Talk:De Administrando Imperio/Archive 1

Vatican library, several different authors
I removed this paragraph, who wrote it?


 * Modern analyses of the text that is still kept in the Vatican Library have shown that the work was worked on and improved by several different authors over a larger period of time than what was originally assumed.

--Igor


 * I believe I picked that up at Mir Harven's web site, hercegbosna.org. In fact I carefully weeded out the biased nature of his text and just extracted those few factoids. --Shallot 16:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

excerpts from source
-> WikiSource?


 * Why Wikisource? This isn't the whole work, just a few excerpts. Adam Bishop 00:27, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vikings/Rus'
Why doesn't this article name the information on the Vikings/Rus'? The excepts seem pretty selective.--Wiglaf 14:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Name the information? What do you mean? Adam Bishop 16:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is a famous part of De Administrando Imperio, which names the rapids of the Dnepr. I was hoping to find a link to that information. The info is pretty controversial since it distinguishes between "Rus" names and "slavic" names. The Rus names are reputedly Scandinavian, but it is impossible to find the names on the Net. I was a bit disappointed to find the quotes had not included them. That's all.--Wiglaf 16:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I didn't want to overwhelm the page...the quote would have been a lot longer if I included all that. In any case, the whole excerpt with the names is here. By the way, have you looked at 	"The Varangians of Byzantium" by Sigfús Blöndal, and "The Viking Road to Byzantium" by H.R. Ellis Davidson? One of them (or both, I forget) discuss possible etymologies for the Scandinavian and Slavic names of the rapids. Adam Bishop 16:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! :D--Wiglaf 16:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource
It would be a good idea to move the actual quoted bits to Wikisource, but not the whole thing, since there is a lot of real content here. It's an important enough book to have its own article, especially if it is still being used as evidence in whatever ethnographic arguments Eastern Europeans have with each other. I guess the Wikisource template doesn't account for things that should only be partially moved - but don't move the whole thing. Adam Bishop 09:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What are the arguments for the article removal ? If the quotes-there's no sustainable argument copyright-wise. If the scope or content-either. Mir Harven 10:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well it's not a copyright problem, it's that the quotes are kind of overwhelming the page, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source-text repository. Adam Bishop 19:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The quotes,here, are illuminating the nature of controversies, not overwhelming or submerging the issue. This might be the case in, say, 30-50 kBytes page- but not here. If the contention is that quotes as such are a kind of overabundance that makes an article a difficult or boring read- the situation with DAI is exactly the opposite. These quotes illustrate and explain the differences in interpretation and are, hence, a help- not a hindrance. Of course, if one takes the position that any quote does not pertain to wiki proper, you're right. But, this stance is, IMO, dogmatism that cannot be defended on any rational grounds. Mir Harven 22:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with that, and it wasn't my idea to move it to wikisource - I was trying to argue from Mikkalai's point of view I suppose :) We will have to ask him why he thinks the page should be moved. Adam Bishop 22:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Okey-dokey Mir Harven 08:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear about my proposal. I thought it was self-evident. I didn't mean to move the whole article into wikisource (of course, it would be ridiculous). The idea is to move the text of the source into wikisource (does this ring the bell now?). Of course, the discussion of this important text is encylopedic, but the source itself is ...er... source. Of course, quotes are OK, even extended, but to the point of the discourse only. Especially if the text will be only one click away, in wikisource. Mikkalai 03:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah. We don't really need thousand-word paragraphs tacked onto the article verbatim. It should work well this way. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A map that needs to be discussed


I will not add this map to the main article because some people are opposed to it, but I see no reason why it should not be here for a discussion. I would like to point out that I have no problem with the map, because it is in circulation ever since Toynbee first published his book on Constantine Porphyrogenitus and DAI in 1972 (see the image talk page). The version in Toynbee's book is very similar to this one (if not the same), and so far the map hasn't been contested as an inaccurate illustration of the situation described in DAI. Also, there is an important DAI related discussion (with some sources) at the map's talk page Image_talk:Cpw10ct.gif.

Original title
The recent edits say the original title was "Pros ton idion yion Romanon", but the article also says the original title was "Peri ethnon". Which was it? Adam Bishop 16:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article's too POV
...for now; could anyone assess it? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My two cents - the accuracy dilemma about Croats and Serbs is observed in the History of Byzantine State by G. Ostrogorsky, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1995 - pages 104-105. G. Ostrogorsky, as the world renown Byzantine scholar and historian, concluded


 * - the accuracy was questioned only by a group of Croatian historians; among them are not mentioned Mandic nor Draganovic (priests) nor they were ever recognized as the Byzantine scholars


 * - there are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this book about Serbs and Croats - still this book is a reliable and valuable historic source about these two people which is confirmed (in their works) by a number of other Byzantine scholars (Grafenauer, Stanojevic, for example)


 * If there is a reason for an ecyclopeadic article about this book - then apparently the least important reason is to argue about its validity based on a small group of people (of which some of them are even not historians) - which was probably led here by some nationalistic agenda.


 * My proposal is - to completely remove this article or rewrite it - completely removing the paragraph about Serbs and Croats


 * I agree with this anon. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article, as written, is an attempt to support a nationalistic agenda - which has nothing to do with the very book. To see and understand the true values of this book - it is satisfying to read the first thirty nine pages (the chapters: Foreword to the First Edition, Foreword to the Second Edition, General Introduction, and Critical Introduction) of this book (Dumbarton Oaks Edition, Third Impression, 1993) and clearly to see that the "dilemma" about reliability of the Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio book - as to the Serbs and Croats - has no place at all. Also, very good point about this article, supporting the aritcle deletion, is given here []--Mario.radin 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to delete the whole article, just that section, which I have done. Although By the time I check back here, I expect some Serb or Croat will have restored it. Adam Bishop 06:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, I insist on deleting complete article. Any encyclopaedia is not a book review container. Moreover - the remained part is very poorly written and touches only fragments which are of minor importance.--Mario.radin 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's not going to happen. This is an important historical book. If the article is poorly written, you can help fix it. Adam Bishop 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect a Serb or Croat restore it in a referenced form. Clearly, the deleted part is relevant to the book. "Nationalistic agenda" is real life, and wikipedia describes it. It seems that our new colleague Mario, confuses the real-life POV with wikieditors' POV: the latter is banned, the former is welcome, if well-documented and expressed by notable people. `'mikka (t) 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the named notables are apparently you. Who are the others?--Mario.radin 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reductions of the existing text
1. De Administrando Imperio is the commonly used title of a scholarly work from c. 950 by Byzantine emperor Constantine VII.

Removed as false. See the Critical Introduction chapter, 1. Manuscripts subchapter.

2. Its name is translated as On the Administration of the Empire.

False again. There are only two editions of this nameless treatise of the Constantine VII bearing this title

3. Its original title was "Pros ton idion yion Romanon" ("To Our Own Son Romanus", Greek: "Προς τον ίδιον υιόν Ρωμανόν")

False again. The title is not known due to the fact that the original manuscript was lost. The earliest existing and available copy of this work is dated in between 1059 and 1081 years and does not bear any title. The text above is not a title - rather a dedication text

4. ... and was meant to be an internal and foreign policy manual for the use of his son and successor, the Emperor Romanus II.

False again. Read the Proem on the page 45 of the Moravcsik-Jenkins edition

5. It contains advice on running the ethnically-mixed empire as well as how to fight external enemies.

False again and again. There is no advice of that type at all. See the Proem again.

6. This was initially only one of the many writings of Constantine Porphyrogenitos, but it later attained considerable importance as a source for the earlier history of Europe.

Nonsense. See 2., 3., and 4. above.

7. ''For example, it describes the arrival of the Serbs and Croats to the Balkans in the 7th century, the early Kievan Rus', Great Moravia, the Varangians (whom they also called Rus and described as a different people from the Slavs[1]), as well as other groups such as the Pechenegs and Arabs. Moreover, it contains extensive discussion regarding the potential for alliances with various peoples of the Pontic steppe and the Caucasus to counter the power of the Khazar Khaganate.''

Pointless example, no any discussion 'regarding the potential for alliances'.

8. For this reason its original Greek title was "Περι εθνων" (Peri Ethnon) which translates as "About the Peoples".

Nope. See 2., 3., and 4. above

etc. etc. etc. --Matt Parlow 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well here's an idea, it's pretty crazy, but why don't you write a better article if you know so much about it? That would be more productive than removing large chunks of text and leaving the article with essentially no information. Or is that what you are trying to do, so someone will delete it? (Are you also Mario? I suppose not, since you can actually compose a sentence.) Adam Bishop 05:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not want to discuss this issue with you as long as you do not have any relevant knowledge about this work. I am a bad version of Mario - he is a noble man who apparently does not waste his time on a futile discussion.--Matt Parlow 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you refuse to discuss it the page is going to be reverted and you are going to be blocked just like Mario. Adam Bishop 13:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am refusing ignorants and pretenders - not a discussion. I have an idea of opening case against you - you are gravely abusing your admin license.--Matt Parlow 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten the article, hopefully to the satisfaction of all. If Mario.radio and Matt Parlow and whoever else still have problems with it, they will surely edit the article constructively. Adam Bishop 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha and his sockfarm have been blocked for good by myself and couple of other admins, so they presumably won't. Duja 07:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aw. I did all that work for nothing then :) Adam Bishop 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert it, then :-). Duja 13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Note
The statement

The earliest surviving copy was made by John Doukas in the late 11th century

is not correct. The copy was made most probably by the John Ducas' confidential secretary Michael. The manuscript belonged to the library of the Caesar John Ducas.


 * Pardon me for being extremely snappy here, but please fix this article yourself if it is incorrect. Adam Bishop 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No thank you. After reading overall discussion above and discovering that a serious and constructive critcism was suppressed by you and some people even blocked from editing this article, I'll limit my contribution to only this note - that is nothing more than a message to a reader of this article.

Reference vs. article

 * Note I've put back this subject/headline for two reasons; a) any criticism of the article is welcome - even if not fair (this one is very much fair) b) it will prompt other editors to fix, update, or complete the existing editorial of this article.--BarryMar 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am greatly surprised discovering that the only relevant reference for this article: Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio ... (MJ further) heavily disagrees with the text of this article. To be more particular:

Article: He produced many other works, including De Ceremoniis, a treatise on the etiquette and procedures of the imperial court;

MJ - page 13: ''... the great Book of Ceremonies compiled by the same indefatigable author''

Article: ''The work combines two of Constantine's earlier treatises, Περι εθνων (Peri Ethnon), concerning the histories and characters of the nations neighbouring the Empire, including the Kievan Rus', Arabs, Lombards, Armenians, and Georgians; and Περι θεματων (Peri Thematon), concerning recent events in the imperial provinces. To this combination was added Constantine's own political instructions to his son Romanus.''

MJ - page 11: ''The preface divides it into four sections: the first, a key to foreign policy in the most dangerous and complicated area of the contemporary political scene, ... the second, a lesson in the diplomacy to be ... ; the third and longest, a comprehensive historical and geographical survey of the most ... the fourth a summary of recent internal history, politics and organization, ...''

MJ - page 12: ''The work as we have it now is a rifacimento of an earlier work which corresponds to the chapters 14-42 in the present arrangement. This earlier work was a historical and antiquarian treatise probably entitled Περι εθνων.''

MJ - page 35: ... passages of D.A.I. agree so closely with parallel passages of the De Thematibus, attributed to the same imperial author...

Article: ''The work describes the Pechenegs, Kievan Rus', Turks, Bulgarians, Tatars, and Khazars to the north; the Arabs to the west and south and their expansion as far as Spain; and the Germans, Lombards, Venetians, Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, and Moravians to the east. As well as historical and geographical information, which is often confused and filled with legend, Constantine gives information on how to manipulate each nation against each other, rather than use imperial money and resources to wage war against them directly.''

MJ - ''does not have 'on how to manipulate' idea nor it comes from the very author. There are only descriptions of the cases resolved in the past - related to keeping power equilibrium toward some of nations (Pechenegs for example)''

Article: ''The earliest surviving copy was made by John Doukas in the late 11th century. As a result, it is preserved fully in only three manuscripts (two of which are now located in Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and the third in the Vatican Library), and only partially in a fourth (now located in Modena).''

MJ - pages 15, 21, 22, 23 and 33 ''P = Codex Parisinus gr. 2009 (between 1059-1081) - the only copy of the text that is believed to be the original; V - Codex Vaticanus gr. 126 (1509 - copy of the P manuscript) F = Codex Parisinus gr. 2967 ( between 1509-1529 copy of the V manuscript) M - Codex Mutinensis gr.179 (between 1560-1586 incomplete copy of the P manusctript)''

Article: The latest critical edition was first proposed by J.B. Bury, but was completed by Gyula Moravcsik and translated into English by Romily J.H. Jenkins in 1967.

MJ - page 4: ''Fifty years ago two scholars, the Hungarian R. Vari and the Englishman J. B. Bury, were already concerning themselves with the preparation of a new edition of Constantine. In briniging to fulfilment what they abandoned ...''

Article: Among its later editors was Jacques Paul Migne in the Patrologia Graeca.

MJ - page 26: The same rendering (i.e. Anselm Bandur's edition from the year of 1729) was introduced practically without alteration, by Bekker into his edition of 1840 and by Migne into the text of his Patrologia(1864).

'''As to the 'Wikipedia source' it is apparent that it is the re-typed pages of the prof. Jenkins' translation mutilated by replacing of the original toponyms by the names of places 'as they shall be known today'. This is a gross copyright violation and huge disrespect of the prof. Jenkins' work.'''

Last edit
I've removed these two links


 * Of the Pechenegs, and how many advantages accrue from their being at peace with the emperor of the Romans


 * „De administrando imperio“(www.montenegrina.net)(from 29. to 35. in Croatian)

The first link violates the US copyright law and the second one is just a Serbo-Croatian translation of the prof. Jenkins' editorial work - which did not point at the translation problems (medieval Greek - contemporary English) and, therefore, is not a valid reference.

Also, the totallydisputed tag is back. Not a single sentence in the existing text is correct. The whole article must be re-written by someone who is ready to read the 1993 edition of this book.


 * Mario? Is that you? Adam Bishop 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the first link violate US copyright law? The website says: "Permission must be obtained from the publisher for any use of this text for other than non-profit educational purposes." Does Wikipedia qualify as a non-profit educational purpose? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if ..
... an administrator should not commit a bad text then enter into edit war and blocking those who criticised him. But - this is Wikipedia and everyhing is possible ....

Also, ...

18:35, 22 July 2007 Briangotts (Talk | contribs) (4,118 bytes) (→External links - Restoring link, claim of copyright violation is laughable. This is a professor's faculty website on which he posts his own translation of the text.)

... I would advise Briangotts to read the link content before claiming anything. The professor claims that he got permission from the publisher to reproduce the text there - not that he posted his own translation of the text. The professor's claim related to the publisher's permission shall be posted along with the re-typed text - which was not done there. Anyway - I left the link - we shall give due credit to the professor.

4.249, Purger, Mario, whoever you are
Now that apparently the same person is back again as the anonymous IP 4.249.x.x, can I take this opportunity to once again ask him to just fix the page himself? I do not claim any expertise concerning this book; I've read the bits of it that were of interest to me at the time (which was now 7 years ago), and I picked it up again in an attempt to rewrite the article to everyone's satisfaction, for which I am being accused of not having read the book at all, which is quite ridiculous. I don't know who you are or what your problem is, but you are pretty good at massively wasting everyone's time, rather than make the effort to correct the article (without destroying it entirely). Adam Bishop 06:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ..and you shouldn't waste your breath...er...fingers for him, Adam. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's not here to fix anything, just to annoy. WP:RBI; the "B" is, however the difficult part here, as he's on a dynamic IP range and strikes from a different one every time. Duja ► 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would ignore, but he is right that the article would benefit from a rewrite... Adam Bishop 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see it - after a long time
I'm glad to see an implementation of J. Wales idea that everybody can contribute to Wikipedia:


 * This article is written by a person (A. Bishop) who apparently never read this book - rather picked up some garbage over the Internet and edited the article


 * The article 'creativity/originality/quality' is dutifuly guarded by another person who is Wikipedia administrator (J. Dujic) and which the only academic credentials are - a college drop-out.

So, this article is a garbage for almost five years. I am glad to see that the article 'quality' is maintained by these two Wikipedia 'notables' and that not a single person of a serious academic background in the medieval (Byzantine) history ever wanted to add to, or change a single word in this article.

--I am Mario (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to read that the author of this version is an administrator who read the book seven years ago (I'd say at the age of 20). How someone like him might even think that the text he wrote is worthwhile reading? What is the purpose of regularly removing the tag pointing at the article defects? A serious reviewer would need, at least. two days of reading the book - just to be ready of writing a good review. What is the purpose referencing an older book edition vs. the latest one?--72.75.20.29 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When the article is going to be re-written?
OK - I see it's bad. Anyone wanting to write a better version?--Remind me never (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI


 * 1) (cur) (prev)  23:08, 14 January 2009 Cplakidas (Talk | contribs) (4,898 bytes) (rv trolling) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (prev) 23:09, 7 January 2009 NikoSilver (Talk | contribs) (4,844 bytes) (remove idiotic tag with pathetic and uncivil excuse in talkpage by anon troll) (undo)--72.75.20.29 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Farsight
Farsight, I do not understand your objections to Remind me never's edits. Can you please explain? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My explanation was in the edit summary. He added lots of unsourced info, removed a citation needed tag and provided no citation to replace it, removed a citation and replaced it with a citation needed tag, and provided absolutely no explanation for doing so.  FYI, I reverted before I saw this on the talk page.Farsight001 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So your objections are total wikilawyering and are not about the actual content? What do you care? The edits were an improvement. (And I don't see where he removed a citation...did the article even have any citations before? You're the one removing the only reference...) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the wikilawyering, but he did remove a citation needed tag and not replace it with a citation, in addition to add other uncited info. It does appear that I misread what I was doing and it was I who accidentally removed the citation, not him.  I would hardly call them an improvement, IMO.  If you want to re-revert, I will no longer object.  I will, however, point out that Remind me never is a troll who has been giving people pretty much as much trouble as he can muster over on the Catholic sex abuse cases article.  He wants the article to be a scathing expose, and not an encyclopedia entry.  The point is that this may have caused me to not read his edit carefully enough.Farsight001 (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the two articles are obviously not related, and whatever problems there may be with that article are not relevant here. It seems that that is your only real reason for reverting him (of course we have a word for this too, wikihounding...) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're underestimating the extent of the trolling. I'm not hounding him.  I'm just keeping an eye on him because until this edit here, he had only made disruptive edits, from multiple different IP's on multiple articles.Farsight001 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Explanation
Who actually was the copyist of the only surviving copy is elaborated on page 16 of the book 1993 edition. Moravcsik (in his Critical Introduction chapter, which is a part of all editions of this book since 1967), in the footnote of this page, referenced G. Kolias' (title in Greek) (1938) pp. 300-305

I did not find it useful to reference the page counting on the reader's understanding that not referenced text is actually supported by this book.

As to the book content, its previous and removed by me description was partial, incomplete, inaccurate, and disordered. I gave short and systematic content description following Jenkins' General Introduction of this book.

Further, I removed reference supporting the assertion about the copyist. The explanation is given above. Previous contributor gave just particular names of the scripts. I do not know meanings of the '''gr. xxx''' suffix. Used it as-is. --Remind me never (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It means those libraries have organized their manuscripts according to language, and then numbered them (somewhat randomly). "Gr" are in Greek, "lat" are in Latin, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this explanation.--Remind me never (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What was redone and why
I completely rewrote Contents, Manuscripts (and editions), and Modern editions for being inaccurate and incomplete. All my knowledge here is based on the 1993 edition of this book (as the last one corrected by the authors) and on the Ostrogorsky's book.

Mentioning any edition that came after 1993 must be somehow justified for these editions, to my best knowledge, are just reprints of the older editions. If some is not just reprint, please, elaborate it here or, maybe, in the article.

If I do not see a substantiated objection, I'll put under Sources section just 1993 book edition.

--Remind me never (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)