Talk:Byzantine Empire

Why there is no succeeded section that includes Roman Empire was succeeded by the Ottoman Empire?
There is no succeeded panel in the info box, Ottoman Empire literally succeeded the Roman Empire. I want it to be added. 78.175.48.122 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We decided to remove this recently. Refer to Talk:Byzantine Empire Biz (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason of removing that section was silly. It all started with the question: "The succeeded panel in the info box, seems generally wrong in claiming Byzantium was succeeded by the Ottomans, were there any other successors to Byzantine?".And after a long discussion, it ended up with a statement: "Yes, it would probably be better without; it adds little except confusion, and it will not be readily improved in a way that does not generate yet more confusion."But they had no doubt to add as many successors as possible into Ottoman Empire infobox, or let that section exists to this day. ZanzibarSailor (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Western Roman Empire also a lot of successors listed, so I think it should be added, but not with just the Ottomans as successors. Owain ap Arthur (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ottomans are not showing as successors on the actual article. We want to reduce where we can what is in the info box as people constantly change it. On this same logic, we should reduce what is on Western Roman Empire.
 * Specifically, successors are fraught with issues: on what basis? Language, religion, geography? The Rum Millet is about as close as it gets to a successor for the people of the empire but that just opens up another can of worms. The politicisation of successor states makes this just a headache we don't need. Biz (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Listing successor states is useful for people researching the history of a region and what comes next in the chronology. We should try to list all geographic successors, and if the Byzantines reconquer a region and then are reconquered again by a different polity (eg First and Second Bulgarian Empire) then both successors should be listed. If you want to keep the list concise then you should only list the most influential and historically important (more than 1 though). It should only list independent polities (so not the Rum Millet as they are included within the Ottoman Empire).
 * If you still think those shouldn't be listed at least list the legal successors (although the right of conquest was a thing then), like the Despotate of the Morea, Empire of Trebizond, and Principality of Theodoro.
 * Also the Roman Empire should be listed as a predecessor as that page lists the Byzantine Empire (under the name Eastern Roman Empire) as a successor. Owain ap Arthur (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't of a region, it's of a multiregional polity that evolved over millennia. The outline you are suggesting is far too broad and unwieldy . The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the easily summarizable, important information contained within the article body, and what an infobox is actually capable of accurately presenting well has been the subject of much reevaluation over the past few years. Much of the issue is we are trying to cram highly complex, arguably synthetic topics (e.g. "predecessor" and "successor" states) into a visual presentation. I would argue aspects like these just far too complicated for this presentation to be either accurate or specific enough.  Remsense  留  23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're doing research, I would recommend reading the article, not just the infobox. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Airship's rewrite
Well, I've begun my rewrite of the history section. As you can see, I'm currently using entries in the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, combined with Treadgold 1997 and Kaldellis 2023, because all three have chronological political narrative (when we reach the Justinian dynasty, I'll be able to use the Cambridge History too); Byzantine World 2010 is thematically organised.

At the moment, I'm focusing on concise prose and replacement of outdated/somewhat tangential sources (why were we using a 1922 book by H. G. Wells as the basis for a lot of the early history section?), but as we go on I anticipate moving a lot of detail on art/administration/literature/religion/Constantinople out of the history section and into their own subsections. Similarly, I think the debated content above could be placed in the Language/Society sections, as not directly political/narrative history related.

Hope the above works for everyone. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If anyone can help in moving the non-history-detail out of the section (apparently we don't have a society section. why don't we have a society section??) that would be much appreciated. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29, I will take a crack at this task. Remsense  留  04:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'm thinking of sections like "Transition into an eastern Christian empire", where the philosophy/architecture should be dealt with more fully in their own subsections (feel free to create them if needed) and similar for the detail in the "12th-century Renaissance" section. See Roman Empire for a near-equivalent article—the "History" section is trimmed of any unnecessary fluff, and details of literature/religion/administrative reforms get their own section. If it's really important (Komnenian restoration, Byzantine iconoclasm, etc.) I'll include a sentence in the history section anyway. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the additional roadmap! will be useful for me. Remsense  留  04:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice start. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: about your new intro paragraph about periodization at the top of the history section: I'm fine with that addition, but I'd recommend rewording slightly, avoiding phrases such as "when the Byzantine Empire came into existence" or "the foundation of the Byzantine Empire". These may still be perceived as implying that there was such a thing as a "foundation" moment or a "coming into existence" (even if we don't know when it was). As we all know, the reason we don't have a clear cutoff point is not just because the general historical periods of antiquity "overlap", but because there was a continuity of existence of the empire itself. So I'd go with phrases more like "there is no general consensus about a precise cutoff date" or something like that.

About your rewrite of the "early history" section: I'm not quite sure it's wise to start with Augustus as the "foundation of the Roman Empire" at this point. Among the few good things about the previous versions was the fact that they started (very briefly) with how the territories that were later to become Byzantium came to be conquered by Rome. But that makes it necessary to start from a good deal earlier than Augustus. For purposes of this background exposition, the relevant concept of "Roman empire" is actually not the concept of "empire"="polity headed by an emperor", but the other one, of "empire"="polity governing vast conquered lands". (I think it was this point that Elias was, ever so clumsily, trying to insert into the paragraph earlier.) It was the "Roman empire" in this second sense that had conquered the East and laid the foundations for the cultural east-west divisions within itself. In this context, the change from republican to autocratic government is not really of prime significance at this point of the narrative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments. The first paragraph is a really good point, and I shall incorporate it in. The second: I do actually agree with you, which is why I initially wrote those two paragraphs back in November. However, of the major sources, only Treadgold goes back that far, and I didn't really want paragraphs based on one author; I can have a go at summarizing the detail you outline above into a sentence or two, but for the WP:DUE concerns I'm reluctant to add more. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think it would have to be more than one sentence similar to what we had ("Rome established hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean between the third and first centuries BC"), and then one sentence or two somehow introducing the cultural division of Latin west and Greek east within the empire, that being the foundation for the later development of the Byzantine half. Of course we already have something like that up in the lead section, so we may want to consider how to keep duplication to the legitimate minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am unsure what you mean in the edit summary to this revision:
 * The cited source (Greatrez 2008) states "From the reign of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) onwards the whole Roman Empire fell under the rule of one man."
 * Your revised sentences of "In the latter stages of this period, the republic entered a period of constitutional crisis, out of which ultimately emerged a monarchical form of government under an emperor" are thus unsupported by the cited sources, which do not mention a constitutional crisis or a monarchical form of government.
 * As above, my reasoning is that if information is not mentioned in the Oxford Handbook, Treadgold 1997 or Kaldellis 2023, it is likely to be WP:UNDUE in a featured article's history section. As I said in the previous edit summary, if you do find a recent treatment of Byzantine history which describes the transition from Roman republic to empire in detail, it can certainly be added. Otherwise, for WP:WEIGHT reasons, it might be best to exclude superfluous details. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear, are saying that it's WP:UNDUE to state that Augustus's one person rule emerged out of the Crisis of the Roman Republic? DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as none of the full-length RS I have consulted have seen it necessary to mention, I do think it is . I am not saying this in an effort to push an agenda or anything—I'm a historian of the Mongol empire, this is just an interesting diversion—but if I don't see it in WP:RS which address the entirety of Byzantine history, I don't think it should be included. If you do find such sources, that would be helpful. I'll leave this for others to weigh in, and start updating the Justinian dynasty section. My only goal is getting this article to a state where it is worthy of the bronze star. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reduced it down and taken it out. It's rather pedantic and it's WP:BLUE that that was how the Principate came about ... but I've taken it out anyway as I think this section should be cut down to the bare minimum anyway. The only point the needs to be noted is that by the time the Byzantine empire comes along the form of government was rule of the emperor and not a Republic (as the Republic was mentioned). the point I was making is that emphasising Augustus in that way is dated and inaccurate. DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this “history” narration, I support fact inclusion or exclusion if it is (or not) covered by Kaldellis or Treadgold in their narrative history. They are the only people who have written an academic narrative of the entire history in the last 30 years so we should try to match them. Biz (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why collections such as the Oxford Handbook (2008), Cambridge History (2009), or Oxford History (2002) shouldn't also be included. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is if we value a single author narrative as having unique value. I figure spending 5+ years on a complete narrative you would make hard decisions on what to include as relevant, more so than a chapter author.
 * To be clear, I’m speaking only to the specific issue of how to decide what facts actually matter. But to your point, WP:HISTRS doesn’t make this distinction. Biz (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:HISTRS is an essay and doesn't really mean anything. Personally, I think single author narratives have to be looked at more closely than general compendiums, but that's just me. I'm going to continue using the five works above as the standard yardstick. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting critique of Treadgold. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1357541?seq=1 by Walter Kaegi. He calls the narrative dangerous. Biz (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Odd source
Can someone explain what's going on with the formatting of the Donald M. Nicol "The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453" source? I've never seen #if: code used in a sources section before. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So! Yes—before we started working on it, it was its own template:, which transcludes the code you see. I think it's because the book is available only regionally, so it tries to offer different sources based on which are available. Which is freaky and probably wrong, but I didn't want to deal with it while I was formatting the bibliography, so I just substituted it for the time being. Remsense  留  07:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can ping @Cplakidas, who can further advise. Remsense  留  07:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed all the conditional coding from the ref; this was template wiring that should not have carried over into this page when it was substed. The conditions were for choosing between two editions; I've gone for the second edition of 1993, since the Harvard references pointing to it were also calling it "Nicol 1993". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As an aside, if anyone's wondering why sources are being regularly removed, it's because this article really suffers from journal articles/books being cited once or very few times to support a single fact or facet. Not only does this encourage bloating, but it also makes it harder to assess WP:WEIGHT. Rewriting using only half a dozen authoritative sources, as we're currently doing, is a much better way to ensure the article isn't disproportionately focused on certain aspects. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is an enormous bibliography on this article that seems much more for looks than actually helping one do further research on the topic, indeed. Remsense  留  21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the article would be less bad with a name change
If people are going to persist with this fantasy name for a big chunk of the Roman Empire, then a more educational informative title would seem better, such as 'Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire)'. It might stop a lot of people who have yet to gain the knowledge, who would maybe unintentionally ignore the article because the word Roman is not there, from not ignoring the article. Middle More Rider (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Let me count the ways:
 * The use of a parenthetical disambiguator is usually to be avoided when possible, and I can't think of a worse case than here.
 * You say the article would be less bad, and then you say it is 'unintentionally ignored'. Which is the problem, exactly?
 * Believe it or not, the article name has been discussed before, check the top of this page.
 * Remsense 留  02:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a well known fact that no one reads articles unless they contain the word "Roman". Can you imagine how many people would click on Spanish Empire if it was titled "Spanish Empire (Not Roman Empire)"? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to follow the sources. What the professionals use first as our opinions go last.
 * Kaldellis is the one challenging the convention of the last century (ie, when "Byzantine" replaced empire of the Greeks) and he tends to oscillate between "east Roman" and Ῥωμανία" ("Romanía" or Romanland) which is what they called themselves from the 4th century. There is no scholarly consensus that this is the best solution, despite an acknowledgement that the term Byzantine is problematic by the profession. Biz (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No it's not. "Byzantine" is a near universal convention. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Info box + Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων
A recent edit, appropriately reverted, has me question two things

(1) Do we need to have the infobox title repeat the article name and lead sentence in English? If we can just remove the English, and keep the Latin and Greek, it's one less thing people will constantly want to change.

(2) The editor changed the Greek to Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία. We currently have it as Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων. I'll admit, I don't actually know what is correct so not saying what is, but I found this 2007 paper that elucidates what the sources say https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26609804_Some_Questions_Concerning_the_Terminology_used_in_Narrative_Sources_to_Designate_the_Byzantine_State. Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία, Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων (from the mid-sixth century), and 'Ρωμανία (as the eastern empire) are all attested.

(The author's suggestion of Ρωμαίων επικράτεια aka "Roman Domain" I don't think we need to consider because we are not trying to pick a new name in Greek today just use the name that the state used during its existence.) Biz (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, the infobox should give the English name. That's bog standard across all articles with infoboxen. I'd sooner see the Latin and Greek removed. Lounghis' article seems to indicate that basileia is marginally more common than the others, but also that there was no single term; in which case it might be better to have a footnote that lists the various Greek terms rather than giving one Greek term preeminance in the infobox. Generally speaking, the infobox is a bad place for anything complicated or nuanced. Furius (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So in terms of footnote text, my proposal:
 * "The ways the "Byzantine Empire" was referred to among its inhabitants at the time included Res publica Romana and Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία which means the Roman commonwealth; Imperium Romanorum and Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων interpreted as empire of the Romans. 'Ρωμανία from the mid-sixth century which transliterated is Romania. From the 8th century, we see references in narrative sources to it being called Ῥωμαίων εξουσί which means 'the Roman power' or 'the Roman domination." Biz (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. Perhaps add quotation marks around the translations and give "dominion" rather than "domination"? Furius (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. Yeah I was just using the source there but agreed dominion translates better. I'll make this edit and if anyone else prefers different they can edit it directly. Biz (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd put on the record that I don't like explanative footnotes on infoboxes. These articles have too many layers of notes already. If something needs an explanative note to be understood properly, then it shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I like that principle. So with that logic, we should remove the title "Byzantine Empire" altogether and move all official names into Nomenclature? Biz (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. The box still needs some title, and that is of course the title of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Biz (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * great, back to the starting line again.
 * "byzantine empire" won
 * historians with a job and a degree lost
 * xd 2001:818:DE97:3200:21FE:784:FBA6:F3A7 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's actually nothing wrong with the term (well, other than the congnitive dissonance to understand why we use it). What's really wrong is how scholarship has constructed a view that frames the facts to create a certain narrative, sometimes false, which has and continues to be used for power. The conventional name may change one day; however, understanding how the scholarship has been constructed to distort a narrative is the harder thing to understand and the necessary precondition before there can be any name changes. I implore you to spend more time thinking about this and not the surface level issue of the name. At least, this is what good historians with a degree should be doing. Biz (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've typed so many words, yet you initiated your paragraph with the following sentence:
 * "There's actually nothing wrong with the term".
 * there's not much else to say, unfortunately... 2001:818:DE97:3200:891:FC3F:9896:65C3 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

FAR: Society
I've done a thorough review of "society" this last month. This includes verifying all the original sources, adding new sources (Kaldellis 2023 as a baseline but more where I could like Rotman's new book on slavery that I read and which I discovered from a a review of his earlier book that was used as a reference), expanding on content consequently and re-arranging content where I could. While I feel like I've made an appropriate effort on WP:V (I should point out it was clear to me people who added some of these sources never actually read them which concerns me about the rest of the article), I would like more eyes to ensure I've met other important principles like WP:NPOV. WP:SS is an issue that bugs me, and will happen as certain main articles are improved (Languages of the Roman Empire is one potentially) or created (side note: education needs expansion and has a lot that could be covered). I've made all the references sfnm to enable more references to be added later. This work still feels incomplete and I will continue to work on it as I read more sources this year, but it's now at a point where I'd value more eyes if you've not kept up with the edits I've made.

My preference is you just go in edit the copy unless you feel it really needs to be discussed here. Thanks! Biz (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Byzantine Empire" in 2024
Why? 2001:818:DE97:3200:7CB9:1417:523:E5AA (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because that is what people refer to it as. For example, Anthony Kaldellis strongly objects to "Byzantine" as a word, but still felt it necessary to subtitle his book "A History of Byzantium". Book sales are presumably higher when people know what you're talking about. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What Airship wrote is the why we are forced to right now. It's the convention. Kaldellis is confident it's not defensible (ie, new generation of academic staff not beholding to past thinking) and it's only a matter of time when the convention will change. His book is a giant leap in moving the conversation, but as a Wikipedia community, we have to respect that we follow the convention set by the academics (at minimum).
 * There is a deeper reason at play though which is why do historians wish to treat a period of the Roman state as a different entity, which in turn justifies giving it a different name. I've seen editors focused on Roman history here even call it a different civilization.
 * Fortunately, there has been a lot of great scholarship that is correcting this. For example, I was just reading recently about how education was done (Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, 2012) and that it was the exact same from the Hellenistic and Ancient Roman times and right through to the end of the Byzantine empire. This consistency is not the type of thing that justifies calling it a different civilization. Yet there is nothing on Wikipedia that references this credible scholarship and to help address this misconception. Times these misconceptions by a thousand and this is what editors here can do in the interim to help support a convention change if this is what you care about.
 * We need more people helping us review every sentence and citation in this article if you or anyone else wants to join in. Biz (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't matter. Because substance wins over trivia. Because it's a useful handle. Because WP respects academic consensus more than online forums. Because some people get an absurd bee in their bonnet that just isn't worth the bytes. Because WP has editors and policies that have, to everyone's surprise, stood the test of time and work. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Because it doesn't matter. Because substance wins over trivia. Because it's a useful handle."
 * "Because WP respects academic consensus more than online forums."
 * Conflicting statements.
 * "Because some people get an absurd bee in their bonnet that just isn't worth the bytes."
 * Who are you quoting? 2001:818:DE97:3200:CC3:812C:62B3:DF (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This needs tó be adressed
There needs tó be more explanation for the debated start date for the Byzantine Empire. Some may say 330, some may say 395, some may say 286. It’s a very complicated scenario. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't need to be, because it's a total retrospective fiction. There was never such a thing as the "Byzantine Empire", and where we precisely draw the line is totally arbitrary and changes almost nothing. The founding of Constantinople is as good a choice as any, and it's what Kaldellis uses in the omnibus narrative history he published last year. Remsense  诉  02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to condescend, but I hope it's helpful that I keep trying to give you the same advice framed in different ways: these periodizations, factoids, and statistics are not the most important things about history. You're free to work on what you like, but if you want to improve the encyclopedia, I would look at contributing to prose, not infoboxes. This is a featured article, there's probably an especially good reason things are the way they are. Remsense  诉  02:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m sure you know What the dates are refering Too, but the Roman Empire was stil a unified polity when Cosstantinople was founded. It split apart in 395. But no, that edit has only been there recently, as befor this, í was on the page a couple days ago and it said 330/395. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's complex, but that's also my point—it's complicated to the degree that I don't think the infobox needs to be burdened with that information: luckily one generally agreed upon date is fine, because again it's something we're imposing backwards mostly so that we have somewhere to start. The Roman empire from the 3rd century on was never really ruled from one center for long, it was simply too big for that—it's a miracle it took until Theodosius for it to bifurcate for good Remsense  诉  02:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The term “Byzantine” should no longer be used by Wikipedia
The term "Byzantine" is basically a derogatory term for the Eastern Roman Empire and shouldn't be used. Whether it's on an article description, or just for general usage in a page. While even though they were Romans it would be better to use Eastern Roman to show they were Romans but also ethnicity, and culturally different. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by what the sources think is the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, we can point to how the world’s foremost proponent against “Byzantium” put that word in the title of his recent magnum opus. Or when newly-created accounts start titling themselves "EasternRomanHistory435". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While disruptively changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" 40+ times with no explanation, discussion, or consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The existence of the Eastern Roman Empire constitutes enough evidence to state my point. ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Such a comment is proof enough for me that ByzantineHistory435 is WP:NOTHERE.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering the user name, this is obviously just trolling. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to add more names?
I understand that although the byzantine empire is a totally inaccurate name, it is the common name so it has to be used but when I try to add other names mainly the roman empire or Romanía It gets reverted? Daemonofthered (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not everything one knows about something has to be in the infobox, which is meant to display key facts at a glance for a general audience per INFOBOXPURPOSE. Less is more. With that in mind, the consensus hammered out by contributors on this talk page has been not to add more names. They're in the body in any case.  Remsense  诉  12:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the key point is MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which specifies that alternative names should a) be significant in English use and b) redirect to the article. Roman Empire and Romania obviously do neither. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (Doy, I'm dumb.) Remsense  诉  12:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand why Roman Empire can’t be used, but Romanía (with the í, instead of the regular i in Romania the country) is becoming a more popular term for the byzantine empire in online historical communities such as reddit. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That matters precisely zero. We write articles based on what appears in reliable sources, not Reddit. The current emphasis reflects that in English-language RS. Also, those names are mentioned, but just, yknow, in the actual article. People obsess with the lead sentences and infobox as if there isn't tens of thousands of actually interesting words.  Remsense  诉  17:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anthony Kaldellis is probably the most well known Byzantine historian today and he often refers to it as Romanía in his books. Daemonofthered (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Kalldellis (2023) is probably one of my favorite narrative histories. However, it's one book among many (though the most recent omnibus history). He's still known by his peers as being a little insistent about it. Maybe it'll be a more common name for the general public in 10 or 30 years, but these things don't turn on a dime. Remsense  诉  17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood Daemonofthered (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Coverage
As part of the FAR of this article, its become apparent there is lot of missing content so the article does not have the comprehensiveness it needs to have. As a case in point, I've just created a new section "army" and am planning to create "navy" next. Clothing and Geography are articles that exist and that the Roman Empire article covers, but is also is missing. I wanted to ask what else is missing from this article so we can add it to the list Biz (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is the entirety of the army section referenced to two sources? That is nowhere near FA standards (see criterion 1c), and will have to be rewritten again. Let's focus on making sure our additions are of suitable quality, rather than worrying about what isn't there. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought Haldon and Kaldellis covered the issues enough to enable neutral coverage for all perspectives. Criterion 1c is qualitative not quantitative. Treadgold's 1990s work and Cambridge's 2019 narrative history I could review. But as I'm so far off, to meet the standard, what should I also be including? Biz (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally anything high-quality—but make sure that what you're writing is verified by the text. Take the following sentence: Does the cited source, Haldon p. 556, say that the Varangians guarded the emperor? Does it say that they were a "Tagma [sic] unit"? Does it even say that they were called "the Varangian Guard"? I understand this level of prose and sourcing quality may be difficult to achieve, but they are the FA standards. Best, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also recommend combining "army" and "navy" in one "military" section; otherwise there will be a lot of duplication when specifying time periods. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Re sourcing: got it. My approach has always been creative expression to avoid CLOP, and sources for key facts, with multiple sources if controversial. But the reason I'm drawn to this project is epistemology, and I'm seeing very much the importance of what you are saying. So will see what I can do. (Also, Tagma is singular; yes most sources called it a guard; I'll find a new source that explicitly explains these facts.)
 * Re the Navy.: I'll see what I can do. I think it will be a paragraph and since it has it's own main article, it's justified. But will first focus on the army rewrite and see if I can reduce the word out which is the main reason I separated it. Biz (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which edition of Treadgold are you using? As far as I can see, none were published in 2002. Please take care when "correcting" the bibliography's sources, because ones that are use will break (you may wish to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors if you haven't already). While we're here, could you also take care to make sure page numbers are formatted—p. for a single page, pp. for multiple? Thanks, &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Using Kindle. I'll use 1997. Will correct with PP. And wondering, can we just use sfnm and avoid sfn? sfnm works for singular references, allows for consistency, reduce learning curve for newer editors, makes it easy to add more source in future. Biz (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, I don't like the "12th-century renaissance" section at all. It's part of the arts section, which I am gradually rewriting, but the whole section seems overblown and awkwardly placed: "art, music architecture, literature, (?) 12-century Renaissance". It looks like it should be incorporated in the economy section (where the effect is more covered), and mentioned in the visual arts section where appropriate.
 * Also, iconoclasm is a bit awkward as well. Mentioned in the history section, and has its own small section. A rewritten art section would also probably include it. Not sure if the dedicated section should be removed or something else. –  Aza24  (talk)   00:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the time when Greco-Roman knowledge, including Justinians's code transferred to the West so there is a lot that could be written here. Not sure where to put it, but not economy -- but feel free to move somewhere and we will get to it. Perhaps rename it as renaissance and move it in legacy.
 * The dispute over iconoclasm is a huge topic that impacts art and religion but also relations with western Europe. I don't see an issue if you separately cover it in arts, it's covered in history, and the existing section in religion remains. Kaldellis (2023) went into over-drive to cover Church controversies, not sure if I can stomach reading that again but there's plenty to cover. Biz (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)