Talk:Justinian I/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tzar Upravda

Hi All,

I have editted the page to include Slav name of Justinian (Sv. Tzar Upravda). Why it was removed from the page?


old talk

Contemporary historians tell us that Justinian dominated his uncle.

I know Procopius says this. Do any others?

dunno. Maybe not. I'm not a Byzantinist. I knew that Procopius did, but I was hedging. --MichaelTinkler

Ok. It's just that not everything Procopius says can be taken at face value, notably the secret histories, as he obviously had a personal grudge against the family.

Indeed. The phrase 'contemporary historians' makes a nice introductory statement for later qualification, I thought. Of course, Procopius *might* be right and he might have been possessed by a demon. --MichaelTinkler.

I think it's nonsense. Justin was smart enough to scheme his way into the throne when he was about 83 years old, I can't see him then being kicked around by his nephew. Procopius didn't like Justin, Justinian or anything about them, and I take his comments about Justin as just one more expression of that.

Justinian wasn't even named as Justin's successor until Justin was in the last year of his life, and Justin's policies were nothing like his nephew's. He may have relied on Justinian's skills a great deal, but I'm convinced Justin was the real emperor until he died. John

Well, those same contemporary historians would contend that Justinian was also responsible for putting his uncle on the throne in the first place. G. P. Baker in *Justinian* (1931) holds that Justinian did manipulate much of his uncle's reign.
Also to be specified: the (mere) "university" Justinian closed in Athens was Plato's Academy.

old talk

Justinian is mainly remembered for his judicial revolution which organised Roman law in a form and organic scheme that is still in use today and remains more or less unaltered in some countries today (apart from obvious adaptations).

Is this really true? I know this is the most important thing Justinian did, but I would expect people to remember him more for the reconquest of the west, since it's more dramatic, shows up on maps, and is a necessary part of the narrative of events in Italy.

old talk

No mention of the Plague of Justinian? I would think that it had major lasting effects on the Eastern Empire, and we do know that Justinian made policies to deal with it. Sadly, I know not to where my copy of Charles Panati's Extraordinary Endings of Practically Everything and Everybody has disappeared; it treats the plague extensively.

Well...that's probably not the best source to use for the plague. But we do have a Plague of Justinian article, I thought it was linked from here. Adam Bishop 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Justin I

Sorry, saw "Uncle Justin" and thought it was Dukes of Hazzard or somthing. Stbalbach 17:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

Sorry, I meant to put in the history comment of my recent edit to the picture caption that I was removing POV that the mosaic is Byzantine in nature. I personally agree with a very convincing Discovery Channel documentary called "Barbarians" that put forward that the figure in the mosaic looks exactly the same as coins depicting Theodoric, and the label "IVSTINIAN" was added later. I haven't read the whole article, but I would guess from this that it's still filled with POV. elvenscout742 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest we find a more authoritative source for that than some Discovery Channel documentary. What was the basis of their claim? They thought little images on coins kind of maybe sort of looked like a really big mosaic image? And why is it POV to suggest the mosaics are Byzantine, even if they do depict Theodosius? What style would he have been using, if not Roman/Byzantine? Adam Bishop 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I didn't exactly represent it well. We know that Roman historians were incredibly biased against "barbarians", and so would try to exterminate any trace of civilized Gothic culture if they found it. The strange disembodied hands on some mosaics, as well as the fact that the crown, the "IVSTINIAN" label and anything else that would make them explicitly Byzantine were added later, as well as explicit Gothic elements removed. I am not saying it's POV to say that they may have been Byzantine, but that reference was naively assuming that they were Byzantine. I merely said that some historians contend that it depicts Theodoric, and removed the word "Byzantine" from the label, as it explicitly supported the POV that those historians are wrong. elvenscout742 09:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I was not talking about Theodosius I. I was talking about Theodoric the Great (who, I might add, was also an Arian Christian, rather than a Roman Catholic ... he certainly shouldn't be allowed get away with that >: ( ). elvenscout742 09:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Here is a larger pic commons:Justinian_mosaik_ravenna.jpg. There is actually no label saying "IVSTINIAN". But I've never heard anyone claim that it was someone else. Did the documentaty say who the woman on the other wall could be? commons:Image:Theodora mosaik ravenna.jpg. -- Jniemenmaa 12:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The only person labelled in the San Vitale imperial mosaics is Maximianus, the Archbishop of Ravenna who was the patron of the mosaic work. As he was Catholic, he'd hardly be associated with the Arian Theoderic. Furthermore, if there was a label attached to the emperor, it should read IVSTINIANVS, not the Anglicised version presented above. The argument recalled by Elvenscout742 seems to be built on unproven possibilities and lacks any evidence. I've never read that these mosaics are anything other than Justinian and Theodora, which is the overwhelming scholarly consensus. It would be more NPOV to report any doubts in a paragraph on the San Vitale page rather than doctoring image captions in this article. Reporting scholarly consensus (in what is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for debating historical theory and fact) is hardly POV.--Iacobus 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Justinian, Justinianus, Ιουστινιανός

Just a small note. The different names in the introduction are quite chaotic:

  • Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus is the Latin full name,
  • Μέγας Ιουστινιανός means Justinian the Great, cf. Alexander the Great = Megas Alexandros,
  • Justinian is a modern/modernised version.

The Latin version of Justinian is Iustinianus, the Greek one ist Ιουστινιανός/Justinianos.

I agree.--BlaiseMuhaddib 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact check

Fact check

Justinian Article: Justinian would have, in earlier times, been unable to marry her because of her class, but his uncle Emperor Justin I had passed a law allowing intermarriage between social classes.

Theodora article: She convinced Justinian to change the law that forbade noblemen to marry lower class women (like herself).

Justinian did not change that particular law. His uncle Justin also married a woman of disputable origin. His wife Euphemia was born a slave. See: Euphemia. This was before even rising to the throne. The problem was that Theodora was a former actress which at the time made her a subject to laws denying members of this class many rights common to other citizens. User:Dimadick

Justinian article: He is also known as "The last Roman Emperor" [citation needed]"
Known by whom? Although he is sometimes referred to in more or less those words, I'm not sure if it really deserves being mentioned here, especially as a direct quote. However, I do remember having read him being called "the last of the Roman Caesars" or something like that. Maybe Gibbon, or just some popular history book? Iblardi 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article says:
"Justinian viewed himself as the new Constantine. He believed in a Mediterranean-wide Christian order politically, religiously and economically, united and ruled from Constantinople under a single Christian emperor. To this end he directed his great wars and his colossal activity in reconquering the western provinces from the Germanic tribes."
A source reference would be in place here. Of course, as a Christian Roman Emperor, he was supposed to be the political head of the Christian world, but how much is really known about Justinian's motivations? Iblardi 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Caričin Grad

I have put Caričin Grad as Justinian's birth place according to: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Edited by Michael Maas, Cambridge University Press 2005, p. 355 (with figure of Justiniana Prima = Caričin Grad on p. 356). ClaudiusGothicus 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I reverted your edit before seeing this, I will restore it, and add the source. --- Stbalbach 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Illyrium?

This was just added:

Justinian was a Latinized [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonian]] peasant <ref> William George DeBurgh, 1953, “The Legacy of the Ancient World” - Penguin Books, p.421 ''Justinian'' </ref>

Which replaced/deleted text that said he was born in the Illyricum Province. I had always read the Justinian was an Illyrian. Is this not true? Was there a Macedonian Roman provence? -- Stbalbach 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording, too. You can't say Justinian himself was a Latinized person, his whole family just came from a Latin-speaking region. Iblardi 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good information on Justinian

Wouldn't it be a good idea to use this site: http://www.roman-emperors.org/ as a source of information on Justinian and other Roman emperors? (http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm for Justinian) It looks thorough and reliable and has lots of primary and secondary sources listed.Iblardi 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Great"

Hi, I was just wondering if there should not be a reference to the epithet often used with Justinian, "the Great". Whether or not this is a modern tag (I'm not really sure), it's certainly a relevant and popular identifier (it's the name by which I knew Justinian as a child). The last article edit that described "the Great" as vandalism is a bit of a stretch, particularly without an explanation. Also, new Wikipedians are just going to keep adding the epithet whenever they see it is not in the article. Just a thought. Rob Lindsey 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless its how the person is most commonly known as it's not part of the article title, and thus not in bold text. I suppose a case could be made that he is most commonly known as "the Great", but I think it would be controversial (not if he was "great" or not, but that "great" is most commonly attached to his name). I can say personally that in my studies from recent secondary sources he was not called "the great", but I understand there is a line of tradition that has done so. -- Stbalbach 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the World Book Encyclopedia for the Year 2000, 2001, and 2002, they refer to him as (The Great) after his name, in bold. Thus, I think that is what it should be changed too, so long as it stays in parentheses.Will 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow World Book Encyclopedia conventions. -- Stbalbach 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I propose (and have edited) the top of the article to "or as he is known in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, St. Justinian the Great." Being an Orthodox christian, that is what he is always called in church, so I think it should stand separate from his main secular title. -- Will 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

the article is biased

The article is biased against the Emperor, with words like "despotic" all over the body of the text.

See despotism. I believe this is being used in the non-pejorative sense? -- Stbalbach 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another bias: the following text

He achieved what no other Byzantine Emperor had before or ever would again after him, the reconquering of the city of Rome itself. Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era.

is clearly a discourse lapsus that deteriorates the text to ridicule - if he had succeeded, then it hadn't been a "concept of a bygone era" - but now he failed, and we're proving that he could do nothing than fail by observing that he failed. That's a circular "proof". Or else we claim that concepts rule the universe, not matter and consequences of acts - how then do we observe those concepts?? Something must be done against this big frog! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never again after him? See History of Rome. His successors continued to hold the city of Rome until hostilities started between Leo III the Isaurian and Pope Gregory III in 731. Gregory was the last to have his election confirmed by the Exarch of Ravenna. He then sought a "new protector" in Charles Martel during 739. Justinian was far from the last Byzantine Emperor to hold the city. User:Dimadick

You are both right, the comment is not in place here. Iblardi 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Slav connection

To Stbalbach and others, I removed a comment on Justinian being "by no means" of Slav origin, because it seemed to me irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. First of all, it looks rather polemical to put it that strongly, but that may be a matter of style. But more importantly, why so much attention for a "romantic tradition" that doesn't seem to be very wide-spread at all? I myself have never heard of it, and though I'm by no means a specialist, I don't consider myself completely uninformed. The Slavs entered the Balkans in any great numbers some time after 500 anyway, so there is no obvious reason to think Justinian was a Slav. (Personally I don't really care about his ethnicity.) Why state the obvious? This would be like saying "Alexander was not of Persian descent at all" in an article on Alexander the Great because there are some Persian legends that claim he was. That was my motivation. With regards, Iblardi 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is notable enough to include. It is historiography and every history article on Wikipedia should have more of it. In this particular case, there is a lot of racist and nationalistic scholarship out there that needs to be corrected and Wikipedia does a pretty good job at that. I suspect the reason you never heard of it is your not exposed to that kind of scholarship, which is a good thing, but take a look at Huns for example (origins section) and the article talk page to see how various countries nationalistic and/or racists agendas often make claims on history. Or Goths. Or Ancient Egyptians. etc.. -- Stbalbach 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe it could be included in the form of a footnote then. I think some people's nationalistic claims don't deserve so prominent a place in an article that is supposed to merely reflect the scientific consensus. When I look up 'Justinian' in any encyclopedia, I find no references to this 'discussion'. If anything, it should be put in a separate section "Romantic traditions on Justinian's ethnicity" or something like that, or even a separate article on racist/nationalistic 'scholarship', linking to the encyclopedical pages. Iblardi 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah it's fine and normal to deal with historiography issues this way in history articles. -- Stbalbach 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as it reflects serious historiography issues, not some uninformed or politically-inspired opinion. Why is this opinion so important that it should be dealt with so explicitly in an otherwise very general section? We could refer to every pseudo-scientific 19th-century tradition, however marginal, in every article, stating those theories are absolutely wrong. For instance, in an article about the Solar system, would you expect to find a comment like "the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun" otherwise than in a separate section on "historical misconceptions" or the like? I still think a case can be made for mentioning it, but not here. The fact that he was born in the Balkans before the Slavs entered should speak for itself. Iblardi 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ilbardi here. I have never come across any statements that he is a Slav, and I have been reading up on Justinian pretty well. Who claims he is a Slav, then? Which Romanticist said so? Certainly not the Romantic School of Paris. Maybe it is something for a footnote, if you would find a source. Until then, I'd suggest removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by La Belle Aude (talk -- La Belle Aude 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Burial?

Hi, is the place of J and Theodora's burial still existant? Are their bodies still where they were placed all that time ago? Or did something bad happen? This isn't discussed anywhere and I can't find any information on findagrave.com. Thanks! PatrickJ83 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Byzantine emperors were buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was demolished by the Ottomans after 1453. Iblardi 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well that's depressing - what happened to the bodies? Have their ever been archeo. expeditions - or were the bodies moved? PatrickJ83 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The bodies themselves seem to have disappeared completely. As far as the tombs are concerned, this is what I found:
'The once long and splendid series of Byzantine imperial tombs is represented for most visitors to Istanbul by four immense porphyry sarcophagi which stand in the courtyard in front of the Museum of Antiquities. They are not the total of those known to exist. A fragment of the side of another and two fragments of a lid are preserved in the museum itself, and there are two in the church of St. Irene and one in the yard of the mosque Nuruosmaniye. A French traveller in the eighteenth century saw in the grounds of the Seraglio three further sarcophagi or parts of sarcophagi - two of porphyry and the lid of another made of verd antique - which have since disappeared. Their identity is not in doubt, though the gold and precious ornaments that once adorned them were sent to the melting pot in 1196 by Alexius III and none of them is accompanied by any imperial inscription or epitaph. Porphyry was too costly a material and too hard to work for sarcophagi of such size to have belonged to lesser persons, and there is an exact correspondence between the number actually surviving plus the two discovered in the eighteenth century and that of the imperial sarcophagi described by the written sources as being of porphyry. The remaining tombs in the inferior grades of marble - green Thessalian, white Proconnesian, variegated Sagarian, and so forth - with which the emperors had to content themselves when porphyry was no longer available cannot at present be identified.' (P. Grierson, "The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042)," Dumbarton Oaks Collection 16 (1962) 3-60, p. 3)
So, at least nine tombs should still be more or less intact, assuming that nothing has happened to them in the meantime and that they are really imperial tombs, as indicated by the fact they are made of porphyry. I couldn't find anything more recent than this article, which is pretty old. Anyone who has better information on the subject is invited to share it here :) Iblardi 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised Military activities

I have made some modifications in the section "Military activities". I'll give some examples why I thought the old version was inadequate.

A) In general:
- Too little information on the Persian wars as compared to the West.
- Too much mentioning of Belisarius and too much written from his POV. He has an article of his own.


B) On sentence level:
- "Like his Roman predecessors and Byzantine successors" - This implies Justinian is the one 'last Roman emperor'. No general agreement on that.
- "However, his primary military ambitions focused on the western Mediterranean Sea" - An assumption is made about J’s ambitions (although admittedly a plausible one). Why not let the facts speak for themselves?
- "as a reward after successfully putting down the Nika riots" - How do we know?

I expanded the text in some places and cut it short in others and have, in general, tried to make it more balanced. Iblardi 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Succession and child(ren)

In an article on an emperor or king one normally expects to find some mention of any children and of the matter of succession. I wonder if this could be added? Norvo 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it in the 'Life' section. The whole article is in need of serious revision anyway. Iblardi 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Justian on Suppression of Homosexuality

While the article covers the suppression of Hellenism, missing is the criminalisation of homosexual acts, apparently based on the grounds that 'they cause earthquakes'. A reference is made in the Wiki article on pederasty, as practised by Classical and Ancient Greece.[1]

I've only a secondary source: Gore Vidal, United States, Abacus, 1993, pp 531, 922-23,1051.

As sexual politics are fundamental to understanding a culture and the individuals within it, I think it's worth a mention. If no one can find a better source, I'll put it in myself. --TresRoque 12:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see a better source than Vidal who is a great 20th C American playwright, author, statesman etc.. (and who is openly homosexual) -- something from a neutral mainstream historical source would be great. -- Stbalbach 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Justinian did issue a couple of Novellae concerning homosexuality, and there is some legislation against it in the Institutiones. See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/just-novels.html (The earthquakes make their appearance in Novella 77.) These laws are also mentioned in John Moorhead's Justinian, London/NY 1994, pp. 36 and 37. Iblardi 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Iblardi would you feel confident to get IP-checked? Miskin 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. In the meantime I'd like to hear from you a motivation for reverting this section other than the single fact that one of its contributors apparently has been banned. Iblardi 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There was POV on those edits. However, I'm only reverting per WP:BAN:

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

Miskin 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointing at some general rule can be an easy excuse and it actually sounds kind of technocratic. Deleting whole sections of articles without giving a proper motivation is kind of annoying. This section of the article has existed for quite some time without anyone taking offense, although this page has been quite critically watched in the meantime. I for myself have seen no blatantly POV statements, at least not any more than in other articles. So examples please.
O, and just to make sure, I don't know the user who is involved in all of this. I hope that is understood. Iblardi 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, read the lines I quoted - it's WP:POLICY not just "some general rule", and it says that I don't need to provide an example. Oh I'm sure you don't know him alright. Miskin 09:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to show some good faith, I'll bring up one argument: The user's edits are unreferenced, they provide an opinion and then a second personal opinion within ref tags, fooling people into thinking that there's actually a reference. Furthermore that's not why I've been reverting. As WP:BAN states, "the banned user is not authorised to make those edits", therefore those edits have to be removed so that a banned user will understand that he's not wecome here anymore and refrain from making sockpuppets - it's got nothing to do with content. With that simple policy and the bad quality of the edits in mind, I honestly can't imagine why a "neutral" editor would insist in keeping those edits back on (with just a poor justification). Personally I'm convinced that you are Greier's sockpuppet, and you're not doing a good work to hide it. In fact you just can't help it, hence why you were banned in the first place. Miskin 09:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mainly restating what you said the last time. Again, I would like you to give me some concrete examples of what you mean. Lots of Wikipedia articles fail to show a proper source, and there is a special tag for that, it says "citation needed". I wonder why it is (apparently) unacceptable to say that Justinian was either from this or that place, but not, for instance, that he was from a "Latinized family". ("Latinized" by whom? In what respect? How does one "Latinize" a family?) But if it's only the fact that this user has been banned, would it be OK with you then if I would rephrase the section so that its contents match the old version, before your revert?
By the way, please refrain from getting personal. As I said, I don't know the user involved. If you want to check my IP, go ahead. Other people's opinions may be different from your own, you see? Iblardi 13:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
O well, I've decided to drop the matter and do some constructive work instead. Revert wars are silly. Iblardi 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So suddenly you decided to "drop the matter", after all those were never your edits right? I don't really care about the content of those edits, it's just that I truly believe that you're another sockpuppet of Geiger, and therefore there is a biased motivation behind your edits by definition. Even if your IP doesn't match, there are other ways to blow the cover of a sockpuppet. Then all your efforts will be in vain, for I'll revert every single edit you've made in wikipedia, until you realise that you're not welcome here anymore. So think twice before making more edits, you might just be wasting your time. Miskin 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, as soon as you "dropped the subject", an anon decided to "update" the section by rephrasing Geiger's version. Too many coincidences indeed. Miskin 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at the edit of this page at 18:55 today, where I actually admitted it was a mistake; I forgot to logon. However, since I really don't want everyone on the web to see my IP, I decided to delete it.
Now that I read the rest of your story, you come across as being very, very paranoid on this issue. Your constant accusations are starting to annoy me at this point. Iblardi 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
After you have convinced yourself of the fact that I'm not the person you think I am, I suggest we just delete this whole stupid discussion. Agreed? Iblardi 22:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to delete the discussion. Miskin 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you still convinced that I am that banned user or not? I don't like to have a reference to my IP exposed on a discussion page, so I'd like to delete this whole discussion, you see. Iblardi 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody will expose your IP in any page, don't worry about that. Though I don't see what would that change since you just admitted that you edited as an anon. Miskin 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for your sake, darn it! I am wondering why I am even trying to convince you, it must be the fact that I feel insulted by your stream of agressive comments towards me, or rather the person you think to know I am. I am just a guy from Holland who happens to disagree with you.
Deleting this discussion will just 'cloak' my IP a little better, so if you don't mind, I'll delete it within the coming 24 hours. Hell, I even took the trouble to post a message on your homepage. Now I've got to cool down a little. Jeez, I'm playing straight here. You are incredible, man. Iblardi 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

Please, please, PLEASE do not randomly change back sections of this article. Greier, whom I stress I don't know, may have been banned, but the version you deleted contained some good factual information. Try to keep Iblardi and the Justinian article out of your personal crusades, whatever they may be, and allow other users to contribute. What you are doing right now amounts to vandalism, and you're really getting on my nerves. Your behaviour strikes me as childish. Iblardi 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rest of the discussion here: [[2]] Iblardi 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed ambiguous and useless statements and replaced them with useful information (and sources). What's the matter, I thought you had "dropped" the subject. Miskin 10:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

YOU keep bringing it up!!!!!! I agreed with a previous version of the section, restored it twice (or so), then rewrote it completely. I have been very patient with you for a long time, but now I'm getting convinced you are really a troll. Since you keep restoring outdated versions robotically, I have to assume you are uninterested in Wikipedia as such, but rather pursuing secondary goals. You are not contributing anything to the encyclopedia. You are not giving me any credit, I won't give you any. I'm through with it. Iblardi 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I never agreed on dropping the subject, so you can't blame me for bringing it up. I consider WP:BAN a very important policy and I intend to enforce it. It was you who claimed in public that you would "drop the subject", but apparently it was all a show. Miskin 14:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that I have made you involve me in a flame war like this. I did drop the subject, that is, the discussion over reverting/not reverting, and decided to rewrite the section. And don't talk to me about it being "all a show". It's you that gets personal all the time. Iblardi 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, one more time, take the trouble to assume good faith (this is important) and re-read all of my edits. Sometimes things are not as they appear, especially when many people and many points of view are involved. What looks suspicious to you may just be coincidence. You are wasting your time, I am not the guy you are after. Iblardi 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true then you have nothing to be afraid of. Although I think it's too late for that. Miskin 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. "Prove to me that you didn't do it!" Nice tenet to go by. I told you about the IP thing, but obviously, you are not one to be convinced in any way. Iblardi 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You remind me of those users that keep turning up in internet fora and add random provocative comments in order to disrupt discussions. It's never about the subject matter; their sole purpose is to piss off other people. I think your hate-mongering is meant as a provocation and you yourself may very well be the one that is a sock puppet. Iblardi 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

It appears over the past few weeks that various editors .. anons, red editors, etc.. keep deleting, changing and adding and deleting etc.. very well cited material in a low-grade on-going edit war without much discussion. There appear to be multiple points of view from cited sources that are not being fully represented - one cited view gets added by one person, then deleted by another, then re-added by a third, then deleted by a fourth, etc... Until this is resolved, when ALL cited views are represented in the article, it needs to be flagged as disputed. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

At least one anon is in fact myself having forgotten to log on. I don't know what exactly the problem is regarding the contents, but it all seems to have something to do with the first part of the 'Life'-section. In order to start with a clean slate, I tried to rewrite it and included references to Moorhead's study, which is of course not the ultimate source on Justinian (as he admits himself), but at least the book is peer-reviewed and the references are verifiable. I understand your reasons for placing the tag though. Iblardi 13:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach have a look at the section "Reverted edits" I just restored (User:Iblardi was trying to hide it), and I think you'll realise what's going on. I reverted per WP:BAN and per WP:CITE some edits made by sockpuppet User:Mursili, and Iblardi has been edit-warring to keep them back on - ignoring WP:POLICY on the matter. Although he claimed that the matter was "dropped", he keeps reverting them. Having past experience with User:Greier, I'm convinced that User:Iblardi is one of his sockpuppets, i.e. the person that made those edits in the first place. Miskin 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi do _NOT_ remove anymore edits from this page. Miskin 14:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed a link to this discussion in the other section. I am not trying to hide anything, except that I referred to my own IP number being exposed in the edit history in order to convince you of my good intentions, then deleted the section. Your initial reversions had nothing to do with the content of the article but were just a part of an apparent obsession-like flame war you seem to have. I know it sounds pityful to admit it, but I'm trembling with anger behind my computer right now. This is the world turned upside down. I repeat: my intentions are sincere and I am not Greier! Iblardi 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how a neutral editor would be obsessing over this. I'm only restoring a better version in order to enforce WP:POLICY against sockpuppetry, I've made that clear already. You on the other hand have been reverting me only because you think that the banned user's edits were actually good - ignoring WP:BAN's position on the matter. It doesn't take a genius to realise what's going on. I know that you hate me already, that's no news, after all I'm about to expose you (again). Miskin 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Yes, I agreed with the previous version of the article section. YOU are the one that fails to discuss the matter properly. Shame on you. Iblardi 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And since I am contributing to the article, I'm not a neutral user. I care for the integrity of the article. And don't you get angry when someone keeps throwing unmotivated accusations at you? Iblardi 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is complex. First let me address the content issues. To Iblardi: a couple questions: why did you remove the citation by Edward A. Thomas giving his birth date as 483 and replace it with a fact tag? Why did you remove the citation to the The Cambridge Medieval History which said he was not Slavic? I thought your other changes were ok. -- Stbalbach 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have been a bit over-zealous. I did a rewrite of the whole section, and I must have missed the reference to Thomas. And it's allright with me if the part concerning the Slav connection is restored. We had a dispute over that, but it's not a big issue as far as I'm concerned. Iblardi 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-content issues: To Iblardi, you've been an active Wikipedia user since October, why are you using a red account and anon IPs to make edits? Everything here is reputation based. To Miskin, I suggest we work through the content issues on a per-sentence basis since, it seems sincere and in good faith. I agree with you it looks suspicious but sometimes that just happens I've seen it before. Keep an eye on things, like 3RR and perhaps put in an IP check and watch for other activities, build up a case record to show it is a sock puppet - right now it is just circumstantial though. Iblardi is not citing the same sources that Mursili, and reversion to Mursili's version is not evidence of guilt, since Mursili's version was arguably better than the version before that. -- Stbalbach 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, to tell you the truth, I just now realize that the fact my name appears red in the article's history may mean something else than just the fact that it's my contribution. You may want to Google my name and find out... It's kind of... embarrassing. The anonymous edits I already explained. Iblardi 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
re: "Google my name" I don't know what your saying, please be specific. Also if you could respond to the above questions/concerns about the content changes. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, just after I registered, I was involved in an unintentional vandalism accident. It has to do with a slow pc, a slow connection, being unexperienced in the editing process, and a copy/paste action gone wrong, resulting in the sentence "All your base are belong to us" turning up in a Wikipedia page... It's right there in the "Random Acts of Kindness" section, darn it. Iblardi 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Further explanation: It was a bit late, and me and my girlfriend were discussing that expression. Wondering were it came from, I intended to copy/paste it into Google. Unfortunately my computer was choking, and I accidentally (due to lag and repetition of acts) pasted the expression into the Wikipedia window, then incidentally must have saved it by pressing the wrong button upon closing the session. I know it sounds improbable, but there it is. !blardi 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see I have been blocked. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iblardi. !blardi 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And yes, some people can actually be that stupid to prove their innocence. !blardi 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking: if this is what Wikipedia is all about, then I'm considering to quit it completely. Maybe I am too much involved in this article, I don't know. I have no interest in advocating one or another view on Justinian's ethnicity (I guess that is what it's all about), I'm just interested in history as such. I couldn't care less if Justinian spoke Greek, Slavic, Turkish or Chinese. It's kind of saddening and at the same time frustrating that my account has been banned on the suspicion of being someone's sock puppet. I hate being accused of something I have no part in whatsoever. My home phone number and private e-mail address are out there on the user's page. Go ahead and call me. I'll be out to work during the day from Monday to Friday though. !blardi 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For someone who couldn't care less you sure were persistant. I would advise you to stop assuming yourself to be smarter than others. Miskin 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Procopius

Other users have indeed correctly mentioned that Procopius' Secret History may not be the most unbiased source on Justinian's character. Why then is it still cited? Maybe it would be better to cite Procopius explicitly, and with it stating that he was, to say the least, no great fan of the emperor. La Belle Aude 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I cut and pasted this, since I apparently put it under "old talk". Sorry for being such a greenhorn. I still think it makes a valid point, though. La Belle Aude 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is sometimes the only source we have for certain things so it might be notable to mention it, to take with a grain of salt how well we know the "fact" in question. -- Stbalbach 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be far more correct then to either just omit it (since technically speaking it is a 6th century point of view) or make absolutely clear that it is a biased point of view? --La Belle Aude 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What specifically in the article are you referring too? -- Stbalbach 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This part in the life section: "Justinian was a man of unusual capacity for work (sometimes called the "Emperor Who Never Sleeps"), and possessed a temperate, affable, and lively character; but was also unscrupulous and crafty when it served him." -- La Belle Aude 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it reads like something from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm at work now, I have a stack of books that are all somewhat more modern. La Belle Aude 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Making it harder

I was about to edit the article, but now it's reverted it's a lot more work. Maybe I'm new and don't understand why, but could somebody explain it to me? I liked the old version better, although it needed serious revision. So before I set myself to work, please: why has it been reverted? La Belle Aude 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

WP:BAN doesn't preclude other editors from editing the article to how they think it should be. If you have a problem with the content itself please lets discuss. In any case a lot of the material you removed was never made by that user you are concerned with, other people have contributed to the section in its current state. -- Stbalbach 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As have I. I've just read that by reverting something from a blocked user you make it your own responsibility. I will take that responsibility, but I don't know how to revert yet. I'll do it as soon as I find out. (Or you can do it, Stbalbach.) It's by far easier to work with the version from before the reversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by La Belle Aude (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I see you already have. Thank you. May I set to work? The article is clearly sub-standard as compared to other wiki pages of this great an importance.

The only edit that wasn't done by the sockpuppets of a banned user on that section was my own (which I did revert anyway), I'll provide the diffs shortly. Disruptive users like User:Greier must be kept away by any means. Right La Belle Aude? Miskin 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, please explain. I've been werking on it a tiny bit and I was about to rewrite it. Now that it's reverted, may I work on it? I wouldn't like to see all my work lost afterwards. La Belle Aude 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Changes in the section "life": First sockpuppet User:Mursili contribution (18 December): [3]
Edits from 18th December to 7th January (unchanged): [4]
Edits from 7th January to 22th January (unchanged): [5]
Edits from 22th January to 8th February (unchanged): [6]
First revert per WP:BAN on the 8th of February: [7]
Second sockpuppet User:Iblardi: [8]
Contribution by myself: [9]
So as you can see the 'life' section, has been edited only by sockpuppets of banned users in the past few months. The source you restored earlier today was the edit done by myself. We have to restore the version as it was before sockpuppets interfered, and make additional contributions (such as my edit) on that version. We can't just let the article contain claims and sources provided by banned users, nor enforce sockpuppeting. Miskin 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also if you check the diffs the real reference on Justinian "not being a Slav" was "William George DeBurgh, 1953, “The Legacy of the Ancient World” - Penguin Books, p.421", not Cambridge Medieval history as it is shown now. The sockpuppets mixed up the sources and put their personal comments in reference tags, this is why their edits should be always reverted. Now there's a mess, and with you not letting me revert to an older version, it's hard to figure out what went on. If you take responsibily for restoring the anon's edits then fix the references that were removed and/or displaced. If I hadn't pointed this out to you, the article would contain random references at random edits. You realise now why I've been doing what I've been doing, and what "taking responsibility" on those edits means. Miskin 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm reverting to the previous, sock-free version, I tried to sort this out but all references tags are mixed and generally messed up. If you want to make edits then make them on the safe version, it won't take you long. I've wasted about one hour already trying to clean up after you. I'm now reverting again, I won't waste more of my time because you can't understand simple principles. I even tried to explain the situation by leaving a message in your Talk page, but you just wanted to have it your way. See the results now. Miskin 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on the article as well, Miskin. And StBalbach is taking responsibilityu for it, so safe yourself the trouble. About the De Burgh, 1953, I have the book here, and i don't see it. And even if it's in there, the book is over 50 years old. If you want to debunk nationalist theories of the present, please state a source of the present. Untill then, I'd better remove it. La Belle Aude 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You can remove and put into question anything you want, just don't add what I just removed, i.e. the edits of banned users and their sockpuppets. Miskin 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not even if it is correct information? The sock puppet policy says you can if you take the responsibility for it.
I only now see that you had a debate about that earlier.

La Belle Aude 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justinian_I&diff=107846397&oldid=107837394 This one is correct. Could you revert it? I have the publication right here, this is factual and useful information. La Belle Aude 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of removing those edits, despite the disruptions they've caused, is to enforce the WP:BAN policy by preventing banned editors from editing wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the content (in general). How come you're so interested in restoring those edits? Miskin 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm severely editing the article right now, which will mean accidentally reverting some of your reversions. Not as to help sock puppets, but just because they were right. Luckily, in the WP:BAN you quote, it says: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." So don't worry, everything will be fine. La Belle Aude 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, so it's just another coincidence I guess. Miskin 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vague references to stuff I don't know yet. Be clearer, please, for the sake of the newbie. Anyway, you'll see the result of it, and I hope it'll be better than what it's like now. Your feedback then would be very welcome. -- La Belle Aude 20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look Greier, I'm planning to remove every single edit you've made with every single of your sockpuppets, starting from this article. So you're just wasting your time. Miskin 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, feel free to email me. It's my official postgrad-email address, as you'll see. Please also reply at user:the wub -- La Belle Aude 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slav again

Decided to remove the mention of his Slavic background. It appears to be from a old source[10] which says he was from "the Latin race". Sounds fairly antiquated (what's a "Latin race"). Also found some newer sources that say he was Slavic. Open question for now. -- Stbalbach 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting. Are they paper sources or electronical sources? Are they serious? They can't be. Would you cite? If this is indeed the case, I may have been mistaken and we may want to keep it there, or cast it in a different form. -- La Belle Aude 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Latin race probably refers to his language, Mauricius was consider by the Latins as "the first Roman Emperor of the Greek race". It's up to you. Miskin 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Economy

I added a new section "Economy". Feel free to comment/add/cull; any constructive input is appreciated. Iblardi 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good addition and good sources. -- Stbalbach 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I see I'll have to work on my English though. Iblardi 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nika riots

I made a separate heading "Nika riots". The subject seemed out of place in the section on the Justinianic wars, where it was treated until now. I'm not sure whether it deserves its own chapter -the Nika riots often get special attention in the literature- but if not, the section could be expanded to include other revolts/conspiracies against Justinian and given an appropriate title. Iblardi 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Art under Justinian

Javits2000, you might want to add a section on art history under Justinian, as I see you that is your specialisation? By the way, the list of footnotes is getting awfully long... Iblardi 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

True about the footnotes: I preferred to kick them out of the main text, where there was a whole string of them under "religion." All of these are either to primary sources or to 19th-century secondary sources; I'm assuming they came along with the text of whatever religious encyclopedia was originally used to fill in this section. All of which is to say that they could probably be cut altogether, and replaced with a sinle citation of the direct source.
There is a section on the art of this period under Byzantine art; on the other hand a more general section on art & culture might be useful here (Cycle of Agathias, etc.) I'll think on it. --Javits2000 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that older versions of the article are actually much better structured than the current one [11]? Miskin 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some editors" have added all this useless, unverified information (e.g. "the emperor who never sleeps") on the intro of the article, and it has become a mess. Look how simple and attractive the intro of the article used to be. Miskin 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reserving judgment on the broader question (the comparative elegance of the two intros): "The emperor who never sleeps" is a well-known element of the Justinian legend, based in part on Anekdota Ch. 13. One can hardly attend an undergraduate lecture on the man without hearing about it, and it figures prominently in all the standard surveys, e.g. the title of Meier, Justinian, Ch. 4: <<Der schlafloseste aller Kaiser>> -- Die fruehen Jahre ("The most sleepless of all emperors" -- the early years"). --Javits2000 13:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so this one has been verified. It is still obvious that all information provided into the four "intro" paragraphs belongs in the body of the article. The older introductions were much more brief and NPOV. Justinian is not only to be praised and called the most "important" ruler of late antiquity. What does 'important' stand for anyway? Important to whom? As far as Byzantine history is concerned, Justinian's reign caused a great number of pros and an equal number of cons. Had he not accumulated all of the empire's energy on making unstable reconquests of Western lands, the Empire would have stood a better chance on defending the Holy land and Egypt from the Arabs. This is also something heard in lectures about Justinian I and Basil II, unarguably of greater importance. You verified one out of the countless POVs included in the intro paragraphs, so what about the rest? For example: "Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era. The new European powers of the Goths, Franks, and Saxons in the north were inheriting the ancient Roman lands."Says who?? Miskin 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why does the article insist on calling Justinian "the Roman Emperor" and his Empire "the Roman Empire"? Despite what editors think, by Justinian's time we make a clear distinction between the dead "Roman Empire" and the succeeding "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine" Empire. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant. Why is everybody putting OR above wp:policy? Miskin 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know 'we' had a consensus on what to call Justinian and his empire, but in any case the terms "Roman", "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine" are used throughout the article. Iblardi 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer that User:Miskin acquaint himself with some of the recent literature on Justinian (the Cambridge Companion would be a nice place to start) instead of temperamentally removing sections of text on the basis of an obscure "POV" claim -- and indeed, without even tagging said text as "POV" or requesting a citation beforehand.
There's nothing in the paragraph that was removed that is not a commonplace of the scholarly literature on Justinian; for example, the one "disputed" passage, relating to the changing status of the western empire, accords fully with Haldon's interpretation of Justinian's reign (Byzantium in the seventh century, 15-16), or indeed with that of any number of other reputable scholars; again, the Maas book is useful as a statement of the present consensus.
Constructive behavior: writing text, editing text, adding references, selectively questioning claims and allowing other editors the chance to respond. Disruptive behavior: deleting text capriciously in an area that is clearly outside of one's expertise, and demanding that other editors justify passages that are hardly cotroversial. The latter form of behavior just wastes the time of others. Was Justinian "important"? Uhh.... Reverting. --Javits2000 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing. First of all I didn't revert but I moved the content to the Talk page. Whether I choose to add a fact tag or remove the content is my personal choice. To quote from WP:POLICY:

In principle, any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material... If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page... Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Is that clear enough? You are the one who's breaking the policy by restoring the unsourced content and by preferring to offend an editor instead of providing a citation as requested. I think that your "I would prefer that X acquaint himself with Y" practice is not suggested by any policy as a reply to someone who asks for citations. I would also like to be referred to directly and not in third person. You can now stop trying to show your likeness to me, I'm sure everyone has already got the idea. I will ignore all this for now and stick to the point. If what Justinian should have known (but did not) is such common knowledge among scholars then please forgive our ignorance and provide us with some citations. How a citation is rephrased can be subject to personal opinion, and I would like to offer mine on the edits in question. Miskin 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the disputed passage is the following: "Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era. The new European powers of the Goths, Franks, and Saxons in the north were inheriting the ancient Roman lands."
As stated above, this accords, for example, with Haldon's interpretation (Byzantium in the seventh century), which I relay here only because it is at hand; other recent sources (e.g. Maas) will reflect a similar opinion.
"During the fifth century the unified Roman world empire.... was replaced by a polycentric system of barbarian successor states in the West... (p. 16).
"Justinian's great ambition was the renovatio imperii, the restoration of the world empire of Rome. The requirements for this task were considerable: the reconquest of lost territories; the establishment of Chalcedonian orthodoxy and religious unity throughout the empire; the reorganisation of the administrative and judicial machinery; a planned economic policy designed to support the increased demands of his military undertakings; and a grand scheme of building and renewal in both civil, ecclesiastical, and military spheres. Such policy aims were inevitably quite unrealisable in a number of respects. The partial reorganisation of the administration and the fiscal establishment of the state, the partially successful policy of reconquest, the vast expense of long drawn-out wars, especially in Italy, and the partial nature of the building programmes, all point to ultimate failure. The resources available were simply not adequate to the task. Apart from this, the practical realities of sixth-century politics and the actual strengths of the successor kingdoms in the West cannot be ignored. The fundamental principle enunciated from Constantinople, of a single legitimate emperor and empire, was as taken for granted as the notion of a single Christian Church. Even Germanic rulers recognised the emperor at Constantinople as the highest source of authority. But their idea of imperial authority did not involve actual reincorporation into the political framework of the Roman state, and Justinian's attempts to turn ideological theory into pragmatic politics met with universal, if not always particularly successful, opposition. A second element of the ideological equation was likewise not to be realised in practical terms; for while Justinian saw his role and that of any Roman emperor as entailing the liberation of orthodox subject-populations in the West from the rule of heretics, the practicalities of finance and politics meant that he was unable to put his theory into practice...." (pp. 17-19) --Javits2000 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As expected, the citation does not justify the use of abstract and imprecise comments such as "the most significant X of Y" or "achieved what no other person before or ever would again after" or "Partly, this was because he did not realize that" or "a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era" or "were inheriting the ancient Roman lands". What I've been questioning was the wording of the edits and not their essence, this is what you failed to see. As long as this type of comment is an editor's re-worded version and not a version coming directly from a source, then it's not very fitting for an encyclopedia. A POV for example here would be the extra emphasis given on the conquest of Rome, implying a subjective positive utility on something which could be hardly included on Justinian's positive impact on Roman, Greek or European history. But to be honest I'm no more in the mood to care about this, so you don't even have to reply. Miskin 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Justinian

Shouldn't the 'Justinian' page really have a list of Justinians (ie. Justinian I, Justinian II) rather than redirecting here? fluoronaut 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Making strong assertions

This may seem trivial, but I think it is fundamental to understanding the kind of job we are doing here. My comment is prompted by the last revert made by Stbalbach. The previous version of the line read:

"Justinian is generally considered to be one of the most historically significant rulers of Late Antiquity".

This was changed back to an earlier version:

"Justinian is one of the most historically significant rulers of Late Antiquity". (Italics mine)

I find that making such strong assertions about someone's historical significance is rather un-encyclopedical. After all, we can not know exactly how important Justinian was, and an encyclopedia is not there to pass judgement on such matters; we are only to reflect the mainstream scientific opinion on the subject, which we do know, and i.m.o. we should make clear that it is an opinion, not an established fact - all the more so because history is not an exact science. We should be representing instead of claiming. (It would be a whole different thing if this was a scholarly paper of course.) Because of this I would prefer the first version of the sentence over the second one. Any thoughts on this? Iblardi 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Weasel words. "One of" already covers any concerns about 'strong statements' - I don't think there is anyone that would not say he was "one of" the most significant rulers of Late Antiquity - that is a pretty wide and general statement. Adding "is generally considered to be" on top of the "one of" dilutes it to the point that it seems like there is some controversy about his importance, something being left unsaid, which is not the case and arguably POV. -- Stbalbach 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is with the use of "historically significant", which is a vague and subjective qualification in itself. If we would say he was one of the most "famous" or "studied" rulers of Late Antiquity, it would be a different matter; that is something that can be established objectively. But what is "historically significant"? The use of this qualification would be justified if, for instance, we could link to another Wikipage where the term was clearly defined, or otherwise explain it to the reader. Although I agree that Justinian is one of the most important figures of his time, I still think that we, as an encyclopedia, are not the ones to make this claim. In my opinion, saying that it is agreed upon that Justinian is an important figure and letting the facts speak for themselves would be the most neutral and therefore the best way to deal with it. Iblardi 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
These kinds of things are intentionally vague, it is just to put him into historical context in the lead section per WP:LEAD as a high-level summary. This is not a professional-level thesis written for experts, it is providing uninformed general readers who have never heard of Justinian before some context that this guy is important. The paragraph then goes on to justify the statement with some specific statements of fact. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines on how to write a lead section. I don't really care what it says but it needs to say something about Justinians importance and significance in the big picture. -- Stbalbach 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. We shall keep it this way then. Iblardi 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)