Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3

= Status = The following is a summary of where we are at with the FAR (as of July 20 2024). ~ Biz

Our goal with this FAR is to review all the content focused on WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SS and exploring the latest scholarship. We expect this to take up most of 2024. Length was the original issue driving the FARC but since the history rewrite that problem is now secondary.


 * Key
 * If you see a ❌ below, it means we need help!
 * means someone has already started work on this, which includes background reading and writing copy in their userspace, or there is nothing significant that needs another person involved.
 * ✅ means it's good enough, but if there are outstanding issues, please add it as a separate bullet point.
 * Content status
 * ❌ Lead. There was an RfC in 2023 on why historians differentiate from the Roman Empire. There are constant edit issues with people changing the first sentence. There has been a review by User:Remsense but otherwise no review and should be reviewed at the conclusion at the rest of the article.
 * Page reorganisation: Ongoing as content is reviewed
 * ✅ Nomenclature. This was rewritten by User:AirshipJungleman29, which itself was based on a previous copy edit and review of the scholarship by User:Furius and User:Biz before the FAR.
 * History: Review led by User:AirshipJungleman29
 * ✅ Early history (pre-518)
 * ✅ 518–717
 * ✅ 718–867
 * ❌ 867-1453
 * ❌ Geography and demography: Created. Was removed by another editor due to lack of content. Needs to be added for completeness.
 * Society. Review led by User:Biz
 * ✅ Transition into an eastern Christian empire
 * ✅ Slavery
 * ✅ Socio-economic
 * ✅ Women
 * ✅ Language
 * More work could be done to employ WP:SS by creating, updating related articles. Education deserves further expansion as well beyond the current
 * Government and military. Review led by User:Biz
 * ✅ Governance
 * ✅ Military
 * ❌ Diplomacy: Consolidated with previous history text moved here, otherwise not reviewed.
 * Law: Nomos emphysos evaluated. Section covers appropriate content but needs better scholarship.
 * ❌ Flags and insignia
 * ❌ Economy:
 * ❌ Daily life:
 * Arts: Review led by User:Aza24
 * ❌ Architecture:
 * Art
 * ✅ Literature
 * ❌ Music
 * ❌ 12th-century renaissance
 * ❌ Science and medicine:
 * ❌ Religion:
 * ❌ Legacy:
 * References: sfn and sfnm are being employed and sources reviewed as part of this. When review complete sources not used will be removed. Several sources need better formatting
 * FAR issues previously identified
 * ❌ Ensure all the issues listed in | SandyGeorgia's comments are addressed
 * ❌ Ensure all the images are sourced as per |identified here
 * Length and alignment
 * ❌ Ensure every section has WP:SS employed with a main article included and one paragraph summary that aligns with the lead
 * ❌ If no main article exists and content exceeds one paragraph, consider creation of new main articles

Military
The army started with the same basic organization as the classical Roman army, but between the 5th and 7th centuries, the cavalry became more important, the field armies took on more tasks, and the border armies were transformed into local militias.

Likewise, the navy was a direct continuation of its classical Roman predecessor, but played a far greater role in the defence and survival of the state than its earlier iteration. While the fleets of the Roman Empire faced few great naval threats, operating as a policing force vastly inferior in power and prestige to the army, command of the sea became vital to the very existence of the state, which has led several historians to call it a "maritime empire".

Clothing
In the early period, the traditional Roman toga was still used as formal or official dress. By Justinian's reign, this had been replaced by the tunica, or long chiton, for all people, over which the upper classes wore other garments, like a dalmatica (dalmatic), a heavier and shorter type of tunica. Colour and pattern were heavily employed, and there was production of richly patterned cloth, especially Byzantine silk, woven and embroidered for the upper classes, and resist-dyed and printed for the lower segments of society.

Relationship with Western Christendom
The Bishop of Rome was part of the Empire until the 8th century. It would eventually form as the Vatican state and be involved in western Europe's rivalry with the Empire.

History

 * As a general comment for the entire history section, most of this content belongs on History of the Byzantine Empire
 * As a general comment, there is no reason why this section needs to be different to the Roman Empire article and should serve as inspiration
 * It is organised under three headings Transition from Republic to Empire, Pax Romana, Fall in the West and survival in the East.
 * Kaldellis (2023) regards Diocletian and his reforms the start of the "new Roman Empire" and the different 'administrations' between east and west to start differentiating and coalescing from 364 (ie, independence)
 * Kaldellis (2023) regards Diocletian and his reforms the start of the "new Roman Empire" and the different 'administrations' between east and west to start differentiating and coalescing from 364 (ie, independence)


 * At 10,000 words, this section is too large. Compared to Roman Empire, it has way more headings. There is already an article History of the Byzantine Empire. All in all, we need a decision of how we want this section to look like and to what level of summary style it needs. Should we set a goal of making it 1000 words and let that guide how we approach it? Biz (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work so far, you two. I'm a bit focused on other big article projects atm, but I'm still on call here, reading Kaldellis and am happy to perform or review anything if that would be useful. Remsense  留  00:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Remsense no worries. I've gone through and tried to align the headings to the Roman Empire article. As part of this, I created a Geography and demography section. Might be a good one for maps that you can create? Could do with some additional content as well. Biz (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Biz, do you have a specific map request? I'm currently ingesting the material provided by some mapmakers I like on here, and would like to try my hand implementing them. Remsense  留  02:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's already quite a few maps on the article so not an easy question! But one thing that I think would be useful is being able to contextualise the change in territory from the time of Diocletian to 1453.
 * For example, there's the animation in the info box which is great, but even though its been slowed down it's still hard to grasp what the Empire was. Separately, the maximum territory map under Justinian does not give any indication for how long that was so and does not really give you a sense of what was the stable state.
 * Said another way, Space and time as an image :-) Something you can just stare at and at a glimpse understand the size of the Empire and the major changes that saw it reduce in size. While the GIF in the infobox theoretically does this, it actually doesn't. Biz (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an idea on how to do a map that gives better context. But do it in the reverse: when there was permanent loss by the empire. In one image it would give you the greatest extent and a sense of the stable state at different eras.
 * https://www.facebook.com/100072251715849/posts/pfbid02qyHinVyRpoTqPCHfLXRrCNoxTw4ohBGL797LPEWpTSr856wn1jFRYJ9k8oSNDaLtl/?app=fbl Biz (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although the section definitely needs to be drastically shortened, I think 1,000 words might be a bit too radical, as (to my mind) Byzantine history is less easily subdivided than that of the Roman Empire, and is twice as long. Perhaps 2,000–2,500, and then allow that to be cut down further if necessary? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. Let's aim for 2000-2500 then.
 * Now my next question -- how do we approach this. This is more a decision on headings. For context here is the current word count under their headings:
 * Early history: 1026
 * Justinian dynasty: 1081
 * Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
 * Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
 * Crisis and fragmentation: 491
 * Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
 * Decline and disintegration: 1282
 * Fall: 309
 * Political aftermath: 725
 * Biz (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For context, this is how Kaldellis and the Cambridge History approach it. The former in nine parts: 324–395, 395–518, 518–602, 602–685, 685–867, 867–1048, 1048–1204, 1204–1328, 1328–1461. The latter in three parts: c. 500–c. 700, c.700–1204, 1204–1492. I haven't got access to Treadgold at the moment.
 * Personally, I like the following scheme: pre-518, 518–c. 700, c. 700–867, 867–1204, 1204–"the end". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the right box already has periods defined which also keep it simple.
 * Early period (330–717)
 * Middle period (717–1204)
 * Late period (1204–1453)
 * Might be best we align with that. Biz (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, on a meta-organisational point of view, I think we could streamline the organisation of this page a bit. If we're cutting the history section from 10,000 to 2,500 words or less, we don't really need the section-by-section analysis section above, as it's all going to be rewritten anyway. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just started doing, and realised the error of this after so yes, I'll move it out.
 * As for your suggestion, let's start with that it's good enough and we can collapse or expand depending on the content. Biz (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As for next steps, should we copy the existing "history" and put it under in copy editing, and just start working on it? Biz (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We could just start reducing the article. No point beating about the bush. Is that fine ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok we should notify talk as the article is watched closely and this may surprise.
 * I might toy around with re-writes and post them here but otherwise cut away! Biz (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you three for your effort with this! If there aren't objections, I can offer to rewrite "The arts" sections as they are certainly full of issues. As for the history section, its worth considering that the "Political aftermath" would better belong in the legacy section.  Aza24  (talk)   08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections! And that’s a great suggestion Biz (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've made it to the end of the 11th century of Kaldellis (2023). @Remsense how are you tracking? I'm on track to finish the book this year. Developing some fantastic new perspective on the history and covering my knowledge gaps. @AirshipJungleman29, I commend you for taking this lead on the history rewrite. Up until today, I was feeling overwhelmed by the detail but now starting to see some themes we can weave as a broader narrative of this middle period between Justinian and the end of the Macedonian dynasty. Biz (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. I've exported my highlights. It's going to take years for people to unpack this book... Biz (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Early history section
I've finished the rewrite of pre-518 events. As this section was not that bloated, and even missed out some fairly important information, there hasn't been much cutting (only ~100 words of prose), but instead I've been updating the citations to Greatrex/Kaldellis/Treadgold, making sure of source-text integrity etc. To make sure there's no accusation of undue weight etc. I've tried to limit the amount of information reliant on just one source of the three to statements like. Copyediting would be appreciated, but please take care not to introduce implications or details not present in the cited sources. Next we have a seven-paragraph Justinian dynasty section, which I think could be reduced to two or three at most. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You've done a fantastic job, thank you. I agree with the approach. Not familiar with Greatrex's work but he looks solid.
 * That particular statement glad you picked up on it -- he wasn't. There was also Theodosius II (425) and, nominally, Marcianus (456–457), and Leo I (457, 461, 465–467, 472–473), during vacancies in the West.
 * I'm about to do start some traveling so soon won't be available for the next few days, but I'll be checking where I can. Biz (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a question about tense. If its historiography, shouldn't we use the present tense? When Augustus ruled, nothing changed to everyone else -- it's only in retrospect that we say it changed for example.
 * Another point: Constantine called the new capital Nova Roma, and it was later renamed. Is this being too pedantic? Biz (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These may be points to consider when the article has been cut down in size, so that we can judge how justifiable their explication is in the briefer context. Remsense  留  07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we (for example) compose a "Settlements" section... AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Languages
Status: Section has been reviewed, with just a few more source checks for the existing content left

* This section is 519 words
 * It does not talk about the complex interplay between Latin and Greek's evolution
 * It does reference the use of Latin for power but with inadequare sourcing
 * It makes reference to how Greek was used before and how it became more entrenched by the state, but does not explain why
 * It does reference how Latin faded out and how it was used for ceremony but does not explain why and how Greek sustained itself
 * It does reference other languages in the empire
 * It has three images, one of coptic and one of an 11th century manuscript; also one of spoken Greek in 1910.
 * This image talks about the different types of Greek but not in the article
 * It does not reference the different stages of how Greek was gradually adopted by the state following 212 other than a mention to Leo's legislation
 * It could do with a review and update to the scholarship. Below for reference:
 * "Apart from the Imperial court, administration and military, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the decline of the Western Empire was Greek," Millar 2006, pp. 2, 15; James 2010, p. 5; Freeman 1999, pp. 431, 435–37, 459–62; Kaldellis 2007, pp. 2–3; * Kazhdan & Constable 1982, p. 12; Norwich 1998, p. 383.
 * I've reviewed these sources before, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire/Archive_15#Differentiation_between_%22Ancient_Rome%22_and_Byzantine
 * Millar, James, Freeman, Kaldellis (2007), Kazhdan are weak references for this statement and should be removed. Norwich is not a reputable academic.
 * Millar 2006, p. 279.
 * Bryce 1901, p. 59; McDonnell 2006, p. 77; Millar 2006, pp. 97–98; Oikonomides 1999, pp. 12–13.
 * Oikonomides 1999, pp. 12–13.
 * Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," p. 560.
 * The Inheritance of Rome, Chris Wickham, Penguin Books Ltd. 2009, ISBN 978-0-670-02098-0. p. 90
 * Apostolides 1992, pp. 25–26; Wroth 1908, Introduction, Section 6
 * Sedlar 1994, pp. 403–440.
 * Harris 2014, p. 12
 * Beaton 1996, p. 10; Jones 1986, p. 991; Versteegh 1977, Chapter 1.
 * Campbell 2000, p. 40; Hacikyan et al. 2002, Part 1
 * Baynes 1907, p. 289; Gutas 1998, Chapter 7, Section 4; Comrie 1987, p. 129.
 * Byzantine Civilisation, Steven Runciman, Hodder & Stoughton Educational (1933) ISBN 978-0-7131-5316-3, p. 232
 * Harris 2014, p. 12
 * Beckwith 1993, p. 171; Halsall 1998; Oikonomides 1999, p. 20.
 * Kaldellis 2007, Chapter 6; Nicol 1993, Chapter 5.

Transition into an eastern Christian empire
Status: Largely reviewed, except for the new sources added on slavery recently
 * This is a new sections, from content that was moved out of history
 * It's been rewritten to focus on the political change and the religious change which along with language are the main aspects that distinguish Byzantium from the Roman Emopire. A recent editor added a paragraph on slavery which is also appropriate and is being reviewed

Women
Status: initial review has been performed with notes below
 * Liz James in 1997 wrote groundbreaking essays; followed by Alice-Mary Talbot, Angeliki Laiou, and Judith Herrin. Leonora Neville appears to be the most recent historian to cover this topic, but this entire field of women appears to be a new field of study so quite embryonic.
 * None of these historians appear as sources. There are five sources, four by men (Guglielmo Cavallo, Jonathan Harris (historian), Paul Stephenson, Marcus Louis Rautman) and the fifth Lynda Garland
 * Reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_Byzantinistss and two historians that are women cover gender in addition to the above: Averil Cameron, Leslie Brubaker,
 * women's rights in comparison to men and other societies should be at minimum what is covered
 * the public presence of women professionally, in particular politics and the economy should also be covered in a way that is complimentary to the history section (ie, Theodora, Irene of Athens, as well as the sole rulers of later years)
 * The Roman Empire article instead has subheadings of Legal status with Women in Roman law, Slaves and the law, Freedmen under it which may be a better way to give balanced coverage on this one important dimension for women
 * The discussion of Gender (and how Leonora Neville covers it) is a more contemporary way to discuss women, but it then opens it up to Eunuchs, historians covering homosexuality, and western perceptions of Byzantium as effeminate.
 * "Not enough people study Byzantine gender for there to be much consensus"
 * "The effect of this pervasive misapprehension of the data is perhaps greater on the study of masculinity because scholars have hardly ever taken male gender as a topic for inquiry. We tend to study women, sometimes eunuchs, but most of the time simply “Byzantines,” by which we mean Medieval Roman men. We generally have not been attuned to how texts denigrate or praise a man’s character through descriptions of his performance of gender. Stories that I would see as designed to exalt or denigrate a man’s masculinity appear in our scholarship as just stories about things that really happened. When we start paying attention to masculinity as a category of analysis, I expect that some of our basic political narratives will change.""
 * "Most working Byzantinists think the old derogatory images of Byzantium have long been recognized as wrong and are no longer relevant. Few of them think that their research has much of anything to do with gender, which is still occasionally confused with the history of women. Assumptions and prejudices of which we are unconscious are the ones most likely to deceive us. Given that most Byzantinists think gender has no bearing on their work, they are likely to be oblivious to the ways assumptions about Byzantine gender play out in their research. We have not begun to confront the reality that the Western denigration of Byzantium is a discourse about gender."

Comment:
 * There needs to be something, somewhere that covers women's socio-economic rights (which were equal to men), political rights and vocations (both not equal) as this is the original intent of this section. I propose mimicking the structure of the Roman Empire article and rewriting this section with more recent sources I propose making a new heading, like "People and their rights" and break it out as socio-economic, political, and vocations and professions with mention of women, men, slaves, coloni, and eunuchs in each section where appropriate. The Roman Empire article is using a Marxist approach which is out-dated. Biz (talk)
 * the topic of gender seems to be a topic in itself different from the above and what is driving the scholarship. It deserves its own section but I'm concerned about Leonora Neville's opinion that there is not enough consensus on this emerging field. Do we still cover it? Biz (talk)
 * "What can we say about women's lives in Byzantium?", asks the jacket copy. From this volume, we can find out some things about women's lives, but that does not seem to be the primary purpose of the editor or of a number of the authors" is the review by Angeliki Laiou of Women, Men and Eunuchs; Gender in Byzantium by Liz James Biz (talk)
 * The iconoclasm is a major topic we need to cover in this article, which also is a major reason we start calling the Byzantine Empire as such from the 8th century, and a discussion of gender needs to be covered Biz (talk)
 * This might be better placed under a section for Historiography Biz (talk)