User talk:Varangian


 * Name: Kristian
 * Nationality: Canada
 * Location: Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom
 * Contributing in Wikipedia since July 20, 2003
 * Security Consultant

Byz. aristocracy
Hello Varangian! Thanks for the comments, but I am a bit puzzled by what you wrote. It is clearly mentioned in the opening paragraph where this table came from (Taktikon Uspensky, Kletorologion, etc.), and most titles are cited from Bury's excellent book, which is precisely on the Kletorologion. Anyhow, the page still requires a lot of work. I intend to divide it into periods, namely late Roman (the senatorial ranks, namely clarissimi, illustres, etc.), middle Byzantine (essentially there), Komnenian (sebastoi etc) and Palaiologan (based on pseudo-Kodinos), where the difference between title and office vanishes. I would however appreciate any input or assistance, especially on how it reads to a third-party reader, i.e. if the text is understandable and the hierarchy, evolution and interrelation of ranks is clear. Regards, Constantine  ✍  20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Barbarians

 * Hey man. You have contributed to the article Bureau of Barbarians. Essentially, there is no factual or textual evidence AT ALL that there was ever a formalised spying bureau in Byzantium. There was a Bureau mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum of the fifth century [see Otto Seeck, Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae Laterculi Prouinciarum (Berlin, Apud Weidmannos 1876) pp 31-33.] But no mentions in any text after this point. So, unless you can dazzle me with some evidence substantiating you calling the bureau the "world's first intelligence agency", I think you are peddling fantasy. Varangian (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. But you have rewritten the article to deliberately push your point of view which is inappropriate. If you felt the article as written was biased you should have balanced the bias, not replaced it with your own bias.

I provided a list of references that characterize the department in the way that I had in the article, references which you chose to remove. Granted some of these are not as authoritative as I would like but it is hard to find a lot of research on the subject (hence the reason it has remained a stub article).

I appreciate your efforts to improve the article but I think you need to be more careful in your edits. I agree, though, that the history of this department and its role is very unclear and you obviously have more of a command of the history than I do. But the point of view you are pushing, while it may be correct, is not universally held.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, apologies for coming across as harsh, I shouldn't have been, and you ought to be commended for doing some reading and putting the links: this is far better than most people do. Still, your sources are not just weak but tenuous to the extreme. It is not that I am pushing a POV, but rather that I am writing to the existing evidence. One must not take things further than the evidence bears no matter how nifty an alternative might seem. All the best, Varangian (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at diplomacy and I recognize that your efforts are well-intentioned.

Nevertheless, my concerns still stand. We can quibble over semantics but statements such as "There is however no evidence" are Original Research unless you attribute them to an authoritative source which is reasonably representative of scholarly consensus on the subject. Otherwise it is inappropriate regardless of whether it is true. You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions from your own interpretation of this one source.

In any event, I agree that, as written, this was not a good article and that the sources are poor. But it was only a stub. Let's just make sure we are taking steps in a positive direction as we edit.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Bureau of Barbarians III=

Well, one cannot prove a negative: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, so you are right to say that one can not be absolute when saying the Bureau was not an espionage agency. Yet, the converse is that lack of evidence does not prove conspiracy. I think between Constantine and me we do not say defintely they were NOT, only noting that there is a lack of evidence to prove that it was, noting the weakness of the opposing argument, and suggesting the Agentes in rebus as a more likely, but still unlikely, candidate for the position. We do note the Bureau's intelligence (not espionage) function. And if you look, you'll it IS original research: we are quoting all the relevant and exisiting primary sources: Procopius, Theophanes, the Theodosian & Justinian Codes, and the main edited secondary texts by Bury, JP Migne, Khazdan, Brehier, etc. Our arguments are on firm evidenciary footings. KC Gustafson (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)''

Well, we're now getting into some subtleties:
 * Disproving negatives: The point is that knowledgeable authors do characterize the Bureau as an intelligence agency. So suggesting based on your own reading of texts that it is not would be inappropriate. Suggesting that there is disagreement and that the full role of the department was unclear is, however, very appropriate.
 * Intelligence vs. espionage: I think you are trying to draw some distinctions which, most likely, the Byzantines would not have even understood. I have not seen anyone state that the Bureau was conducting major Bay-of-Pigs-type operations or anything like that if this is what you mean. But they certainly gathered intelligence by spying on foreigners within the Empire. You can argue that their "spying" was not quite the same as the modern art of espionage which is true but it is clear it was far more sophisticated than simply happening to overhear a few things. The Bureau was clearly (to varying degrees) engaged in deliberate efforts to gain intelligence from and manipulate foreign assets and dignataries for the purpose of state security. You can say that their methods were not the same as or nearly so sophisticated as modern "intelligence agencies" but there was clearly an organized effort to accomplish similar goals.

Another subtlety which I think you are implying is that the Bureau was diplomatic in nature and so it is improper to assign it an identity as an espionage organization. If that is the case then I believe you are trying to cast things in the light of how modern governments organize themselves. Modern governments normally have explicit branches separately tasked with diplomacy and intelligence gathering. Of course, even in modern governments embassies are commonly used both for diplomacy and as bases of espionage. In Byzantine times, though, these things were even more murky.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchs
Hello Varangian, long time no see! I hope you are well! You are quite right, the patriarch articles are horribly deficient both in quantity and in quality. I do intend to bring them up to scratch eventually, but I cannot really help, because a) I have very limited time due to RL concerns and b) I have dozens of other articles I intend to work on/am working on, and c) frankly, patriarchs and religious matters in general are not my priority or forte. As for organizing a community effort, sadly the users who work on Byzantine articles are a handful, and no one really works on such pages either. Plus, there is really no forum for making such a request. You might try recruiting some editors at the Middle Ages, Greece and Orthodoxy Wikiprojects, but I'd be surprised if more than one or two users reply. It's as usual here at WP, if you want something done, best go ahead and do it yourself. I can help occasionally and point you to some sources, if you want, but that's about it for now. Constantine  ✍  13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hah, well, my contributions to most patriarch articles are slight copyedits, adding templates & categories, as I've done with most Byzantine-related articles. Nothing too demanding or time-consuming. When I say that they are not my forte, I mean it: the various religious disputes they were involved in, and which are essential in writing articles on them, bore me immensely. On your last question, the answer is "by using every free moment". Luckily I usually work on a computer, so it's easy to drop in and check WP rather often (as well as to have some handy sources ready in a flash drive) ;). Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are most certainly correct in what you say, and I agree 100% with you. The difference is, I had Orthodox religion classes at school, and had to learn tons of useless stuff of this nature, even during Byzantine history classes, which almost ruined the Byzantine period for ever for me. Don't get me wrong, all religions fascinate me, but in this case the dislike is practically visceral ;). Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celestial navigation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacking. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter of Constantinople, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodore I. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)