "Eastern Orthodox" one. Trying to cram the terminlogical distinction into the box strikes me as a typical instance of over-scrupulous obsession with detail at the cost of plain readability that's unfortunately such a common problem in infobox editing.

Of course, just to make this clear, this has nothing to do with which of the two branches of the schism has any claim to representing the "true" continuation of pre-schism Christianity. I would obviously make the same argument for the western side (and indeed, I find that the corresponding infobox entry at Papal States duly says "Roman Catholic" throughout, which is as it should be). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that infoboxes are useless in dealing with these kind of subtleties. On the one hand, Orthodoxy was such a key component of the distinctiveness of Byzantine culture that it seems strange not to give it a namecheck. On the other, calling it "Orthodoxy" for the whole period is anachronistic. (And 1054 certainly shouldn't be used to indicate any sort of change either in substance or nomenclature) Would "Christianity/Eastern Orthodox" be suitably ambiguous? DeCausa (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Would work for me. Ambiguity sometimes really is a blessing. Nice trick. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Historiographical term vs real name

Hello, I noticed that the real/conventional name of the Byzantine Empire (which is Roman Empire), wasn't on the top of the article's leading paragraph, in contrast to how the real/conventional names were always on top of their corresponding Wiki articles, such as for the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

I find it important that the name Roman Empire is placed on the top of the article, alongside the term Byzantine Empire, because the official name of that state should be on the top of the paragraph. So, I decided to make some careful edits that do not break the meaning and readability of the leading paragraph, while at same time, it has the real/conventional name for that state moved to the top of the page, like how it was done in all other Wikipedia articles for all other states, so far:

Before:

The Byzantine Empire was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally known as Byzantium. Often called the Eastern Roman Empire in this context, it survived the 5th century fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe. Both "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire (Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum), or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans".

and After my improvements:

The Byzantine Empire or late Roman Empire (Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum), was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally founded as Byzantium. Often called the Eastern Roman Empire in this context, it survived the 5th century fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe. Both "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans".

The article is already very clear about the fact that the "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms created and used after the end of the realm, but with these edits today, the conventional name too, is prioritized, and moved to its proper place, along with its historiographical terms used for that state. It doesn't matter if the article explains the state's real name or not, its conventional name should be at the beginning like how it was done with all the other Wikipedia articles for the empires of the world. --SilentResident (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Copying over what I wrote on your user talk just now:

You have tried out three different ways of integrating "Roman Empire" in that first sentence. First [24] you called it an "official" name. Problem is, it wasn't an official name; there was no such thing as "official names" of states back then, and certainly not an "offical name" of the Byzantine Empire in English, a language of whose existence the Byzantines had no idea. Then [25] you introduced it with "more specifically"; problem is that "Roman Empire" isn't actually "more specific" then "Byzantine Empire" (look up what "specific" means). Then [26] you modified it by calling it "Late Roman Empire"; problem with that is that it isn't actually called that; in historiography, the term "Late Roman" conventionally refers to somewhere between the 4th to 6th centuries or thereabouts. So each of your three attempts so far have been plain, factually wrong.

As for your perceived need to get the alternative names into the lead sentence somehow, the only argument for doing that you have proposed is that other articles are doing it too. That, in principle, is a very poor argument on Wikipedia – there are lots of csrappy articles on this project and crappy habits that have been entrenched through unthinking convention, and the habit of overloading lead sentences with naming details in brackets, taking up loads of valuable space before even getting to the gist of the defining sentence, is undoubtedly one such very bad habit. It makes lead sentences difficult to read and keeps the reader's attention away from the really important things, i.e. the definition that comes after the "was". Just because many other articles are doing it wrong is not a good reason to do it here too; in fact, we should be proud of having kept this one article clean of the bad habit. Alternative names, unless they are very few and can be handled with extreme brevity, are best handled where they are properly contextualized and explained, and the place we were doing it here was just fine. Your three failed attempts at explaining and contextualizing them properly in the first sentence just go to demonstrate that it is not conveniently possible with the required brevity there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternate name? Are you joking, right? I will copy-paste here what I answered in my talk page: your argument of using only a historiographical term (aka Byzantine Empire) (its a scientific/historical term, not its actual name) in the expense of the real name (Roman Empire) the state used in all of its official diplomatic contacts with foreign states, and the very name the citizens used to call their state with, to be in the top of the article, is indeed a very poor argument. Really, I fail to understand how do you find it logical to have the native/real/conventional/official name for that state be moved to sentences or bottom of paragraphs, instead of the article's top? Can you present me any other Wiki pages where a state has only its post-realm historiographical term be of top priority, at the beginning, and its real name be of secondary priority, lost in paragraphs and such? You wont. Even, for example, the article of the Holy See has this: the official/conventional name Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) instead of the more "common" term Vatican City, despite everybody today calling it with the name Vatican. Because Holy See is the official name of that state (or conventional in case of Medieval era's states) in the top of its page. Please... Seriously now... A state's real name should be on the top of the article... --SilentResident (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh for chrissake. I just gave you a reason for not including the term there: because there is no convenient way of explaining its relation to the primary term (the one that is the title of the article and therefore must come first) that is not misleading (as each of your attempts so far have been) and not too long and complicated for the lead sentence. That's just the problem with you, again and again: you fail to even notice people are explaining things to you, and then you complain they aren't giving you explanations. Just read what I'm saying, will you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh and just for the record, your example of the Holy See is completely off and shows you haven't even read the article you're quoting. The "Holy See" and the "Vatican" are not alternative names, but two different things, which rightly have two different articles. But that's off-topic here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what are you saying - that what was used/done in other Wiki pages cannot be a good excuse for it to be repeated to this page. This is indeed a poor argument. But my point wasn't to say just "hey! This was done in other pages, so why not here too?", but to show you "hey! all other pages use the real names for places and states, so why not here too?". Really, if other pages use real names, and this page uses only a historiographical term created by a German historian who lived after the empire's fall, a term which isn't even the official/real one the empire used. So you say there is the problem with the explanation: I understood what you wanted to say, but I am very presistent in making you understand, that, since the German historian created the term Byzantine only for historiographical purposes, it wasn't meant to replace the original real name the particular State had! But, sadly, we did: infobox, leading name, and everything in the article, now, is now using the term Byzantine instead of the name Roman. I can't explain you better than this, but terms aren't supposed to replace names - their purpose is to distinguish the object A from the object B that share the same name, but are from different chronological periods... Yes, the word Byzantine sure is a term that helps people refer to a specific chronological period of the Roman Empire, the late/medieval one - but even so, this doesn't nullify the original name for that entity - which was Roman Empire and only that. I am sorry for my English, but I don't know how else to explain you that. The Byzantine isn't a name at all. Never a such word ever existed before the 1700s. It is a term that had no connection at all with that Empire during its existence. Even when it was known that its capital city, Constantinople, was where the settlement of Byzantium once stood, the Roman citizens of the late Roman Empire could still question you about the meaning of the -unknown to them- term Byzantine. Yes, Wikipedia aims to enhance the people's knowledge of things and facts from different chronological periods, and to do this better, in a more understandable and less confusing way, Wikipedia utilizes the terms given by historians, such as the term Byzantine. But what people don't notice is that Wikipedia uses real names/native names for the other states/entities except for Byzantine Empire, to begin the article with. So here I came: to correct this as best as I can. And of course, adding just the word Roman Empire and its native translations (Greek and Latin), isn't making a page more complicated than it was. Just the reader will be informed about why there is both a name and a term for the same faction (Roman Empire), is because it is only part of the history of the original Roman Empire. You know, what was disturbing, FutPerfect, before the edits were made? That the people first learn that the word Byzantine is the name for the faction, and then, after continuing reading, they learn how misleading this is - Byzantine wasn't even a word made by the Byzantines. Was a word made by a... German, who didn't even exist when the Empire was still in existence. All Wikipedia articles use original names for the places/entities, not the names the historians may give to them later. The (late) Roman Empire too should do. Having the original name on top of the article, can't be of any harm, unless the paragraph beneath it which explains what each term/name is for, is confusing. --SilentResident (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your argumentation now begins to reek of WP:righting great wrongs crackpottery, so it's probably about time to stop taking it at all seriously. For better or worse, current scholarship calls this thing "Byzantine Empire", so that's what we do too. Are you seriously suggesting we should re-open the issue of how to name the actual article? Dude, that's been done millions of time here; everybody is tired of that idiotic debate. It's WP:COMMONNAME, period. The rest is simple:

1. As long as the article title is "Byzantine Empire", the lead sentence will start with "Byzantine Empire".
2. Any other terms or names can go into the lead sentence if and only if they can be fit in there in ways that are factually accurate and brief enough to be unobtrusive.

The main thing about the lead sentence is to define what the empire was, not to discuss what it was called, when and by whom. Defining what it was is done in the second half of the sentence, after the copula. Anything stuck in front of that copula needs to be short enough not to be obtrusive and not to divert the reader's attention away from the main definition that follows. Anything that needs substantial explanation to be understood properly cannot go in that slot. The relationship between the different historical terms and names is one such thing that has proven to be too complex to be presented well in this position; that's why we have it a little bit further down within the lead. That doesn't mean de-valuing it (unless you suffer from an extreme form of WP:Lead fixation); it just means insisting on putting things in proper perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In the name of all that's holy. This argument has been going on for at least a decade and it never gets anywhere, because it's simple pedantry, to my mind the worst flaw of Wikipedia. Everybody thinks their point is so important it has to come first, even if putting it first denies the reader any context to enable them to understand it. Front-loading the lead sentence with alternative names just means it takes longer for the reader to the get to the point where they find out what the article is actually about. The subject is primary, the terminology is secondary. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support FPaS and Nicknack009. It is absolutely unbelievable that this garbage is back again. Really, we need to get something like discretionary sanctions applying to this sort of disruption. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with FPaS, DeCausa and Nicknack09. The article can be improved further in many ways, but this is not one of them. The name and nature of the subject are well explained as it is, there is no need to trumpet further that this and this alone was the Roman Empire™, especially if by so doing we invent new terms or distort established usage like "late Roman Empire". There is a reason we have a big disclaimer on the name right on top of this discussion page, although perhaps we should make it blinking and floating around the page, because people don't seem to notice it. Constantine ✍ 11:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so this whole term vs name thing has again been raised in the past? Yeah, usually people don't scroll down every archived talk page just for a small edit such as this. All right, my apologies then. Only wanted to improve the article, nothing more. My apologies again. --SilentResident (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The official representation of Byzantine Empire

In contrast to the Roman Empire and Republic, I think that the Byzantine Empire is to have its flags and symbols instead of using coins to represent the state. Different to the case of Roman Empire and Republic while the conventions of flags and coats of arms has not yet arisen, Byzantine empire was already a highly structural and feudalistic state in the high middle ages, which also has its official flags and symbols. The Palaeologian flag is used in the Wikipedia template of Byzantine empire. Some argues that the labarum is just a simple, solely religious symbol, but there is no doubt in that the double headed eagle is the official imperial heraldry of the Byzantine Emperors and represents their imperial authorities. I am happy to discuss here for which edition of flag to be used, and equally happy to ditch the labarum for the double headed eagle, but I just specifically detest the use of coin as representation in the case of Byzantine Empire. Thank you for everyone's notices and contributions. Pktlaurence (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of any merits of your argument: stop edit-warring. You have made this change four times in a row now, and had it reverted by three different people (now four, including me.) That ought to have given you a hint that consensus is against you so far. The logical thing that a rational person would do now is to open this discussion (as you did, good for you), but then wait to see if and when consensus swings your way. Seriously, what's so freaking difficult mentally to see your favorite solution not yet implemented for a week or two?

Independently of the main issue of the Eagle versus coin etc., I will insist on again removing the "Latin Empire" symbol from the "predecessor" and "successor" fields in the box, as this was discussed before, see above under #Latin Empire as potential successor?. First, it looks esthetically bad [27], especially when combined with the two other symbols, due to the glaring repetition and overdose of red and yellow. Second, it is visually confusing and counter-intuitive, as it suggests the Byzantine Empire was an interlude temporarily sandwiched between two instances of the Latin Empire, when in reality it was exactly the other way round. That section of the box is designed to work according to the visual logic of a left-to-right timeline with a visual representation of "before" and "after", and in that format there simply is no way of properly representing something that is crammed in during a short interlude in the middle of the topic period. Trying to push it into the box at all costs despite this visual mismatch is yet another instance of the rampant infobox and lead pedantry that somebody described on this page just yesterday in the last thread above, and which has been the root cause of problems plaguing the article practically without interruption in every single discussion thread here during the last few years. When will this finally stop? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, God knows. The idea of using coins to represent a nation is rather too radical and controversial to our conventional sense of a nation, so it is inevitable that there would be a whole lot of users (especially those IPs and new ones) complaining when they first see the infobox. Anyway, thankyou for reminding me about the Latin Empire issue and I promptly apologize for my absent-minded negligence to the Latin Empire thread in the talk page. Back to the main issue, Byzantine Empire is still a whole lot more advanced in nationalism compared to Roman Empire and Republic, and therefore it has got flags and symbols with enough representativeness, such as the Chi-Ro, double headed eagle and Palaeologian flag. I think that's enough for us to ditch the coin representations for the case of Byzantine Empire. Pktlaurence (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Population in the infobox

Well, this edit did not help, since the infobox only supports population params 1 through 5. The only way to fix it is to add more params to the template. GregorB (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Roman Empire (Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum) is incorrect

Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn means 'Kingdom of the Romans' 92.226.92.254 (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In Byzantine parlance, "basileus" meant "emperor", and "basileia" "imperial reign, empire". Constantine ✍ 11:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We could switch to "its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire (Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. [Basileia Rhōmaiōn] Error: {{Transliteration}}: unrecognized language / script code: gkm (help); Latin: Imperium Romanum), or Romania ([Ῥωμανία] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: gkm (help))" by using {{lang-gkm}} and {{transl|gkm}} instead of {{lang-grc}} and {{transl|grc}}. NebY (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Not "Byzantine", Roman

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

---

"Byzantine Empire" was popularized by Enlightenment philosophers and Catholics of the West to decry the validity of the ERE as the Roman Empire compared to the HRE. In my opinion, it is a dated and pejorative term similar to Negro and I can not fathom how it still stands today.--Sigehelmus (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how you could equate "Byzantine" with the word "Negro." Even if the term "Byzantine" was disparaging, Byzantines weren't lynched. I actually find the comparison offensive and appalling.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Not again. It stands today because reliable sources are using it today. End of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The East Romans were betrayed, massacred, pillaged, looted, and assaulted in many forms by Crusaders and historically no Western nation apologized for it, and some even justified it. Just because it's medieval it's irrelevant now? Also even if modern Western sources use it today, there needs to be more clarification on the matter. It's not like the Holy Roman Empire still exists or most modern Catholics consider Franz II a direct successor to Augustus anymore.--Sigehelmus (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I urge you to review the discussions I linked above, where this issue was debated in depth, before raising the same old arguments again. We do not need to rehash all that yet again. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I still feel like there needs to be more clarification that Roman Empire was the official and native name to most of the world until the Fall in 1453 AD, and ERE is at least more accurate than the comparatively-modern term Byzantine.--Sigehelmus (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article states, "its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire ... and to themselves as 'Romans'". Regarding Byzantine, please review WP:COMMONNAME and the previous discussions. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of that page, but common to whom? A purely Western and/or non-Orthodox audience? Even if you are 100% correct, the problem still lies that the article still carries the essence that "Byzantine" is the proper or scholarly way to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire. Think of the viewpoint of the historians who first thought of the term; "Oh yes I say, those wacky schismatic Greeks (and only Greeks as far as I know!) and their empire thought they were the Roman Empire! Dohohoho~! How silly!"--Sigehelmus (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Lead, again

The lead has been discussed at length (ad nauseum) and a consensus version agreed upon. The current changes break the hard-fought Byzantine/Eastern Roman description with rewording and an unnecessary mention of the Sassanid empire. The new changes are also inconsistent, as the page uses 330 as the begin point for the Byzantine empire, while this dates it from the 3rd century. Tampering with the lead after such extensive work to reach a consensus version should be proposed and approved here before addition. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of an already reached consensus. Any case, good that you brought it to the talk page.

My rationale is that I believe that the mentioning of the Sassanids can't be left out, simply because the two functioned as the two main leading powers in West Eurasia, until the Sassanids' their demise in the mid 7th century. (After a failed Byzantine-Sassanid) The two's rivalry dominated European and West Asian geo-politics for 4 centuries. Roman-Persian Wars speaks for itself. They were arch rivals, which is something attested in references.

By these reasons, I believe there should be a mention of it in the lede. Just mentioning that there was a two-decade war which caused Sassanid Persias demise, isn't really sufficient looking at the significance of Byzantine-Sassanid relations.

- LouisAragon (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all changes to the lead. Here we go again... For literally years, the lead was a source of dispute and in constant flux. See, for instance, here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and ... this is only a partial list!). If you look back at some of these discussions, you'll see that more than one notes that the lead was changing every time someone visited the page. At last a proposal was floated and debated -- word by word at times -- until a consensus version was reached, here. That version has remained stable for over two years. It is not perfect, but it has ended years of constant changes and arguments. If further changes are to be proposed, please review these old discussions so that we do not have to go through the same arguments yet again. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I quite concur. Just for the avoidance of doubt, if you are referring to my latest edits [28], I think these were all reverting to that version as last discussed, undoing a couple of undiscussed additions that had crept in during the last month or so. If I was mistaken in that, I apologize. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no, I was talking about the other edits from earlier today and other recent tinkering. I think you returned it to where we were after the consensus was formed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Laszlo Panaflex, thanks for linking the previous discussions about the lede. I just read them. However, in none of the previous discussions was there mentioned about the insertion of a somewhat more detailed explanation about Sassanid-Byzantine rivalry which lasted for centuries.

This is what I had in mind [29] From the 3th to mid 7th century, it was recognized as one of the leading powers in the world alongside its arch rival, the Sassanid Persian Empire.

By doing so, we refer to the many centuries long rivalry which dominated much of Western Eurasia and we will have ~400 years of Byzantine-Sassanid Wars and political hegemony better covered. Looking at the significance of the relations the two empires had, I'd say it's definetely a must-have for this article its lede.

Regards and awaiting response. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First, there was discussion about when the start date of the empire was, and 330 was settled upon. Thus "3rd century" is inconsistent. Second, "arch rival" is a peacock term, and gives excess weight to one rival that was only around for part of the empire's existence. And third, WP:LEAD states that "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The Sassanids are not even mentioned until 532, and nowhere does the body state that they were the key rival or leading world power. I'm not against a better description of the relationship to the Sassanids, but the place to start is in the body, not in the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can fully agree with the reasons and points you mentioned. I will work up the body to include more information about their relations, rivalry, wars, etc later on. After that, I'll make a new section on this very same talk page (and I'll ping you again if you'd like to) so we can discuss changes for the lead by that time once again. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Unused secondary sources

I count 22 unused secondary sources, most of which don't deal with the overall history of Byzantine Empire. Shouldn't these be removed?--Zoupan 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to remove (or move to "further reading" if they sound more important). When footnotes and source list are kept separate, like in this article, these things can easily accumulate and might need a clean-out from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Form of Government: Autocratic Absolute Monarchy

In the infobox it states that the government of the Byzantine Empire was an "Autocratic Absolute Monarchy". Links lead not to a government of that name but rather once to "Autocracy" and once to "Absolute Monarchy". That does not make much sense even though I believe I get the idea and agree with it. Autocracy is, in short, a government in which one person holds all power. Absolute Monarchy is, in short, a government in which one person holds all power, but is a term used in conjunction with a medieval christian european concept of "Divine Right" (or later reinterpretations to adapt it to other religions and parts of the world) and is used typically for late medieval and early modern european countries or later on until today for countries with other major religions in other parts of the world. Bottom line: 1. Autocracy contains Absolute Monarchy and 2. Absolute Monarchy is an anachronistic term. I suggest to change it to simply "Autocracy". And I am not going into the whole "Why do we need to put a simplistic label on something as complex as the government of an empire that existed for over a millenium?" thing right now. 87.151.232.141 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. A quick look at several sources do show that many authors refer to it simply as an autocracy or "autocratic empire". I guess we could just use autocracy in the infobox, or perhaps something like "Imperial autocracy", as indeed adding the term "absolute" is anachronistic, looking at what time the empire existed. Good you've taken this up btw. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Predominantly Greek speaking

Basic conclusion makes me dubious about that the Byzantine empire was predominantly Greek speaking throughout all the time to say the least. for example under Justinian the empire not only included the Italic peninsula and Roma but Latin was official, in addition to the numerous Illyrian tribes and some Germanics. How could be said that in such periods Greek was spoken predominatly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.47.134 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dubious listing

The dubious tag should, if possible be removed. If the authors/editors of this page would look into it, as I believe it is a direct cause of the other post previously made by another. The Byzantine empire, although not listed as predominantly Greek by Ethnicity, was definitely predominately Greek in terms of culture and language. The citizens would have most likely have known Greek to a certain standard because it was the lingua franca of the empire. For instance, Greeks, not only by Ethnicity, but mostly by their culture and language were highly frequent in the parts of the Empire now not considered Greece. With only a short amount of research one can find that the influence of the Greek population was far reaching, helped along by the Byzantine administration and the age old spread that Greek Culture benefits from.In regards to the doubts raised by the previous post, the Romans had for centuries spoken Greek to some degree, the Empire adopted Greek culture to a moderate degree and as for the italic peninsula, in regards mostly to the southern, it was highly Hellenised even after the fall of the West and the reconquest by Belisarius and the Eastern Romans/Byzantines. That period was merely a marked transition from predominantly Roman administration to Hellenic Administration. The transition however had no effect on the culture of the land, which merely remained influenced by the Greek language and culture. The effect of the influence of the Greeks is longstanding, even visible today in those parts of Italy. As for the Illyrians, it is safe to say that by the period of Justinian they were safely Hellenised to a degree that is worthy of note. The Illyrian population began its process of Hellenisation prior to it being conquered by Rome, having began around the time of Phillip II. The process continued due to varying levels of already existing similarities. The Romans merely began their influence after their conquest, stated as having had a 'Latin influence'. The point of interest is that whilst the areas of Greek influence are clearly consolidated ( Take a look at the JirečekLine ) The Areas of Latin influence are hardly solidified, with the Latin culture and language already being transitioned to a more Greek centralised position. It is safe to say that the Greek Culture and Language, even to some degree of Religion in its various forms, was the predominant ( if not able to use a stronger term) in the the Empire. 84.254.8.199 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor who put the tag on seems to be under the impression that "predominantly" means "entirely", since his/her objection is that other languages were spoken. I'll remove it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Byzantine Empire

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Byzantine Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Norwich93":

• From Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty: Norwich 1997, p. 93
• From Siege of Constantinople (626): Norwich 1997, p. 93.
• From Battle of Nineveh (627): Norwich 1997, p. 93

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Status text

In the article Western Roman Empire, the status text of the infobox clearly shows it as the "Provinces of the Roman Empire governed by the Western Court". Similarly for this article, it should show the Byzantine Empire as the "Provinces of the Roman Empire governed by the Eastern Court (330-476)" when it coexisted with the Western Roman Empire (and perhaps with added status text "Sole court of the Roman Empire (476-1453)" for the later periods). In order to be consistent, the status text should either be shown in both articles (the preferred solution), or shown in neither articles. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't care what the Western Roman Empire article does. Consistency is not a priority here; the only thing that matters is that each article does what locally makes sense. Putting "provinces governed by the eastern court" in the box here makes no sense, because the period label "Byzantine" conventionally refers primarily and prototypically to the time when there was no western court to contrast it with (which was true for at least 90% of the time we call Byzantine even by the widest defintion of this term, if not for 100% of the time, depending on where you draw the line). The "Western" and the "Eastern" empire are not historically symmetrical entities and never were; that's why it really makes no sense to impose artificial uniformity on the way we present them. As for the second addition ("sole court 476-1453"), that would at least make it not entirely factually wrong, but the two entries together are clumsy, unwieldy, pedantic and simply not the kind of stuff that should be in infoboxes, whose first and only priority must be to remain crisp and brief. There simply is no cmpelling reason at all why any of this should be in the infobox in the first place, these are things that must be presented in proper text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire in fact had two periods of different nature: 1. as part of the Roman Empire, from 330 to 476; 2. as a standalone empire from 476 onward. There is an important relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire, which should be listed in the infobox similar to other articles such as the Western Roman Empire even if we don't consider the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire as historically symmetrical entities. With this two lines as the status text for this article, it would be much clearer to readers about the actual nature of the Byzantine Empire by simply looking at this even if we don't talk about consistency with the Western Roman Empire article here. Furthermore, it is definitely not clumsy or unwieldy to list both. Look at articles such as Joseon, it is in fact a commonplace in Wikipedia to list such texts in the infobox. --Cartakes (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference: this text was first added by User:Jack Gaines on 11 April 2015 [30], then removed (by me) on 26 April [31], then reinserted by User:Cartakes on 27 June [32], then removed by User:Swarm on 15 August [33], then reinserted and expanded again by Cartakes on 16 August [34], then removed again by me on 7 September [35], then re-added once again by User:I Feel Tired [36] and twice more by Cartakes [37][38], with reverts back by myself and most recently by User:Dr.K. [39]. None of the three people who inserted it made even a single talkpage contribution here during all that time, until today. What a fucking pathetic story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's always so with infoboxes! While we're at it "Roman polytheism until 380" is a very odd way indeed to describe the start of Byzantine religion. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that at least two editors had thanked me for reinserting this text by now, including User:Swarm mentioned above after I expanded the text on 16 August. So it was not at all without support from other editors. --Cartakes (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't feel strongly about it either way and removed it because it was flat out misleading originally. I thanked Cartakes for his attempt at a compromise that rectified my concern and let it go. I do not think the article suffers in any sense from its removal though. I understand wanting to bring it in line with the WRE infobox, but if anything, it's a weird use of the "status text" parameter in the first place and I can't think of any other infoboxes that do something similar. Swarm ♠ 20:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the use of the "status text" parameter is weird. It is also UNDUE and POV to put at the top of the infobox the description of a relatively short period of time from 330 to 476 AD on equal footing with the much longer period when the Empire was the sole representative of the Roman Empire. It looks like POV-advertising to me. Another indicator of POV is the longterm edit-warring, as FPaS mentioned. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Status text in more than one line is not really uncommon in WP however. Also, if you look at the status text in articles such as Joseon (as mentioned earlier) and Goryeo, there are line of texts in normal font and the other line in smaller font. So a suggestion: if you don't want to see the two lines in equal footing, then it's fine to make the shorter period in smaller fonts. I agree that in the longer period that Empire was the sole representative of the Roman Empire, which is in fact an important information for readers. You can see the demo of the status text in this way here. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the demo. I think it is ok. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no improvement in this new version [40]. It's still quite as wordy, there's still no obvious explanation of why this piece of information is in the box in the first place, the difference in font size adds yet another layer of visual distraction (rather than being self-explanatory, it's another unexplained feature whose sense the reader has to figure out on their own somehow), and on top of all this, it's reversing the temporal order, again without explaining why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(Adding to the above, because I forgot to point it out earlier: the proposed wording is also still factually wrong, because the Byzantine Empire wasn't "the sole court" of the Roman Empire. An empire isn't a court. It has a court. The "sole court" of the Roman Empire may have been the court at Constantinople, but it's just plain nonsensical to say that the empire itself "was" that court. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The improvement I saw was regarding the previous description which mentioned provinces and the eastern court. In my opinion the new description is more accurate. I can't argue about the wordiness or the temporal order because I can see the validity of both of these points. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this addition. I see one editor saying the demo looks OK. I agree with Fut.Perf's remarks above. This is unnecessary, undue weight, and worse, it takes us back into the Byzantine/Roman argument that has been beaten to death. We specifically distinguish between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, yet this addition confusingly calls the Byzantine Empire a court of the Roman Empire. We've been down this road too many times (see my list of links to prior arguments on this point in the discussion above, beginning with the bolded text, "Please discuss all changes to the lead"). The only use I see for this addition is for people who cannot be bothered to read the first two sentences of the article. It is just infobox bloat, trying to summarize complex content into soundbite size. It is unnecessary and introduces inconsistency at the very top of the page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the edit for now because of your comment. However, from the discussions above I see it seems to be generally agreed that the Byzantine Empire was the sole representative of the Roman Empire after 476, although Fut.Perf. argued that there is no need to display the status text. I am wondering how you view the relationship between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire then? Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A "Byzantine/Roman" debate, whatever that is, which is not a legitimate topic for debate. The distinction between ERE and WRE is historical and not rooted in this project. The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, everyone knows that, that's not being debated. Fact-wise, the infobox blurb isn't wrong nor is it confusing, misleading, undue weight or inconsistent with the rest of the article or with reliable sources. I agree that it's unnecessary infobox bloat and the exact same information can be found in the lead, the body, and summarized further down in the infobox in the "historical era" section, but I really don't understand where all this vitriol is coming from. Swarm ♠ 04:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated above, this has been debated ad nauseum and at last a consensus version of the opening was reached, at times after word-by-word debate (see the links I refer to above re the “Byzantine/Roman” debate). Now we are trying to refine it even further, for an infobox blurb that needlessly attempts to summarize a complex issue that is discussed at the very beginning of the intro. It is reductive and unnecessary. You say you don’t understand the vitriol, so I urge you to go back over the years-long debate over what you say "is not a legitimate topic for debate"; perhaps then you’ll understand the frustration. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand the frustration with users who endlessly try to argue that it should not be referred to as "Byzantine Empire" but that argument has literally no merit, never has, and as such it has never actually gained any traction. It's not fair to project your frustration with such ridiculous past debates onto this issue, which is obviously an editor trying to factually summarize two distinct stages in the infobox. Do you want a pat on the back for being able to form a consensus to back what is both the scholarly, common, and stable name? Distinguishing the Byzantine Empire and the Ancient Roman Empire as is done historiographically does not mean the edit was wrong or was attempting to rewrite history or ignore consensus. Swarm ♠ 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's mantain a clear distinction between the Roman Empire (that fell duiring the fifht century) and the Byzantine empire that fell in the 15th century. Moreover, I oppose to use the term "eastern roman empire" when there was not a western part. Barjimoa (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw my name mentioned and thought I might as well add in my two cents. The reason I hadn't been on this talk page is because I've been on break, because I was tired of dealing with you. You treat anyone who makes an edit you don't like or disagrees with you like crap. Your attitude really makes me not want to spend time here. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

First usage of the term Byzantine Empire

I'm removing these sentences:

However, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in the Western world. As regards the English historiography in particular, the first occasion of the "Byzantine Empire" appears in an 1857 work of George Finlay (History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057).

Rosser says nothing of the kind on p. 2, though on p. xxxvii he calls that expression "modern". A search on Google Books shows it to have been used since at least 1704, and it's also used by Gibbon, but all that's just OR. The OED doesn't have an entry for Byzantine Empire. --Antiquary (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well now, it seems that when I look at the right edition of Rosser he really does say that. I'm restoring the first of the sentences I removed, though the second is clearly wrong, as I've shown. --Antiquary (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Title Name Change

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

---

I have been quite bothered by the name of this article as it does not all give an accurate picture of what this empire is.The term Byzantine Empire is to me too archaic as Byzantium was the name of Istanbul when it was not the capital of the Roman Empire.Also I feel the term is misleading as it implies the Byzantine empire isn't the Roman Empire at all and also the article said it was a continuation of the Roman Empire but the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire are the exact same entities for goodness sake and most of all this misleads that all the Roman Empire died in 476 ad rather than 1453 ad. All what I'm requesting is to correct any errors in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, we follow the naming practices used in scholarship. It doesn't matter if you or I find this name "misleading"; what matters is that scholarship unanimously uses it. Period. This has all been debated ad nauseam. Please read the big notice at the top of this page: "Before discussing the naming and etymology of the Byzantine Empire, please visit the relevant archived discussions." Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Please discuss changes to the lead

After this comment by Swarm, I decided to refrain from editing the lead here, agreeing that perhaps I was no longer approaching that area with a clear view. A consensus version of the lead was developed by multiple editors some time ago. I urged above for changes to the lead to be discussed before being made, but that is no longer being done. So we have returned to where the lead changes pretty much daily. Now there is a lengthy edit war going on over the "Greek-speaking" phrasing. (That language was part of the consensus version, for what it's worth.) I'll not take a position whether that version should be restored or on the current edit war. But I would urge again that edits to the lead be discussed. Having the intro change on a daily basis is not a good situation, and a name-calling edit war is certainly not constructive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I agree. Looks like one editor decided to remove "Greek-speaking" and it was then warred over by a bunch of IPs. The article is semi-protected now and the edit is minor, not that controversial, and not incorrect per se, so I don't think it's worth edit warring over, but it is a long-term, stable wording that probably should not have been removed unilaterally. Swarm ♠ 07:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to fill in a few details about what actually happened: the removal of the "predominantly Greek-speaking" wording from the lead was first done by 2a02:2430:3:2500::b807:3da0 on 14 November [41], with the reasonable-sounding argument that "Linguistic distribution of the east Empire was very complex". Their new wording was quite cumbersome overall and people began tinkering with it to smoothen it out, so I later reverted the rest of the intro to the old wording, but left the "Greek-speaking" bit out [42]. I believe the IP had a point about it, because the Greek-ness is not a necessary part of the definition of what the Byzantine Empire was, which is what the sentence should be about. It was then sneakily reinserted, without an explanation, by a sock IP of banned User:Deucalionite [43]. Note that Deucalionite also strengthened the wording from "predominantly Greek-speaking" to simply "Greek-speaking", which makes it factually false. Deacon of Pndapetzim was the next to remove it [44], again with a reasonable edit summary. Then Deucalionite went on his usual socking spree to edit-war it back in again. I have no idea who the other IP was who was reverting against him though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A few improvement suggestions

When editing any other article I would not be bothered to discuss anything as unimportant as this, but knowing how sensitive the lead section of this article is, I feel obliged to post here before changing anything myself. I would like to suggest the following, relatively unimportant, improvements:

• Lead, first paragraph, second sentence: change "until it fell" into until it fell
• Fourth sentence: wiki-link "historiographical"; I doubt the average reader knows what historiography (as opposed to history) is
• Same sentence: replace "its citizens continued to refer to their empire" with "its citizens and contemporaries continued to refer to it"; because just "citizens" implies only they themselves called their empire Romania etc., which is not true. The Arabs, Turkish, Rus, and many others also called it Rûm, Romania, etc., as is explained in more detail at the end of the "Nomenclature" section;

I don't expect anything of this to be really controversial. That's it, thank you for your time. Michael! (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, and this is probably more controversial, I would recommend removing "rather than Roman polytheism" at the end of the second paragraph. Just "characterised by Orthodox Christianity" is much better. Michael! (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestions. About the first two, those two extra links, I'll have to declare myself responsible, because I think we used to have both of them at some time and it was me who removed them. About linking "until it fell" to the Fall of Constantinople, I had the feeling it was a bit of an "easter-egg link", because it's difficult for a reader to predict what a sentence fragment like that would link to (There is a full and overt link to the same article a few paragraphs down at the end of the lede section). About linking "historiographical" to historiography, I felt it was giving unnecessary visual weight to a term that isn't really that explanative in the context – the historiography article deals with "the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline", but the use of "Byzantine Empire" isn't really linked to any specific theory or tradition of history-writing. If the term "historiographical" in our sentence here is felt to be difficult to understand, a better solution would be to reword the sentence. – About "citizens and contemporaries", I have no objections; this too seems to be something we used to have; if it was removed it may have been out of some concern about the idea that not all of its contemporaries at all times continued to call it "Roman empire", but then, that would be yet another instance of that perennial plague of pedantry. About your fourth suggestion, again, no particular objections as far as I'm concerned, but I have to say I don't really follow you why you feel the shorter version would be better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your quick reply. Yeah, I think I recall a slightly different, older version.

• A valid point. And yes, there is already a clear link to the Fall of Constantinople in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section. However, the wording "until it fell in 1453" implies a sudden major event which would justify a link here. Perhaps it could be better to rewrite that sentence into "... and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks."
• Concerning the second point, I respectfully disagree with rewording this term; "historiographical" is an appropiate and precise term, which explains (to me, at least) exactly what ERE and BE are.
• Well, I didn't propose "all contemporaries at all times". Adding "contemporaries" would provide a better coverage of the second half of the "Nomenclature" section. Furthermore, as I read it, this lead sentence emphasizes that they didn't call it, nor were called in their own time, ERE or BE.
• As to removing "rather than Roman polytheism", I feel this creates a false dichotomy. Besides "Roman polytheism" redirects to religion in ancient Rome, which is not about a single unified state religion: it also discusses, among other things, Christianity. Furthermore, it doesn't add anything substantial, and MOS:INTRO recommends a concise lead, representing the article's most important points. I could give a lengthier argumentation, even though I guess I seem to be a pedant already :)

Michael! (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've been bold and rewrote the second paragraph of the lead in line with the points discussed above, although I also inserted a sentence on Constantine, because I felt it was required by the already existing first sentence of this paragraph (which I didn't change). Michael! (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PS Throughout the article's body text "Byzantium" and "Byzantine Empire" are used interchangeably. Perhaps "Byzantium" ought to be mentioned as an equivalent term in the lead, e.g.: "The Byzantine Empire or Byzantium, sometimes referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was ..."

By the way, why are there coordinates given at the top of the article? "Coordinates: 41°00′N 28°58′E" This seems nonsensical (and significantly too precise), perhaps those ought to be removed. Michael! (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just want to thank everyone who has contributed to this article. So impressive, and I just learned so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.184.29 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Ottoman Empire the only listed successor

Their were multiple successor why is the Ottoman Empire the only listed one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:57:E36E:3841:5C09:5924:C72B:B08F (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Romanization of Greek names

Is it standard to transcribe all pre-Modern Greek words/names in a way that implies a classical pronunciation despite that in Byzantine times, 1000 AD to be precise, most (if not all) phonological changes were completed? For example, Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων is transcribed "Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn", with long vowels preserved: by this time, long and short vowel distinctions are lost. I am not very familiar with how Greek is to be transcribed in generally, but are classical pronunciations still followed through even for Modern Greek (IE. with β as 'b' not 'v', αι as 'ai' not 'e', αυ/ευ as 'au/eu' not 'av/ev')? If it is acceptable to transcribe these words in a way reflecting Byzantine-era pronunciation, it might be recommendable. The page on "Medieval Greek" does this to some extent, with πεδιά as "pediá" not "paidiá", and οἰκία as "ykía" not "oikía". Iotacist (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Iotacist

Religion

The first line under the heading 'Religion' is as follows: The Byzantine Empire was a Theocracy ruled by God working through the Emperor.

This is presented as a statement of fact. My knowledge of the Byzantine Empire is very slim, but one thing I am sure of is that it was not ruled by a supernatural being. It seems to me also that Byzantium was an empire run by an emperor or a theocracy run by religious leaders, but that it cannot have been both.

86.140.142.43 (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Can somebody suggest a good replacement wording? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the concept of theocracy may have to be clarified. Otherwise the BE was a theocracy. There are many RS calling it so. Dr. K. 16:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we're debating primarily whether or not the term "theocracy" applies (although we might have to clarify, because "theocracy" is often used to imply ruling by something like a priestly class, which wasn't the case here). The main issue is the purely semantic one that we are presenting it in a wording that, if taken literally, implies the real existence and the real activity of a "God" that actually was ruling the empire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. K. 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So the wording should simply indicate that this is how they saw it, rather than flatly stating that as the reality. Something like, "The Byzantine Empire was a Theocracy, seen by its subjects as ruled by God working through the Emperor." Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it was more complex than that. For example, this reference expands on the subtleties of the term as applied to Byzantium. Dr. K. 17:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unlike rulers in medieval Europe, the Byzantines considered their emperor to be acting on behalf of God, but not appointed by God. So if an emperor fucked up in some way - was considered to be unlucky or contributed to a military disaster or whatever - he could be safely deposed of and replaced by an alternative who would more correctly act on His behalf (which equated to acting in the best interests of the empire and its people). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence. Ugly Ketchup (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

So, I did some research onto this and the Klimata region of Crimea belonged in Byzantine hands prior to the early 8th century, and supporting this is the evidential citadel that Justinian I built in the city of Kerch. Also The use of Chersonesus as a place of Exile for Justinian II. This shows that byzantines controlled southern crimea from head to toe up to the bosphorus. I have modified the map of Tataryn to include this place. Please replace the map used in the page. Also the user above's concern is certainly an issue that needs fixing. But Im afraid I couldn't do it in the map I have produced. My link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justinian555AD_with_Klimata.png Thank you.

LaikasKruger (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Becky Sayles: The user wants the image in the article to be replaced with the other one, but this would need reliable sources first, and it would be better to upload it as a new revision to the original image if it can be verified in RS. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Today part of..." entry

Regarding this [45] attempt at reintroducing a "today part of..." entry with a list of modern countries in the infobox: please note that such a list was previously removed by consensus, most recently after this talkpage discussion in 2012: Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 12#List of Countries. Please don't reintroduce this without prior consensus. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf., with all due respect, information like that on infoboxes are required. I was the one who reintroduced the "today part of..." under an IP address, which by the way I'm not giving, before creating a new account. I regret not using consensus before reintroducing "today part of..." infobox. Other empire and country articles like the Russian Empire and the Spanish Empire have a "today part of.." entry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmuniz115 (talk • contribs)

These are also being removed in places, and probably should be in others. As for the rationale, I second the comments of Athenean, EtienneDolet, and others in a similar discussion at Ottoman Empire. Better off without them. There is a broader discussion of the issue here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex What you said that former country articles would be better off without them is your opinion. In the discussion that you brought up, it's important for users in the discussion to state their opinions whether or not we should have the "today part of.." entry removed. In my opinion, I would like for former country articles to keep them as long as they're useful. Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

area

these numbers, from the infobox, can not be right.

" Area • 450 AD[1] 2,800,000 km² (1,081,086 sq mi)

• 555 AD[1] 2,700,000 km² (1,042,476 sq mi) "

by 555 justinian, belisarius, et al. had ADDed back about one half of the old "west" roman empire to the existing territory of the "eastern" empire.

(or 1/3 to 1/2 say; depending on what you count, & what accounting you do on the reconquered territories)

so howinthehell did the empire SHRINK BY 100,000 KM2, from 450 to 555?

{:p)

Lx 121 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

In case you can't access the cited source, here's what it says on the relevant page:

[...]

395 A.D.	Byzantine Empire	2.1+/-.3	m,a	Partition of Roman empire
450		2.8	m
486		1.6	m
527		1.9+/-.3	a,m	Justian's rule starts
555		2.7	a,m	Italy, N. Africa, Spain taken. Peak size

[...]

So the explanation would appear to be that the empire lost 1.2 Mm² between 450 and 486. Can't really explain the 555 figure being referred to as the peak size though (typo?). TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

ok, so it looks very much like the 2.8 mil. figure is for the whole roman empire; i.e.: both "halves", in ~450, when the western empire has already lost a great deal of ground.

in which case, that number from 450 shouldn't be used without, at least, clarification; possibly not at all, unless we can "divide" it accurately.

because the eastern empire simply did not lose 1.2 mil sqkm between 450 & 486. there is nothing on the map, or in the history books, to support that.

what about using the figure from 486 instead? at that point it is clearly only the eastern empire that is being counted; as the western empire has ceased to exist. Lx 121 (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the 2.8 Mm² figure in 450 is for the eastern empire only. The following figures are given: Rome was 4.4 Mm² in 390, Western Rome was 2.0 Mm² in 395, and the Byzantine Empire was 2.1+/-.3 Mm² in 395. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

well, something is very wrong with these numbers; because @ maximum extent, under justinian, the eastern roman empire was VASTLY bigger than it was in 450, 486, or at any other time from the partition to its demise.

specifically justinian added about 1/3 to 1/2 of the old west roman empire onto the east roman empire (italy, dalmatia, & large bites of spain/iberia & north africa west of egypt), without losing any major territories in the east while doing so.

so there is no way it was 100,000 km2 smaller, after ALL of justinian's major conquests, than it was in 450ad. where is all this "missing"-lost territory supposed to be!?

& for that matter, where is the 1.2 MILLION sqkm the east roman empire is supposed to have "lost" between 450 & 486? when where & how did that happen exactly? because, other than very temporary changes of possession in conflicts, i really don't see the eastern empire's map changing by all that much. 1 mil. sqkm is an area the size of modern egypt[[46]]. & the article says the empire's boundaries were "fairly static" from the 450s to justinian's time.

so, something DOESN'T MAKE SENSE here. Lx 121 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

maybe the other numbers are too small then? if the 450 number is correct? or maybe somebody screwed up converting miles & km?

I think the most likely error is a typo – that 2.8 Mm² was supposed to be 1.8 Mm². At any rate, the simplest solution would be to just remove the 450 figure.TompaDompa (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So why is the 450 A.D. figure still here? What in the world did the Eastern Empire lose after 450 and before Justinian reconquered Western Roman lands? It makes no sense. If this issue is not resolved, I will delete the 450 land area. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's responded, so I've removed the 450 AD figure. I see no way that that figure can be correct. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The conversation above is the absolute definition of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH! And you MUST NOT change a figure but leave the reference intact, on the grounds that it "must be wrong". I will remove the whole dubious and disputed details from the box - these figures are frankly unimportant anyway - use a map. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And you MUST NOT change a figure but leave the reference intact, on the grounds that it "must be wrong". Nobody did that. The 555 AD figure is supported by the source. What they did is removed one sourced claim (on the grounds that it "must be wrong", sure) and kept another from the same source. TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You can read above for why I said "it must be wrong." I don't want to repeat the reasons why it is wrong. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Languages

The "Language" section currently reads:

Apart from the Imperial court, administration and military, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the decline of the Western Empire was Greek, having been spoken in the region for centuries before Latin....

...Greek had become the common language of the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations....

It then continues:

Many other languages existed in the multi-ethnic Empire, and some of these were given limited official status in their provinces at various times.

The first part of this statement ("the primary language...") is about the official language, whereas the second part is about the various vernaculars which obviously were spoken (and many written) continuously, even if they weren't official (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian and other Caucasian languages throughout the Byzantine period, and Slavic and Turkic in later periods; Albanian wasn't written until the 18th century, but presumably was spoken continuously). This needs to be clarified. --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107172532/http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans.html to http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513152720/http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/07305/medmm.htm to http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/07305/medmm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Names and dates

This is more of a question than a suggestion, but should the infobox not state the name as "Roman Empire" and not "Byzantine Empire" since "Roman Empire" was the single unifying name that was used for the state throughout its history? I know that "Byzantine Empire" is a more commonly used term, especially today, but looking at other historical states, particularly closely related ones such as the Western Roman Empire and the Latin Empire, it seems like they use a more or less period-accurate name in the infobox and the more historiographically used term as the article title and throughout the article itself.

I would also like to point out that the article points to the Byzantine Empire beginning in c.330 (presumable due to Constantine moving the capital of the empire to Constantinople), which is the point at which most people tend to refer to it beginning. However, this article is also used as the article for the Eastern Roman Empire which (as common sense would dictate) began as a concept and a realized administrative unit at the same time as the Western Roman Empire, in 285 and ended when emperor Zeno abolished both the titles of "western" and "eastern emperor" in 480, at least juridically making it a unified roman empire again. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this has been debated to death multiple times before on this talkpage. Must be somewhere in the archives; one of the more thorough reiterations seems to be at Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 13#Explaining the complexity/misconceptions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I did not realize that the exact same thing had been brought up before (several times it appears), I suppose there is not much point in pressing it if the consensus is against it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924101549/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/EndByz.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/EndByz.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930114425/http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/ehb36-trade to http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/ehb36-trade
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930114212/http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/EHB01-Writing%20the%20economic%20history%20of%20Byzantium.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/EHB01-Writing%20the%20economic%20history%20of%20Byzantium.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930114407/http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/ehb20-cp to http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/ehb20-cp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930114138/http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/ehb37-trade-late to http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium/ehb37-trade-late

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706062040/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9383275/Siege-of-Zara to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9383275/Siege-of-Zara

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Time spec

Haven't looked at the article in a while and as an observation ..

The lead section goes to a lot of trouble to describe possible events to be considered begin and end dates. Though that is appropriate to be discussed in the body, it is very distracting in the lead. I would suggest instead just broadly summarizing how the Empire split and how the East collapsed without trying to discuss specifically the differing opinions on the litany of events that people debate about. Truthfully trying to nail down exact begin/end dates is pointless if we are being honest.

-- MC 2600:100C:B006:A997:9FE:51F7:939:CAC5 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Justinian Dynasty: A minor correction.

 Athalaric was Theodoric's grandson, not his nephew. 

65.158.174.2 (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Population figure very insufficient

There is a population figure that is supposed to state the number of population. It says:

" Population

• 	565 AD est.	26,000,000 
• 	780 AD est.	7,000,000 
• 	1025 AD est.	12,000,000 "

I think the above is somehow insufficient, and i suggest to expand it:

457 AD 16,000,000

565 AD 26,000,000

780 AD 7,000,000

1025 AD 12,000,000

1097 AD 5,000,000

1143 AD 10,000,000

1320 AD 2,000,000

I think it will provide more accurate picture. Note that i am not quite sure whether the numbers are accurate as there are contradictions and different numbers.

En historiker (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

main map's errors

Some time now i 've noticed the byzantine empire's map of 555 is carrying some serious mistakes. The most striking is the capital mark on Rome. The empire's capital always had been Constantinople (which currently is incorectly titled Byzantium). Another mistake is the depiction of trajan's era province names in justinian's era (to many to be pointed). Could the map artist who made this please make some more research and fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.176.12 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• comment -- the current main map (infobox/lede) does not show the imperial territories in the crimea/northern black sea area, as of 555. Lx 121 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Tataryn who created the map. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The map was fixed a few days ago. Thank you Tataryn! --1990'sguy (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• comment -- the caption for the map in the infobox says that vassals are in red color, however all territories are colored in red. Would be better if it said that they are in light red. TheZeus121 (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please fix the events in the infobox

When people step in and change the dates for this thing can they please edit all parts of the infobox the match the new dating? I agree that 1453 should obviously be the end date but changing it from 1461 to 1453 in this quick way has made the "events" section list the fall of Trebizond as occurring on 15 August 1453. I tried to fix this but could not figure it out, can someone please fix it and put the fall of Trebizond in 1461 while keeping the end date for the empire as 1453.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should follow the vast majority of sources (and the lede), and have nothing there after 1543 - no Emperor, no Empire. WP:UNDUE applies, and WP:INFOBOX: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." It is already very long. Unfortunately people love to clutter them up with non-essential info. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(1453 not 1543) I don't necessarily agree. The Empire of Trebizond was not the Byzantine Empire but was quite obviously a Byzantine Empire and it is worth noting its fall. Eitherway, the current dating error could be fixed before a larger discussion on what (and what not) to include in the infobox is started since this article gets quite a lot of visits and is currently relaying undisputably incorrect information in the infobox. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please mention Great Schism of AD 1054 in lead

I was surprised not to see the Great Schism of 1054 mentioned in the lead. I suggest the following small insertion:

OLD: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Orthodox Christianity.

NEW: modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and, especially since the Great Schism of AD 1054, characterised by Orthodox Christianity. 81.131.171.56 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. That sentence is about the difference between Christianity and ancient Roman polytheism, not that between Eastern and Western churches. And Byzantium was really no more and no less "orthodox" after 1054 than before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 1054 just formalized what had essentially been the situation for a few centuries. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Empire was known in the West as Imperium Graecorum (Empire of the Greeks) - needs to be in lead

For contemporary Westerners such as Pope Gregory I, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Liutprand of Cremona, Paul the Deacon the chronicler of the Lombards, William of Tyre and many others the Eastern Roman Empire was considered Greek and in most Western documents the empire is called Imperium Graecorum which means a Greek Empire. Of course this addition I added saw an immediate revert by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. However - the lead talks about the various names and spelling of the names in detail - except the actual name that was most used by Western sources! I think it is critical to include the name the Empire was known by at the time by the West. Thoughts? Reaper7 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, content should not be in the lead that is not addressed in the body. Your addition goes into greater detail than the body of the article on this point, which only mentions occasional use of the term. The lead is a summary of the body; the proper place for this detail is in the Nomenclature section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Reaper7 is missing the context. That passage in the lead is exclusively about one thing: the definition of the topic and scope of the article, which requires a discussion of why and how we distinguish the "Byzantine" empire from the "Roman" empire proper (even though it was in many ways the same). That is the sole reason we are mentioning "Byzantine", "Eastern Roman" and so on, at that point. Any material about the ethnic nature of the empire (whatever that may mean, if it means anything at all), or about the perception of that nature by contemporary outsiders, is quite extraneous to that paragraph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Imperium Graecorum is what the Empire was known as outside of the Empire itself. It is therefore key and critical to clarifying the whole Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire debate you just brought up. The name Imperium Graecorum should be at least mentioned in the lead - even in brackets with a simple translation - just as it is common in most articles to cite in the lead the most common names used.Reaper7 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It should be in the next section - "Nomenclature". Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree the description of why the Empire was known as Imperium Graecorum should be explored in the following section - however I believe the lead should contain a mention of the name the West knew the Empire as. Not only historians but even fundamental works of fiction at the time such as Tirant lo Blanch describe the empire solely as Empire of the Greeks. This had nothing to do with the 'ethnic nature' user Fut.Perf is suggesting or anything like that - it was simply the most used name by outsiders. The itself empire was multi ethnic as we all know. We are simply talking about the name used across Europe at the time of the empire. Even the Vikings knew it as Empire of the Greeks.. The good thing about the use of the name in the lead - is it hints at subsequent parts of the article late on. Reaper7 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

'Imperium Graecorum' is not used by scholars or RS. See T. Kamusella (2008). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. p. 964. The Greeks at the time call themselves the Roman Empire, and never used the term in Greek or Latin of "imperium Graecorum" That term was invented by West Europeans about year 1000 after the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, in order to downgrade Constantinople's claim to "Roman Empire". It is not used by modern scholars or reliable sources-- or anyone else except the makers of electronic games. Kamusella notes that "Byzantine Empire" is also a late coinage, after 1453, from Western Europe. It is the preferred term used by the reliable sources and the scholars. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason the West called Byzantium the Empire of the Greeks for the best part of half a millennia is not relevant - just as the reason why the Empire became known as the Byzantine Empire is not relevant in the lead. The Vikings and every other people who called it Empire of the Greeks were not doing so to downgrade its status. It was just the common name. This name later suited the Holy Roman Empire - but the name was in use before then. Reaper7 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

the occasional usage in the west many centuries ago is irrelevant to the lede. If you discount the motivation then it's just trivia. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The name was the main usage of the Empire in Europe for around 500 years - of course that would be abhorrent to someone who has emotional attachment outside of scholarship to another name - however this is about facts, not emotion or partisanship. You stated why the Holy Roman Empire liked the name - that is irrelevant. The name we use now - Byzantium Empire - and how relevant it is to Greeks or outsiders 1000 years ago - is also irrelevant. Gregory of Tours for example was using the term Greek Empire in the 6 Century AD... The name was common. More so than Eastern Roman Empire - that was not used at any time except now. Reaper7 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"was the main usage" needs a reliable secondary source, please. Fact is that the West switched over to Byzantine Empire as soon as it was no longer necessary to demean or diminish the defunct empire in order to glorify the "Holy Roman Empire." there is a reason for inventing then new name then discarding it. but that reason is not important enough for the lede. Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Easily done. It was Latin fashion to call it Empire of the Greeks but it was also called that be Vikings and various other less educated peoples. Actualy it was not only the Latin perspective - it was the 'Western perspective' to call it only the Empire of the Greeks. In fact some scholars still refer to it as such - please don't blame me for them using the term over 'Byzantine Empire.' So we have established it was the West's main description and in use before 1000AD. I think it deserves at least a brief bracketed mention. It matters not that the Greeks at the time despised the name. There are countless contemporary descriptions of it as Empire of the Greeks only. It is important readers of those works know in the opening lines that the Empire their books are describing is the same one they are currently reading on the article page. A simple Imperium Graecorum (tr: Empire of the Greeks to outsiders) will suffice. Reaper7 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Please read WP:OR. Then reread your own post, especially the formula So we have established. Then go find reliable sources stating it was the West's main description instead of trying to "prove" it through your own research. --T*U (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Reaper7 asked me to join this discussion. I'd think that the first priority is to fill out the content in the "Nomenclature" section, with good sources.

It is noteworthy that it was widely used earlier, not only by Luitprand, Pope Gregory, and so on, but also in the English-language literature in the late 17th to late 18th centuries, where it seems to have been more common than the other names. Google nGrams Of course, all this needs WP:RS beyond ngrams, especially since that phrase may also refer to Alexander's conquests.

As for confusing the name "Empire of the Greeks" with the (false) claim that the Empire was a Greek national state, it seems to me that the sentence "Although the Byzantine Empire had a multi-ethnic character during most of its history..." doesn't belong in the nomenclature section. A name is just a name. Russian dressing isn't from Russia, either.

I see no reason that this need be covered in the lead, though. Not only should the lead summarize matters that are already covered in the body of the article, but it should also focus on the topic rather than the name of the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Removal of the newly added coat of arms, per previous discussions;
• Removal of the transliteration of the "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων" (Basileía Rhōmaíōn), not needed, too many information for the name of the empire. --176.92.176.24 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed the coat of arms. "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων" (Basileía Rhōmaíōn) should stay, many other states have more names and these are both valid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also changed the display name back to "Byzantine Empire" and removed the odd "status text" line beneath with its confusing additional dates. As for the diaplay title, we've been through this half a dozen times on this talkpage, I'm really sick and tired of this creeping in again and again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"East" is bad localization

Lead sentence states that the RE continued in "the East". This is an inappropriate localization. (It did not continue in East Asia, nor in Eastern Europe, nor in East Africa, all possible referents for "the East", especially for non-European/American readers.) It continued in the Eastern Mediterranean.

For some reason, that is regarded as a non-standard descriptor. If a standard matters here, please replace with a standard but appropriate descriptor: "the East" isn't it. Jmacwiki (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, now with this edit [47] we have "...the Eastern Roman Empire was the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire"; that's certainly not ideal. I don't think "in the East" is a problem. It should be clear enough from the context that of course it's "the East" of the empire; what else could it be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with that edit (though it is not entirely felicitous), the localization is appropriate. Jmacwiki (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: re this new version [48], sorry for being quite picky now, but I'm afraid "was the continuation of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire" is still not quite acceptable. The crucial point about this lead sentence, which was fought over long and hard some years ago, is to emphasize the continuity of the Roman Empire not merely in terms of parts of its territory, but in terms of continuity and identity as an institution. In this sense, it's really not quite enough to say it was "the continuation of some part" of the empire; it was the "continuation of the empire" itself, as a whole. Would "continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern parts" be acceptable? (And, as a matter of procedure, given the enormous amounts of past debate that have gone into this wording, could you please come here to the talkpage before inserting further new versions?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, ok, although it's hard to see that discussion reached anything like consensus despite being, as you say, fought over long and hard. Nor can I see the previous wording actually mentioned, though it may be. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The timeline for “Byzantine Empire”

In the wikipedia-page of the Western Roman Empire the period is listed as “395-476”. I think the Byzantine Empire should be listed as “395-1453” since it makes more sense geographically from my perspective.

But IF it should be an earlier timeline, then it should begin in 286 with Diocletian’s tetrarchy rather than when Constantine founded Constantinople. Moving a capital, founding a capital, converting to a new religion really do not make a new empire.

But all this is a personal perspective of mine.

What do the other editors think?:

Should it start from 286 when Diolectian became sole emperor and initiated the tetrarchy later?

Or 330 when Constantine I founded Constantinople?

Or 395 when the empire was divided for the last time?

En historiker (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And for the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire

That wikipedia page of "Roman Empire" have "27 BC – 395 AD"

That wikipidia page of "Western Roman Empire" have "395–476"

My opinion is that 395 sounds most correct, both geographically, but also since it is more compatible with the others wikipedia-pages.

One more thing: In the German-, French-, Spanish-, Arabic-wikipedia pages all have listed "395-1453" also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

En historiker (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree “395-1453”. Mind you, there are massive discussions on this in the archives, but more focusing on the name rather than the dates. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was reached years ago as 330. There have been a number of previous discussions of this issue, including here, where the editor whom you reverted stated the prevailing position, and here. See more recent Archives for further discussions, but 330 has remained the consensus. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Just one little thing: "Partition of the Roman Empire" did not find place in 330. So please fix it since I cannot figure out how to do it properly. En historiker (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite so: Partition did not occur until 395. This isn't in question, and the infobox has the wrong label for 293, which is arguably the point at which one emperor (or two!) had an administrative focus on the East. He was/they were still full emperors in the West as well, just not focused on the West. This is as much a psychological distinction as a political one, and in no sense is the RE partitioned by this event. Nor does moving the capital to the East mark a partition: Constantine ruled a united empire, did his successor.

If we want to mark something about 293, can we find a more felicitous label for the event? I haven't come up with one yet, but "partition" is simply wrong. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Without historiography in consideration, is there something unique about the 395 division as opposed to previous divisions? Western emperors and consuld had existed before and what happened during the Valentinian dynasty strikes me as particularly similar. I would agree that there clearly wasn't a partition created in 330, as far as I'm aware the infobox uses 330 as it is seen as the beginning of the "byzantine period" (with a center in the East). Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

Tetrarchy: 284

The last division of the Roman Empire in west and east: 395

I think it would make most sense, but perhaps others disagree. En historiker (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I added in something similar just now, I suppose if anyone disagrees they can edit it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

When one clicks on "Final East-West division" the link leads you to a weird page about Maximian.(??) - It would be more correct if it leads to the page about Theodosius. I don't how to fix it. If other can do it, then please do it. En historiker (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that is because "Partition of the Roman Empire" redirects to Maximian being appointed as caesar, did not know this. Changed it to say final division after the death of Theodosius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This reads better to my eyes. In answer to a previous question on this point, my understanding is that the separation in 395 produced two separate states, unlike previous separations: separate imperial dynasties and lineages, separate armies, separate taxation, separate political agendas, etc. -- though of course the Western RE did not survive long enough for this divergence to evolve much. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just so. If the WRE had survived, we might eventually have seen a reunification, and perhaps the Roman world would have followed the Chinese model of periods of fragmentation followed by unified regimes, or the two states might have drifted further apart and developed entirely different identities. In brief, we can't know that. What actually happened was that two separate regimes came into existence in 395, even if they were formally still the one and same state, somewhat the reverse of a personal union. On the starting date, again, while we as Wikipedia editors might like consistency, we have to follow historiographic consensus, and that overwhelmingly places the start date of the Byzantine Empire in 330, for the reasons I listed some time ago. There is no rule that different entities/periods may not have overlapping chronologies, if that is warranted by scholarly use. Constantine ✍ 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice point. Of course, signing your post that way kinda biases the 330 date. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. :) Constantine ✍ 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I must disagree with the user above, who erroneously stated that historiography "overwhelmingly places the start date of the Byzantine Empire in 330" - actually we have stark scholarly divisions over when the ERE actually starts to exist as a (*separate*) political entity. Some historians say it started back at Diocletian's Tetrarchy; others would claim that it was Heracleus' reforms that kickstarted the new realm. Most historians choose something in the middle, most likely 330 or 395. In my opinion, the Eastern Roman Empire did *not* exist in 330-395, just as the Western Roman Empire didn't. After all, how could the ERE exist in 330-395, but not the Western Roman Empire? Or would you claim that somehow both existed? The point does not sustain itself; most historians also point out that the Roman Empire was firmly united under Constantine I's hand and his immediate successors, and that during the 330-395 timeframe the empire worked as one. Our very own page for the Roman Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) even lists it as ending at 395, with its Western & Eastern halves "coming to life" in 395. I concede that historical accuracy is in a point of dispute over this matter and that 330 is a key year for the ERE that should be pointed out under the spotlight, but for consistency's sake changing the start date to 395 is the best middle ground. LuizLSNeto (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fix the infobox

In the "Capital Constantinople" there is a "c", but when you click on it it leads you to a "b"-footnote about Theodosius.

One has to fix it since I don't know how to do it.

En historiker (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Mnmazur (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Information adding

Add please this important characteristic Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe.Link1 LINK 2

The Byzantine Empire played a vital role in the formation of modern Europe and the Middle East. Between the 4th and the 12th century, it was the leading culture that set standards in all areas of life and that had a key influence on all neighbouring states. Byzantium formed a bridge between Antiquity and the Modern Age and, at the same time, between Europe and the Orient.

The series serves as publication organ for the research programme of the Leibniz ScienceCampus Mainz that studies Byzantium, its role as bridge between East and West, and cultural transfer and reception processes from Antiquity to modern times. The methods and research subjects of the various disciplines dedicated to Byzantium are brought together across traditional disciplinary boundaries in order to take a comprehensive historical and cultural approach to research into Byzantium and its material and immaterial culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.247.126 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: We can't take text copied and pasted from other websites; please see WP:COPYVIO. Also your second paragraph makes no sense in the context of an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@KuyaBriBri. The sentence The Byzantine empire had an important role as a cultural bridge between Oriental East and Occidental Europe. is not copied (; ....it's my formulation --85.212.154.192 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove that ugly tremissis coin as intro-image

That gold coin depicting Justinian in the beginning of the page is really ugly, and it tells not much to the readers. In contrary the Ravenna-mosaic of Justinian and his men is more vivid and more byzantine-"styled", and it will make more impression on the readers when they visit that wiki-page.

Thus I suggest to remove that tremissis of Justinian, and instead use use this Ravenna-mosaic as the intro-image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_San_Vitale#/media/File:Meister_von_San_Vitale_in_Ravenna_003.jpg

What do the editors think?

En historiker (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, much better choice. The mosaic is quintessentially byzantine, and much more aesthetic than the coin. Khirurg (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would object just on the basis of consistency with other articles on the Roman state (Roman Republic, Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire). I also don't think it's very reasonable to change the long-standing infobox image after 2 days of discussion where just one other editor replied. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the mosaic is more representative and more informative than a coin. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It represents a single emperor and his courtiers and while it may be more representative and informative it is inconsistent with virtually every single other article on an historical state, out of which many use coins (available for the Byzantine Empire, we could go with any number of choices here) or flags (there are Palaiologan-aged flags we could use). We might also use the Byzantine Eagle as Empire of Trebizond and Empire of Nicaea does. The mosaic is miniaturized to a large extent when used in the infobox and is an odd choice to go with in my opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The slot in the infobox is meant for a flag. If there is no flag, and no other alternative symbol that is representative, recognizable and unique to a similar degree, then the obvious solution is to not use an image in that position at all. I don't really see the value of the Ravenna mosaic either. Sure, it's a fine work of art and connected to an important figure in the history of the empire, but it really has nothing to do with a flag-like symbol representing the empire. As for the Palaiologos flag, I think it has been discussed here repeatedly and the outcome always was that we don't want to use it , in order to not further proliferate the naive misunderstanding that it was somehow representative of the empire in its entire duration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware and I agree. If coins are not also representative there are a lot of infoboxes that need to be stripped of images. Or would a coin work? Might the eagle alternatively be considered representative and recognizable? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If it absolutely has to be a coin then perhaps this coin beneath would be a better choice simple because it is more beautiful, and more decorated than that Justinian-coin. It may look ugly when seeing a large image, but once the size becomes small in the page the coin becomes more stunning: Here is that Heraclius coin I am talking about:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius#/media/File:Heraclius_613-616.jpg

Here you can see a smaller image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heraclius

En historiker (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely approve of that coin as the infobox image. It looks aesthetically better than the currently used one and Heraclius himself is (like Justinian) highly important to the later development of the empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If any here can do the image of Heraclius and his son smaller, then please do it. En historiker (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the image size and linked Heraclius Constantine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you please upload some photos of a geared mechanism?

Some sort of the Antikythera mechanism was reactivated in the 500s in Byzantium, and it is the second oldest geared mechanism ever known. Look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZupgfqqZuw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGHq4O-ib2U

But the problem is that there are no wikipedia-image of it.

If you google "The Byzantine sundial calendar" you will find a lot images of that.

Can any of you upload/create some image(s) so I can upload them in the Byzantine-page and other pages that deal with mechanism. Because it is incredible mechanism showing Byzantine technology and its strong scientific capacity.

I hope some of you can create an image of that Byzantine sundial device.

En historiker (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Look here:

https://twitter.com/clickspring1/status/832382420984819712

and here:

http://collection.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/co1082/byzantine-portable-universal-altitude-sundial-with-geared-calendrical-device-sundial-perpetual-calendar

En historiker (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Article length

The article is 103kB of readable prose, which is at the far limit of WP:SIZERULE. I believe when it gained featured status, it was around half that length. It may be due for a review. Even though the subject is complex, and covers a long period of time, that is not a reason to keep a long article. It should be condensed (and split if required). Many of the existing sections have "see also" or "main" links, but still have lengthy entries, which should be condensed. (Hohum ^@) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

As is easily ascertained from the box above and the page history, this became an FA in January 2004, when only some 15k raw bytes long - it has remained one ever since. A look at that version (sorry, forgot to copy the link) shows it would be very lucky to get GA today, even if it were fully referenced, which of course it was not. This isn't a useful comparison for any purpose. Btw, it is currently the 22nd-longest FA, a good deal shorter than Taylor Swift or Balfour Declaration. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No idea what point you're trying to make, but all but one of the preceding 21 articles in that list have a smaller readable prose size than this one. This article is too long.

It passed its most recent FA review in 2012, in far better condition than 2004 (Hohum ^@) 01:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh - the point I'm making is that your "I believe when it gained featured status, it was around half that length", though a considerable understatement, is also entirely irrelevant. I find it hard to believe that the many FAs with over twice the raw byte size of this have shorter readable prose, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

See for yourself using Prosesize. Also try a little AGF. (Hohum ^@) 01:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

What parts could be moved to other articles? This article indeed needs improvement. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Due to the great span of time that needs to be covered in this article, I am not sure that it should get much shorter, but there are sections [such as the one on the "Campaigns against Georgia"] that could definitely get trimmed. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

History of the world manages it, so can this article.

Ref: "What parts could be moved to other articles?" - Many already have their own articles, yet the sections they link from here are longer than required. (Hohum ^@) 14:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that the Byzantine Empire lasted for over 1000 years, and not just 50, 100 or 200 years as many other states. In the 1000 years of existence the state also expanded and declined 4-5 times. En historiker (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• On a quick look-through, the article seemed well-balanced, with only the "Campaigns against Georgia" section seeming obviously rather too long (I see someone else agrees on this). I think a sympathetic trim throughout, especially of political intricacies, would do it. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Any other suggestions on what else can be trimmed? Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed some bits and pieces that I felt were excessively detailed or unsourced, it's back down to 99 kb of prose now. Khirurg (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)