Jump to content

User talk:Biz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Day 1

[edit]

Hi Biz, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. Some people do not pay attention to unsigned comments. An important note: Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

TPK 15:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) My talk page


Wiki definition

[edit]

Left my thoughts on the Talk:Wiki page. Cheers. --Kylemew 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hieronymus Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


RFC

[edit]

There is an RFC you may be interested in at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Biz! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Greece–Turkey relations, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://medievalworlds.net/0xc1aa5576%200x003a16af.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Greece–Turkey relations saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Biz! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as First Turkic Khaganate, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://medievalworlds.net/0xc1aa5576%200x003a16af.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:First Turkic Khaganate saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greece–Turkey relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paidomazoma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

[edit]

Hi, I moved your draft Biz:Greece-Turkey/1982-2021 to User:Biz/Greece-Turkey/1982-2021. I assumed you wanted to create it in your userspace so you could work on it, since you included your user name in the article title. However, you need to prefix your user name with User:. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Biz (Biz#top|talk) 00:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


AfC notification: Draft:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire. Thanks! Gusfriend (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire has been accepted

[edit]
Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gusfriend (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

[edit]

Smile emoji Hi Biz! Thank you for your edits to Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire. It looks like you've copied or moved text from one or more pages into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And apologies. Still learning the ropes. Biz (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for your work on the article. DanCherek (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Greece–Turkey relations

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greece–Turkey relations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tiago Niemayer -- Tiago Niemayer (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Greece–Turkey relations

[edit]

The article Greece–Turkey relations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Greece–Turkey relations for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tiago Niemayer -- Tiago Niemayer (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Greece–Ottoman Empire relations

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Greece–Ottoman Empire relations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Greece–Turkey relations

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greece–Turkey relations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Greece–Turkey relations

[edit]

The article Greece–Turkey relations you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Greece–Turkey relations for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

[edit]

Greetings Biz

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

Requesting your visit to following drafts and help expand the same if any of these interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Turkey relations

[edit]


Thank you. You've made some great edits so far! Biz (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks. Some of this article is difficult for me to parse. I do check sources where I can but please correct me if I misinterpret something. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now finished my c/e; I've noted vague terms and over-citing—one small paragraph has twelve citations! I don't think this is anywhere near GA quality but good luck with the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. Yes, when I rewrote this article I tried to consolidate all the news items which were instead written separately as items. So you are right to say over cited as it’s the same point in the narrative now.
What else is needed to make it GA quality in your eyes? Biz (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to say exactly what needs to be done; I'm not a GA reviewer. Perhaps a peer review would be helpful. Besides the over-citing and weasel words, I think the material could be better organized and the "personal reflection" template removed. International relations is a complex and sometimes difficult subject, so bravo for taking on the article. Sorry for not being more helpful. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 13:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would you please remove the "personal reflection template? I feel this section as been edited enough now to merit it being removed since @AirshipJungleman29 added it. Biz (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Byzantine Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you done that?

[edit]

It's post like this that have made that thread unreadable. There's no point repeating your arguments yet again. You started your post by saying that an RfC is a great idea. I suggest you just get on with it if that's what you want rather posting further to that thread. You need to read WP:RFC first. You put forward a short neutral question like "should xyz text be replaced by abc? Your "take" on the background must not figure in the RfC opening. (You put that subsequently as one of the respondents if you want to). DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that because I've never created a WP:RFC before and took note of Pablo1355's comment that Furius moderates. I wrote it all out because I wanted to put it all in the one place for easy reference if someone wanted to pick up on it. I appreciate the pointers but even with that I don't even know how to do this as its multiple issues and not all are equally important. Biz (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to do it is spelled out in WP:RFC, specifically in the part at WP:RFCOPEN. Have a look at other RfCs. The point of the RfC question should be very specific (yes or no answer) and neutral. The point is to cut to the chase with specifics rather than let a discussion drag on aimlesly as has been happening. People can then post their response with whatever explanation they want to give. You can do that as well. The important thing is you don't mix that up with the opening question which should be neutral. It's quite straight forward, but have a look at a few others if you are unsure. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So how about: "Some editors believe this text is problematic and needs a revision. Do you agree? <insert existing text>
@Furius what do you think? Biz (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work. There's no actionable outcome (also it's netrality is challenged by the "some editors think"). You tried to introduce new text, which I reverted. If you think that's the best text the RfC should be: Should the wording in [identify paragraph] that currently says [xyz] be replaced with [abc]? If there's a variant of your proposal that you think might get support you could put forward that too ( i.e. Should the wording in [identify paragraph] that currently says [xyz] be (A) left as is, (B) replaced with [abc] or (C) replaced with [def]. (Don't do too many variants though) DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would this work: Should the wording in [identify paragraph] that currently says [xyz] be (A) left as is, (B) replaced with [abc] or (C) replaced with some but not all the modifications of option (B)? Biz (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote it up with this format and replaced "words" with text
Should the text in the first paragraph that currently says
Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians prefer to differentiate the Byzantine Empire from Ancient Rome as it was centered on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
be
(A) left as is,
(B) replaced with Although the Roman state continued, modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving to Constantinople, its integration of Christianity, and its use of Greek over Latin.[1] or
(C) replaced with some but not all the modifications of option (B)
Bibliography for references
  • Millar, Fergus (2006). A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24703-1.
  • James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0.
  • Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement – The Foundation of the Western World. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-88515-2.
  • Ostrogorsky, George (1969). History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
  • Baynes, Spencer (1907). "Vlachs". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). New York.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Kaldellis, Anthony (2007). Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87688-9.
  • Kazhdan, Alexander Petrovich; Constable, Giles (1982). People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-88402-103-2.
  • Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium. Ringwood, Vic.: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-025960-5.
Biz (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A or B only. Otherwise, this seems fine to me. Furius (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. There one bibliography issue but otherwise I’ll make that change and post in a few hours. Biz (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERe

[edit]

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

@Barjimoa Thank you for the response. It’s why I asked for the source that mentions it like this to see the context.
You may be right. But I also do think it makes a difference in how it is written. As a modern equivalent, writing something such as the eastern Federation is different from the Eastern American Federation (if we are describing the USA). Capitalisation, other words, and the context it was written in a paragraph make all the difference. For example, Marco Cristini last year said it was highly uncommon to use Orientale imperium before the 6th century and its usage may have more to do with Zenobia than anything else.[1] Biz (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been copied and moved here in case other people can offer perspective: Talk:Byzantine Empire#The term "Eastern Roman Empire" Biz (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Rome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Beard. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

[edit]
Hello, Biz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3.
Message added 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help

[edit]

Hello,

I have observed your contributions to the article "Periodisation of Roman civilisation," which closely aligns with my current project, "The Controversy Surrounding the Term Byzantine Empire." I believe that your expertise could greatly assist in improving my article to meet the necessary standards for acceptance. Additionally, if you require any assistance with your work, I would be more than happy to offer my support. I am particularly passionate about Roman history, especially the later periods.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to the possibility of collaborating with you.

Best regards,

Artaxias V Artaxias V (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artaxias V
Happy to collaborate! I've taken a pause on updating Draft:Periodisation of Roman civilisation because I am now working on a rewrite for the Byzantine Empire. Getting into the detail is helping me better understand the justifications historians use.
For example, recently I uncovered that nomos empsychos is used to distinguish the Dominate and the 'Hellenistic kingship' change that underlies the view the Romans became Byzantine. But my investigation into this has found historians misunderstand the original philosophy (I've since updated lex animata with my findings but that is incomplete) and credible historians recognise this is inappropriate. You should read this book I translated which is well regarded and referenced in existing Wikipedia pages like principate (but clearly no one took the time to read it): User:Biz/Prinzipat_und_Dominat:_Gedanken_zur_Periodisierung_d._rom._Kaiserzeit
My article was sprung up because of my frustration arguing with other Wikipedia editors and a desire to survey the latest scholarship, which in turn is how Wikipedia should be making decisions of appropriate content. I took a broader view as I found the issues systemic and they all relate to each other.
It makes sense to link to your future article and scope down the section I have on this specific topic of Byzantine usage. There is a lot of overlap with our articles so before we collaborate we should decide how these two articles talk to each other or if it makes sense to combine them in some places. Then we can focus on sections. I also invite you to work with me on the Byzantine Empire review as this helps us discover the systemic bias historians have (I'm currently working on Roman and Byzantine law which is a good example of this; clothing is another area I want to look into as the toga is seen as a symbol of Roman times lost in Byzantine times...)
As general feedback to your article, these type of articles need to be razor tight on scholarship. Every sentence should be cited at minimum and we need a diverse group of sources, which is the hard thing to uncover and why its a complex topic. One you hit 500 edits, Wikipedia invites you to their library which gives you access to a lot more scholarship and is needed to work on this topic. Also your article title might be better named something less casual and more professional like "Historiography of the Byzantine term". I also recommend you read Anthony Kaldellis's excellent research on this topic: Kaldellis, Anthony (2022). "From "Empire of the Greeks" to "Byzantium"". In Ransohoff, Jake; Aschenbrenner, Nathanael (eds.). The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe. Harvard University Press. pp. 366–367. ISBN 978-0-88402-484-2. Biz (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear, and thank you for the suggestions. I have also begun to question our understanding of modern Roman history. The more I explore the topic, the more I realize that a great deal of history has been falsified, both intentionally and unintentionally. For instance, the simplistic portrayal of the year 476 as the definitive end of the Roman Empire, the way cinema simplifies history, and the romanticization of history to fit certain narratives. This was especially prevalent during the Renaissance, well after the fall of the Roman Empire, when many Western scholars, driven by political biases and dissatisfaction with the Romans due to the schism, distorted history to support their narratives.
There is a significant amount of ignorance about what happened to the Romans after the fall of their empire, as they continued to exist well beyond the 15th century. This prompts discussions about Roman identity and what truly defines a Roman. I have written an entire article on this issue. As an Armenian living in Istanbul, formerly Constantinople, my grandparents would share their experiences and stories about the local Roman community in Istanbul before they were expelled in 1955 by the Turks. I theorize that some people do not want the Roman Empire to be perceived as close to the modern age or for the Romans to be historically near them. Hence, they ignore these obvious facts.
When you examine historical sources such as the national census of the Ottoman Empire or Janissary recruitment records, you find a group referred to as Romans. This group did not appear randomly; they are the same Romans from the former empire. The issue becomes more complex with the Greek War of Independence. After its success, the medieval Roman identity became part of the new modern Greek identity. Even in Greece, there were communities referring to themselves as Romans, and certain western regions of Turkey had communities that were called Romans. However, in the last two centuries, nationalist narratives have distorted our understanding of history, such as the Italians claiming to be descendants of the Romans or the Greeks promoting their national ideals. I could continue discussing these issues endlessly, as there are numerous topics to address.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them and look forward to further conversation and exploration of this topic. Artaxias V (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a big topic! My grandfather was kicked out of Turkey from the population exchange 100 years ago and it's what got me editing Wikipedia as I wanted to understand this better. Learning about the pogroms in Turkey after had me feel the pain and I imagine your family was impacted.
I'm now preparing to be able to have good explanations for my own children about our history. There's a lot to uncover -- I suggest we start one topic and one article at a time. I look forward to our collaboration. Biz (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last push needed for Byzantine Empire FAR

[edit]

Hi Biz, from your comments on the FAR talk I can glean that you are busy with IRL stuff. However, the Byzantine Empire FAR was opened on 30 October 2023, and thus will complete a full year in 23 days. We should try to make a last push and have it kept before this month ends. Your review is needed for the 867-1453 subsection, and Daily life and Religion sections. After that we'll have just 3 sections left to rewrite, namely the Arts, Science and medicine & Legacy sections. I think these tasks can be done within 23 days. We should have these done within 15 days and have a full week where we can address issues raised by reviewers on the FAR. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan
Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, I'm busy with life priorities and travel right now, but I will free up again from October 16.
The history rewrite, and what remains of 867-1453, is being driven by @AirshipJungleman29. The Arts rewrite is being driven by @Aza24. I've stayed away from those sections as they are competent editors and there is so much else to do still.
I've done a spot check on the Religion rewrite an editor did and think that's going to need deeper review. It is a subject I have some prior knowledge in, and with the new addition of sources, means this review will be quicker to do. But I also want to see why the editor removed all of the previous content and did not incorporate the previous sources.
The Economy section an editor rewrote the first paragraph but I have not checked it and it needs more sources, as well as a review of the other paragraphs.
The legacy section needs an overhaul. I've not looked at Science and medicine.
I appreciate the work you did on Daily Life, but it needs a lot more work. For example, for clothing I found in the references of a one line statement covered in Shepard J, ed. Other Routes to Byzantium. In: The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500–1492. Cambridge University Press; 2009:53-75 Page 69. References Lopez (1945); Maguire (1997); Ball (2005), pp. 37–56, 79–89, 102–4. The little bit I've read of Jennifer Ball (Byzantine Dress: Representations of Secular Dress in Eight- to Twelfth-Century Painting, 2006, Macmillan, ISBN 1403967008n) is going to be a great addition.
I don't think we can get this done by 30 October but to your point, it needs a step up in effort so if you can give me some breathing room until Mid October, I can commit to a push. Daily Life and religion I could focus on this month and get done. Biz (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biz, if I may say so, since we're already employing WP:SS here by linking to the main articles for the Daily Life subsections, I don't think we should go into too much detail. We're already dealing with the TOOBIG issue. Personally, I believe we shouldn't be caught up with perfectionism, we should just put up the best version we can for review. We didn't even have a Clothing section earlier, we shouldn't worry about being absolutely comprehensive in an article which is already too large. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your energy to getting things done and pushing us. That's a good point but three reasons I disagree:
  • This is a FA review. This article meant to represent the best of the subject on Wikipedia, and by extension, the Internet. The work we do here will impact many other people, articles, and websites. And a lot of the main articles are out of date, so this is to improve the general standard on the topic.
  • This entire topic is heavily impacted by historical bias, including the very name Byzantine. Exploring these topics means we tap into the latest scholarship to bringing us closer to the truth. Clothing also is a topic that has bias that needs to be cleared up on (ie, I've heard an experienced editor say toga's were no longer being worn, implying the Eastern Romans's stop being Romans...however, Jennifer Ball says the toga continued in use for ceremonies and especially with the emperor and clothing evolved into fashion where women wore dresses.) These are subtle one sentence additions that can change our perception of this 'empire.
  • The third reason, is we want to make this article a standard we can point to. That's why it's important we try to get multiple sources for each section, and for every sentence. I explained the standard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#c-Biz-20240820162900-Citations.
Clothing, as an example, fails the standard we've set but with some better references I've already read in Ball (in the late period, the impact of colonists appears such as venetian in crete, Turkish in Anatolia p6. the middle period is more distinctive 'greek'. imperial insignia is standardised; the Loros was common in the early imperial middle period but less in the late (common for 7 centuries p5); dresses are introduced for women at the end of the middle and replace the tunic in the late period; the tiraz and turbans enter during the middle period until the late. AND 1-2 other sources, with citations for every sentence, we can complete the work you started.
Help me find those 1-2 other books (perhaps what Shepherd references); we can both read the first 100 pages of Ball; and once that's done we can easily improve clothing. This is not taking a perfectionist attitude, but just doing the job right. I will be back to late nights working on this article from October 16. Biz (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Millar 2006, pp. 2, 15; James 2010, p. 5; Freeman 1999, pp. 431, 435–37, 459–62; Baynes & Moss 1948, p. xx; Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 27; Kaldellis 2007, pp. 2–3; Kazhdan & Constable 1982, p. 12; Norwich 1998, p. 383.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biz/Archive_1&oldid=1256206119"