Talk:Michael Attaleiates/Archive 1

Archive 1

So why this spelling here?

All the sources call him Michael Attaliates, because he comes from the town called in English Attalia (as does the article text); it is thus the usage of reliable sources that is being reverted without explanation.

Enough of this unexplained and undiscussed revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the fact that the name is "Attaleia" when transcribed from Greek, and that this form is at least equally valid and also widely used ([1]) is somehow irrelevant. The fact that "Attaleiates" is the overwhelmingly preferred form in literature ([2] vs [3] (even more so in post-1990 results: [4] vs [5]) is suddenly also not a factor. And of course the Latin editions from the 19th century would use "Attalia", which is the Latin form. That is a no-brainer. As for "unexplained and undiscussed", we have had the same discussion over and over, you know full well the issues and still go on as if nothing ever happened. Going around moving random articles merely to satisfy your personal preference is disruption. Stop it. We both have better things to do. Constantine ✍ 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the issues; and I move articles only when the balance of usage and sound practice seems to me to balance against whichever form is presently being used.

As for Attalia, the claim that Attaleia is the spelling (of this form - the article should be at Antalya or Adalia) is tone-deaf in English.

• Attalia is 50% more common than Attaleia (and some of the hits on the latter are false positives hitting Αττάλεια).

By this "logic", we would be writing of the Empress Eirene and the heroine Iphigeneia - and nobody who has any need for the articles would understand us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your argument is irrelevant: this is not about the town, but about a name. I merely used it to show that the town is spelled in that way in English (and here too, more recent results are increasingly using the "ei" form). The name "Attal(e)iates" is not recognizable as meaning "from Attal(e)ia" by anyone other than those who know Greek, certainly not the average English-speaking user. And since few people will ever have heard of Attaleia or Attalia, the issue of which way the town is spelled is rather moot. Usage of the "ei" form for the name is overwhelming and conforms to the ODB standard, which we know you don't like, but which is still the de facto standard for Byzantine names. WP:GREEK is also perfectly well allowing us to use "ei" for ει: "usage can vary". BTW, as you know that these unilateral moves are bound to result in disagreement, the correct thing is to put a move proposal on the talk page first, and move after. At least, that's what the guideline says... Constantine ✍ 20:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Attaliates is not recognizable as "from Attalia" except to those who know Greek?!? (Especially when, as here, they occur in the same sentence.) This is as silly as asserting that one needs to know Russian to connect Ivan with Ivanov and Ivanovich. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is those who know Greek who will see through the ODB's imbecility and connect Attaleiates with Attilia - and Diocletian, Diokles, and Diokletianoupolis, to quote more ODB incompetence; others will be misled. It is not the de facto standard among Byantinists communicating with each other - I've seen them; it is not the standard even for OUP.

As for WP:GREEK: I wrote that - and can testify that the intent is that we should follow usage - both to Heraclitus and to Deimos. ODB would deny this, and insist on one alternative always. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Attaleiates" is not recognizable as "from Attaleia", without the necessary context, especially to a world that knows the city (if it does at all) mostly as "Antalya". We are judging the name on its own, not how it relates to the city. Are you seriously claiming that "Attaliates" will be more recognizable to English-speakers, while "Attaleiates" will be somehow unintelligible? Come on now, anyone who recognizes the first will also recognize the second as a variant form and vice versa. As for the ODB, we both have stated our positions repeatedly. What you believe to be actual usage and what I see to be the case in the publications are diametrically opposed positions. Your zealotry against ODB is your business, but that does not detract from the fact that it is a widely used system, and your reported personal experiences, given your repeatedly stated preferences, do not carry weight. Hell, I've been reading dozens of books for my articles, and the ODB seems to be getting more and more used. And if the people who write these books don't object to this form and prefer "Attaleiates", then where's the problem? On WP:GREEK, yes, you wrote it, so what? It doesn't make you the supreme arbitrator on rendering Greek. The guideline you have written and cited is quite clear in supporting the alternative spelling, and you give that as a reason not to use it? Weird logic... Anyhow, you said in the beginning that "'All the sources call him Michael Attaliates". Well, apparently they don't. Let's move back, please. Constantine ✍ 08:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My repeatedly stated preferences are based on my personal experiences; ODB is not used outside Byzantine studies, and is not used by Byzantinists among themselves. It is obfuscation; as using Aischulos for Aeschylus is; point-scoring intelligible only to those who have no need for this encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I know your opinion. However a) this is a Byzantine-related article, and we are bound to follow the prevalent conventions of the field, b) "personal experiences" are not a or what is used colloquially by people is not the determining factor, otherwise Kolkata would be at Calcutta etc ad infinitum, and c) is it really so much different if this article is under "Attaleiates" and not under "Attaliates"? Do you seriously argue that this "e" somehow harms the encyclopaedic integrity of Wikipedia or the intelligibility of the article? This is taking a personal preference a bit too far, I think. Comparing it with a case such as "Aischulos" (BTW, per ODB rules it would be "Aischylos") is also not a valid argument: Classical studies, for reasons of their own, still follow and quite likely will continue to follow the latinized model. More importantly, nowhere near as many people know of Attal(e)iates as compared to Aeschylus, where common usage would force us to use the usual spelling either way. Attal(e)iates, like most Byzantine-related articles, is a specialized subject. If and when you can prove that the ODB system is in declining usage, bring a motion to revert to the latinized forms, and I'll support this and help moving the articles around, but not before. Now, can we stop getting engaged in silly disputes over trivial spelling differences every couple of weeks, and get back to writing some articles, please? Constantine ✍ 09:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The extraneous e interferes with comprehension, which is why I moved the article; you then began a war - on this obscure article which you have never edited before last month. Either you watchlist contains all Byzantine articles, or you are trailing me; if the first is true, a less comprehensive watchlist would dispell the implication that you seek to own all Byzantium. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, we've finally reached the point where you present no more arguments based on what the sources say, nothing except your own personal opinion and attempts at intimidation, and stupid ones at that: I've edited this article all the way back in May 2009, and what I have got in my watchlist is my concern. In your shoes, I'd also avoid talking about suddenly showing up on obscure articles I've never before edited to impose my POV, because it is exactly what you are doing. You come, move the article, discuss peremptorily and leave, never to return. On not one of the Byzantine articles you've moved did you have a single edit before at some point deciding they were not named correctly, and on not one of them did you change or contribute anything other than the changes related to the name move. I am fed up with your style. You have repeatedly stated that you oppose the ODB convention and want to overthrow it. I have repeatedly said: go for an RfC and present evidence of usage, otherwise let it be. Knowing well that you are acting against established naming norms (with which no other user but you seems to find "incomprehensible"), you move articles around without as much as bothering with WP:RM. For the last time: move the article back and argue based on some reliable evidence, not on your personal views. Constantine ✍ 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have finally reached the point where you cease even to attempt to answer the argument for spelling this writer as he has usually been spelt, and the way we spell his home town. I do, however, acknowledge that I overlooked this edit; I canmnot think much of these unEnglish and pedantic adornments, but you did add them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Usually" according to you, not according to the results above. "Incomprehensible" again according to you, but not the hundreds of authors who use it with no problem. Instead of criticizing my edits or insinuating that I stalk you around and accusing me of the pedantic and tendentious behaviour you yourself are perfectly exhibiting, why don't you comply with WP policies for once instead of coming up with new sophistries? Constantine ✍ 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am complying with WP:GREEK - despite your best efforts to enforce tendentious and unhelpful spellings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:GREEK is permissive of the alternate spelling, and saying otherwise is simply trying to enforce your own view. Again, your argument was "'All the sources call him Michael Attaliates", not WP:GREEK. Stop evading the issue by using purely subjective and obfuscating labels like "unhelpful". Unless you haven't noticed, we are both engaged in a pedantic issue. The problem is that you refuse to accept consensus or comply with move policy. Constantine ✍ 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that that guideline does not require your preferred spelling; does any other? If not, I have complied with policy exactly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Amazing that you can evade the main issue for so long by simply not acknowledging it. WP:GREEK does not require either of the two spellings, but allows both. What is "unhelpful" or "incomprehensible" is your personal opinion and therefore carries no weight. Usage in published, reliable sources by the best scholars in the field is overwhelming, and since that is the main determining factor, please move back. Constantine ✍ 17:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said WP:GREEK required either spelling; the claims that this has been a policy issue are entirely yours. (It does rule out other aspects of the ODB bizarreness; but that's for discussion on other articles.) What I claim is that spelling the eponym meaning "from Attilia" as Attiliates is both customary and more comprehensible; the underlying similarity is not just personal opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what you claim is that "Attaleiates" is somehow less comprehensible than "Attaliates" in implying provenance from Antalya. The fact is, anyone who knows of "Attalia" nowadays will probably understand that it and "Attaleia" is the same and that both refer to "Antalya". And when hundreds of authors use the "ei" forms without any apparent problem, forgive me if I question the validity of your opinion on their intelligibility. And still you refuse to even acknowledge the main issue, which is one of usage, and which you initially claimed to be your reason for moving this. It has been disproven, and your subsequent arguments are your opinion only. When you refuse to comply with one of the basic pillars of naming policies, i.e. to follow the forms used in published sources, then it is very much a policy issue. When you accuse people engaged in a dispute with you for hounding with no evidence whatsoever, it is a policy issue. When your only interest in Byzantine articles is to perform the occasional move in an attempt to overthrow what you have repeatedly proclaimed to be a in your own view a "flawed" consensus and an "idiotic" system, which is nevertheless widely used and accepted in academia, then it is a policy issue. If you can't see that, then that is your problem. Constantine ✍ 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of personal privilege: My interest in Byzantine articles is in consulting them, which I am required to do from time to time. In the process, I improve them when I can - for myself and for the other non-Byzantinists for which they are intended.

This crack demonstrates exactly the faith of the maker of this edit; it's a tweak, like mine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhmm... I was very, very weary of butting in this discussion, even I had already noticed it some day ago, but it's still going on and the increasingly resentful tone of the conversation among to editors towards whom I have an immense degree of respect and admiration made me feel I had to do something, even if it may at the end be like throwing gasoline on a fire (I hope not, but as they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions ;-)). Also, this dispute doesn't seem to be the first: correct me if I get it wrong, it started on August 28 (Constantine Doukas), passing through Nicephorus Gregoras, Maximus Planudes up to this one (may have lost some on the road). Now, getting to the issue at hand, it would seem that the issue is common Greek transliteration forms vs. Latinized forms. If I get it correctly, in Byzantine-related articles, differently from the Antiquity-related articles, transliterated forms have a clear pattern of being the norm, generally speaking (with the obvious exception for putting Anglicized forms first: so Constantine, not Konstantinos). Obviously, this doesn't mean that the norm can't be disputed as unsatisfying (but for this a central discussion may be more apt), or simply argue that all general rule tend to have exceptions. My extremely modest and humble opinion, of which you are both free to dispose as you like, is that the best way to solve this issue is through the involvement of other editors and this in my view means using WP:RM as the best chance (but it's not the only way: I see that bringing it to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Greek) helped solve the issue with Maximus Planudes); especially when like in this case it is by no means obvious that "Attaleiates" is an obviously minoritarian viewpoint compared to "Attaliates" (I made a search of my own on Google Books, restricting to only English and the last twent years: Attalliates has 168 returns and Attaleiates 289 returns). It may not be very euphonic, but it does seem to have usage even out of the borders of the ODB. Because I want to help avoid a move war, I've then moved it back to where it was before. Pmanderson, I'm not here to say if Attaliates or Attaleiates is right, but I can't help feeling that after you're move was reverted you acted wrongly by reverting again, instead than using WP:RM which would have provided some other help. I hope by bringing the article back to where it was won't be taken by Pmanderson as an insult or an act of disregard towards him, because, as I said previously, I admire him greatly, but I think the best way to get to reach a good resolution is by RM: for this I invite Pmanderson to use that if he feels unhappy with the current name (as for me, I'm agnostic: neither would be fringe usages, so they both suit me fine). In conclusion (yes, I no I'm becoming really boring)... Pmanderson, I hate to add this, but I feel some of your comments towards Constantine, and not only here, are quite unfair, and far too blunt: for example, saying things like "I have no trust in you" on his user page, and now accusing him of owning Byzantium, could really be avoided, especially since he really is a very good editor and not one of those pov-pushers you deal with so well. Also, to make an example, I've got for years pretty much all Chad-related articles on my watchlist, but I don't think that by doing this I'm owning Chad (and before that, I had on my watchlist all'Hellenistic era articles). I hope, Pmanderson, you won't take bad this friendly note: or at least, I wanted it to be friendly. Again, sorry for being so boring and so verbose.Aldux (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean on Wikipedia, where the present pattern has been largely imposed by the same pack censured in the ARBMAC cases (I do not, of course, mean to say that anybody here belongs to them - merely that the pattern is unworthy of respect), or in the real world?

For that I have a source, summarized at some length here; in brief, the field used to be as united as classicists are on the traditional anglicizing conventions; this broke up some years ago, and they are now divided, among several systems, not just two. On names of any interest outside Byzantium (such as Planudes), overall English usage remains what it always was; for names like this, it is divided. There is, therefore, no "norm" outside Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RM is only acceptable if Cplakidas stays out of it; one voluble opponent will ensure a verdict of no consensus, which will destroy the small improvement I had hoped to see here - and this edit shows the essential unreasonableness of his position. I had respect for him until he began this revert war for ODB's unnatural spellings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Such a long argument over varying transliterations of the name. But neither of you bothered to add the actual Greek form or adding inline citations to the transliterations. Dimadick (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed an absurd issue. I have repeatedly said that I understand and respect Pmanderson's opinion and his right to voice it. What I do not have respect for are his claims that the ODB system is inherently incorrect or not widely used and therefore should be moved whenever possible. To put it bluntly, it is putting personal taste/opinion before actual scholarly usage (or at least, that is how I perceive it). I also have a problem with his method, which is move first, discuss later. The fact is that a long-standing consensus (no matter how it has been achieved) exists and the only editor around who seems to be bothered by it is Pmanderson. Whatever his arguments, trying to overthrow this consensus one article at a time is not the proper way to go about it (for instance, the original move at Constantine Doukas would potentially involve a few dozen other articles as well). For the record, I am not here as a polemicist for the ODB. Personally, I have no problem with either form, but do insist on a degree of uniformity in the field where I am most interested, and I don't want to open a can of worms if there is no real need to. If I'm to be labelled as pedantic for this, go ahead and do so. As the ODB system is validated by its extensive usage, and since it does seem to prevail in the latest publications, both the dedicated Byzantinist and to a degree the more generic ones, I feel it has a strong case. I have also repeatedly stated that if reliable evidence is brought forth that the ODB system is being abandoned, I'll gladly help with reverting to latinized forms. I let Maximus Planudes stay in its latinized form, for instance, precisely because another user proved overwhelming usage. Sorry for my rant, but I just wanted to set a few things straight. Constantine ✍ 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a claim that ODB is the Wave of the Future, combined with an admission that in the case of Planudes, it is not actually sweeping in. There is no evidence that it is sweeping in anywhere, including here - and evidence above that it is not even the normal form for Attilia the period name of the town in question, from which this name is formed.

If nobody actually supports ODB, why should we use it? Even if it were the future system, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

As for my own view: I do not hold that ODB titles " should be moved whenever possible". I hold that they should be moved when they are inconvenient - as they are here; the fact that the epithet means that Michael Attiliates came from Attilia should not be disguised by pedantry - and that is an inconvenience, no service to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The ODB system is not the "wave of the future", it is the "wave that has been constantly growing for the past 20 years and is now sused by most of the scholars". I read Byzantine books all the time, and sorry, but this is the case. For your argument, what does "Attaleiates" mean if not "from Attaleia"? And I cannot really believe that this little "e" affects comprehension for English-speakers, not when it is widely used for both the city and Michael A. by dozens of authors. BTW, why do you persist in calling the city "Attilia"? Constantine ✍ 16:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do I spell the town Attilia? Because most English-speakers do; the evidence for that is above. (Similarly, our article on a much more imposing city is at its English spelling, Alexandria, not "Alexandreia"; the Greek ending is the same.) This article is - or rather ought to be - titled in English, not this artificial and half-way transliteration of Greek; who disagrees with that? (Cplakidas' opposition I will take for granted.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a sad feeling that the dispute is becoming quite stale and nothing really new is being brought up :-( Pmanderson, it's not like I can force you to like Constantine, but whatever you think of him and while there may be doubts on how the result to establish a norm was generated (yes, I mean on wikipedia, I'm not making assumptions concerning scholarship in general), and I know that there are several possibilities (believe it or not, I was forced to study Greek in my past for no less than five years; not that I was very good at it); but once a praxis has been consolidated, moving the article without a previous explanation and without using RM is bound to meet opposition. And I sort of get Constantine's point concerning Constantine Doukas: if one is latinized, then it makes some sense to argue that the other Doukas family members should be moved to. Also, I don't agree that Constantine shold stay out for a RM, and I don't find it right: everybody should have a right to voice his opinion; also it's not so obvious in this specific case which is wrong and which isn't, so just to call opposition unreasonable seems to me unfair. After all, regarding the example you made me of Constantine's unreasonablness, in the end when further arguments were presented to him he did accept to review his previous position. As for Michael Attaleiates being an artificial and half-way transliteration of Greek, it may be, but all rendering of Greek names is to a measure artificial, whatever norm is used, and while from an euphonic perspective Attaleiates doesn't exactly make me leap with joy it does have some usage and once it's established they're both common I don't know how to say x is better than y, or otherwise. I frankly don't know what else I can add here :-( Aldux (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; the argument, such as it is, has come full circle; it began with Attilia at the beginning of this section.

What you can do is move it back; at which point Cplakidas can invoke RM if he likes, as he has never done. For my part, I will make my argument (that Attilia is the English name of the town; that the cognomen means "from Attilia"; we should not transliterate so as to disguise this) once, and once only. It's a minor improvement, but it should not be impeded by a preference for writing in a really rather odd form of Greek, instead of English, on this English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hah, yes, of course, I should invoke RM, not the user who performs the first move, I should show more good faith, not the user who has a declared agenda and a passionately-held POV (I mean, what is one to make of an edit like this?) and who accuses others of stalking. I should stay off RM so that it will be "objective" (wow, just... wow, on this one), I am unreasonable, and not the user who alone among dozens of people editing at Byzantine-related articles seems to have a problem with four-year old consensus and who refuses to acknowledge actual scholarly usage. Seriously, let's take Pmanderson's arguments one at a time:

• "All the sources call him Michael Attaliates", well, they don't. The majority uses the "ei" form. PMA still has not acknowledged this even once, even though it was his first argument.
• "the town called in English Attalia" or ""the "ei" form is incomprehensible/unhelpful", well, given that it is widely used by dozens of authors in hundreds of publications, without any apparent need to explain that "Attaleia" is actually "Attalia" (duh), I do very much doubt the validity of this statement. The argument that "Attalia" is "English" or "more correct" is hence purely subjective. Unlike say, Alexandria, the town is (nowadays at least) virtually unknown except to those interested in history, and they will most likely be capable of recognizing it in either form. British tourists to Antalya don't count, of course.
• "WP:GREEK obliges us to use "i"." No, it does not, PMA's own guideline perfectly well allows us to use "ei" to render ει.
• "the ODB forms are problematic/ugly/bastardized" completely irrelevant red herring. Most transliteration systems are not "beautiful". Try reading romanized Chinese or some of the systems used for Slavic languages or Arabic. Their aesthetic qualities are not a criterion for inclusion in WP. Scholarly usage is, and the ODB format is very widely used, by the top names in the field and the most prestigious publications, period.
• "the ODB system is not common English usage". well, unfortunately, most Byzantine-related topics are not in "common English interest" so that there would be a clear "common usage". Most people wouldn't know Constantine VII from Constantine XI. And since scholarship has begun using the ODB forms even in its generic, introductory books on the subject, and since ODB (or even demoticized) forms have crept into popular articles and magazines, then what is "common English usage" can not really be verified one way or the other.

BTW, my last question was not the "-ia" part, but the "Attilia" part. The city has nothing to do with Attila... Constantine ✍ 09:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW2, Aldux, thank you for your involvement and your effort at defusing the situation. Unfortunately, it seems this won't end so easily. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as this concerns me, this is a mishmash of misquotations. There is one serious misunderstanding: it is policy, even for rare words and names, to prefer the most common of the terms used in English, such as they are, as titles, unless there is some other sound reason to use them.

As for Cplakidas, I will accept either of two positions:

• That there be a RM from this title, and his inveterate devotion to writing in Greek instead of English be discounted;
• That it be moved, and he be free to enstablish consensus at RM to moving it back.

I will take either; I don't insist or want both. But fervent opposition by one article-owner should not be permitted to stymie improvements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, per policy and per the results given above, the article is currently at the most common title. Glad this is over. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not proven; and if proven, it would not be decisive. WP:COMMONNAME is one aspect of recognizability, and recognizability is only one principle of naming decisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, in other words, until we get to your preferred version, no proof or evidence of actual usage is "conclusive", but your personal opinion is always right. "Recognizability" does not seem to suffer in any way judging by the hundreds of authors who use the "ei" form with no problem, and the form is certainly in common usage by any definition for such an obscure subject. I've had enough of your lawyering and systematically ignoring every single argument and piece of evidence. If you want to move this (and any other Byzantine page), start a WP:RM and bring reliable evidence as to common and scholarly usage. Until then, good-bye. Constantine ✍ 09:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, feel free to display the consensus to move this article to Attileiates; I will even restrain myself to a comment, so that there is no automatic stalemate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What more evidence do you need, other than the overwhelming usage as shown at Google? For heaven's sake, don't you have something better to spend your time on other than WP:POINT-trolling? And way to go disrespecting the letter and the spirit of WP:RM guidelines by moving before even initiating another round of discussion. You sir, are incorrigible. See you at WP:ANI. Constantine ✍ 23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get my stylistic choices from Google, any more than I get my facts; nor do I regard 287-169 as "overwhelming". There are other considerations than google searches, or why have an encyclopedia at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Stylistic choices" according to your own taste in contravention of academic works as reflected in Google results is tantamount to making Wikipedia conform to your own idiosyncratic ideas about naming. That you pursue this by edit-warring is also unacceptable. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I too don't regard 287-169 as "overwhelming", but I do regard 2,550 to 652 "overwhelming", and have done so since the beginning. Your argument, whatever it is, rests on usage and recognizability. The widespread and predominant use argues in favour of my view, not yours. Constantine ✍ 08:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph

Attaliates writes as an eyewitness and contemporary. Because of this, his history is burdened with the usual Byzantine affectations. In one passage, when he talks about the emperor Romanos IV Diogenes, he makes it seem as though Botaniates– a potential candidate for the empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa's hand in marriage after the death of Constantine X Doukas, who was emperor while he was writing– should have succeeded to the throne. His judgment is also affected towards the emperor Romanos, who he regarded as a wronged soul. His writing style is in imitation of earlier Roman historians rather than Greek historians. An example of this is his reference to the senators, though like Nikephoros Gregoras he simply means the imperial officials.

• Because he is an eyewitness, his style is affected; what?
• He imitates Roman rather than Greek historians (because he writes of the Senate). Huh? Cassius Dio wrote of the Senate - and gerontes/gerousia were Greek words centuries before there were any Roman historians.

This is unsourced original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthypatos

Of course anthypatos is "proconsul"; as here of John Ducas, just as hypatos is "consul"; indeed the use of it in Byzantine Italy may have led to the modern diplomatic sense of "consul". This edit is half-right that it was not (in Constantinople) an office any longer; I should have caught the implication, as should Cplakidas' original edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course anthypatos "is" proconsul, that's where the term originated. And yes, "proconsul" is sometimes used to render even the later title. However, since there is a very clear distinction between the Roman Republican and Imperial proconsul, which was a gubernatorial office, and the middle Byzantine anthypatos, which was an honorary dignity, it is IMO best not to use the former, especially since it is a well-known term. Either way, the Byzantine title is covered at anthypatos, not at proconsul. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On the uses of Byzantine

Dr.K added a number of helpful tags on the page I recently edited which helped me to enhance the page with citations to the most up-to-date scholarship on Attaleiates. I assume that Dr. K was also the one who changed the original wording in the text I produced from Attaleiates being a "Medieval Roman historian" to "Byzantine historian". The change is of course uncontroversial as Attaleiates was a Byzantine in the modern sense of the word. My intention in the use of the expression "Medieval Roman", however, was to emphasize the fact that there is a problem with the use of the term "Byzantine". I am a Byzantinist and yet I am still troubled by our use of the term both within the field and outside. The Byzantines themselves only used it in a rhetorical fashion to refer to Constantinopolitans (citizens of ancient Byzantium). At the same time, "Medieval Roman" or plain "Roman" is the only historically correct and accurate way to describe Attaleiates' identity. He never conceived of himself as anything but Roman. His text uses Roman and sometimes the antiquarian Ausones (which means Roman) to refer to himself and to his fellow "Byzantines". The Byzantines were of course Romans. They were, for the most part, Greek speaking Romans but there was no other identity that they accepted as theirs (exceptions to be found only in the late Byzantine period and among some intellectuals speaking of their philosophical interests and not of their "national" identity). Once one became part of the Byzantine polity (Romanía) then one was a Roman. There was not even such a thing as a hyphenated Roman like say Greek-Roman or Armenian-Roman. Once you were accepted as part of the polity you were a Roman tout court. A Roman of Armenian or Slavic origins perhaps but a Roman nonetheless. I am sure that this is not new to most people. It is just that under the influence of modern nationalism scholars have found it useful to deploy the term Byzantium. It is easier to serve Balkan, Russian, or even western national identitarian agendas if there is this weird orthodox thing called Byzantium from which to claim origin and which to claim as the source for a medieval past. I am not going to change the text back to what I had it before. This would not be useful and I am not interested in an editing back-and-forth on an issue where too many people may have strong opinions. I just want the point made in the form of a discussion on the margins of the entry. Perhaps this way some thinking may occur that will affect how future posts are created. Thanks to all for the editorial work on my post. Dimik72. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimik72 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dimik72. This issue has been resolved in favour of using the term "Byzantine Empire". Please seee discussions at Talk:Byzantine Empire on multiple archives. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello from me as well, Dimik72. It is a pleasure to welcome a Byzantinist here, and I hope you will have a long and productive stay! It was me who changed the "Roman" to "Byzantine", because, as Dr.K says, this issue has been debated to death. While it is generally acknowledged by the more history-savvy that "Byzantine" equals "Medieval Roman", Wikipedia is bound by its policies to follow general usage and academic consensus, and in both these areas, "Byzantine" is the established term; rightly or not does not enter into it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Italiartes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Italiartes and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 28#Italiartes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)