Talk:Justin I

Untitled
Someone who knows the sources and the details needs to add something to this article about Justin's decree of 523 against the Arians; it's mentioned in articles on Pope John I and several others, but never at length. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

B class?
Another fascinating read and nice job. I've upgraded the rating from start to C-Class for now because I caught a couple of tiny typos and want to take another look through the article. But it's definitely B-Class. In addition to fixing the two minor typos, I took the liberty of tweaking the wording of one paragraph (par. 2 in Early career) to smooth it out a bit. (Feel free to revert if you disagree.) I also found myself wondering if switching the positions of the 2nd and 3rd sentences in par. 2 of the lead (if appropriate) might make that paragraph read more smoothly, but that may just be a style preference on my part. The words "Supposedly" (Succession, par. 2) and "probably" (Succession, par. 3; Foreign Affairs, par. 3) also seemed to jump out at me for some reason, but that may also just be a style preference. But on the whole, an enjoyable and enlightening read. (Had a strong image pop into my head when I read the "married to a mime" info.) I'm going to take a break to grab some lunch, and will take another look over it in about an hour or so.


 * Hi Many thanks for looking at this one. A bit long and dense. And probably plenty of things to pick up. I have been working too much at it and pretty much threw it in for assessment as soon as I thought that it was ready. I should have left it for a few days and then gone through it with fresh eyes.
 * Your changes were all good. Thanks for picking them up.
 * Your comments; all good points. I have tweaked the lead sentence to try to make the cause and effect clearer. "Supposedly" and "probably". Ha! You are used to a plethora of fairly objective sources. A chronicler born after Justin died and who never visited any of the places he did would count as a 'primary source'. And all accounts had their own axes to grind. I reckon that I could put one of those words in front of every sentence in the article.
 * But seriously. I have changed the "supposedly - you are right, it jars. Although given that there is uncertainty over the funding of the most recent and most publicised election in the world, how accurate accounts of rumours from 1,500 years ago of who paid whom what for what are is debatable. Similarly with the "possibly", which I have left. It may be 'obvious' why she changed her name, but as neither she nor Justin have left a record modern historians are guessing. And say so, curse them. So all I can do is report what they conclude... On the balance of probability, taking all things into account, allowing for what we believe may have been the customs of the time, place and social strata it seems, if pushed to a definitive point of view, more likely than not, yada, yada.
 * Married to a mime - read up on Theodora (6th century); it will make your eyes pop. And think about the accuracy of modern sources on similar topics. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Always happy to review. Glad to hear the changes were helpful. (The only things I found were minor because you had already improved the article significantly.) The lead reads much more smoothly now. So, thanks for taking a look at that. Your explanations re: using qualifying words is reasonable. After a second look through, I felt nothing jarring anymore in that regard. (Personally, I'm still hoping that someone will build a working time machine. I have a few questions for my own ancestors, as well as the subjects of my American Civil War-era research, that will likely only ever be answered by an "in-person interview".) The only things I found this time around were:
 * A phrasing issue in the Religion section, par. 2, last sentence: "where he shortly died" (again this is probably stylstic, but would "soon" work better than "shortly"?);
 * It's an acceptable construction, as in the quotation to the second definition here. Nonetheless, I overuse it, and if someone of your linguistic experience baulks at it it needs changing, so I have.
 * Ha! Just heard "shortly" on the BBC World Service: "He was shortly rearrested".
 * Broken links in citations: 14 (Consular List), 22 and 31 (Martindale), and 23-24 (Greatex); and
 * Replaced; done; done.
 * A broken link in the 4th item of the External links section (Smith, "Justinus I.", Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1870, v. 2, p. 677).
 * Moved to references after adding some material. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll change the rating to B-Class in just a moment, but just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this article as much or more the second time around. (Picked up a few things I'd missed.) I genuinely appreciate your inclusion of thought-provoking details about the lives of your biographical subjects because those details have a way of inspiring readers to want to learn more about your subjects. Bravo. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I am about to go out. I will sort these when I am back. Again thank you for your thorough job. I am pleased that you enjoyed it. Makes the effort worthwhile. You realise that after all that you have very little more to do to assess it for GA? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Acension - definitely need better sourcing
The account here, mostly taken from a website, is completely in contradiction with the account given (mostly by the historian Norwich) in the Anastasius I Dicorus article. The old traditional story that Norwich relates is highly dubious, but nevertheless, these two articles should be in sync. SME's and people with access to the proper Reliable Sources should work to co-ordinate this event's history using some solid references - Norwich's series of books on the BE are very good but apparently his chapter was not consulted in-depth. 50.111.61.54 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thracian name?
The aritcle says:


 * He was of Thraco-Roman or Illyro-Roman descent, spoke Latin and only rudimentary Greek, and bore, like his companions and members of his family (Zimarchus, Dityvistus, Boraides, Bigleniza, Sabbatius, etc.), a Thracian name. 

But "Justin" is not a Thracian name? Our article on the name Justin says "Justin is an anglicized form of the Latin given name Justinus, a derivative of Justus, meaning 'just', 'fair', or 'righteous'." Does this sentence mean to imply that Justin I had a Thracian name but used the Latin Justinus? If so, we don't say what that Thracian name is. --Jfruh (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Calque-up
“Caused the laugh of his environment?” Qwirkle (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)