Talk:Byzantine Greeks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

Byzantine Greeks and Byzantines are both equal neologisms. Romans, i.e. Romaioi was their native name. NPOV is to present all of them into the infobox. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, medieval Bulgarians called them "Greeks". This might be a good addition for the article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, as I said on my comment that I reverted you, Anglo Saxons is a synonym to the English, Hellenes to Greeks, Iberians to Spanish, Alamans to Germans etc. do we include it in the respective articles? We have the most wide used term in English plus the native name. Otherwise we can start including it to other articles. If it was an improvement and not POV pushing I would be more than happy to agree. Best Othon I (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Othon I, I am reading your message and edit summaries of your recent reverts and I would like to ask you if you could you please explain (a) what makes you think that "Byzantine Greeks" is "the most wide used term in English" for the Rhomaioi of the Byzantine Empire and (b) in what sense you consider the term "Byzantines" a POV name for this population group, when compared to "Byzantine Greeks". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

More than happy to explain and thank you for your comment. Ideally I agree with you for the Rhomioi part, the should have been called Rhomaioi, however, it’s common knowledge that another name has been assigned from herr Wolf. I am based on the works of Khazhdan for Oxford, of Ducellier, of Arweiller, of Paparigopoulos, of Sathas and of Runciman. All of them who are considered experts and more or less leading figures in the field where, except Byzantine Greeks, they call them Greeks. You would reply for sure about Kaldellis and Stouraitis but, this is were I see that you cherry picking your sources that serves your POV, for you own reasons don’t really care. Hope that helps. And please coordinate with Jindigby... Best Othon I (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Othon I, apologies for the relatively late reply -- there are more pressing issues irl, whose resolution naturally takes priority.

As I see matters, the most significant point of disagreement that has to be resolved in the present discussion focuses on which is the NPOV appellation for the self-styled "Rhomaioi" of the Byzantine Empire -- I thus place a NPOV tag in the article until the issue is resolved. It seems that, based on "more or less leading figures in the field" of Byzantine studies, you suggest that this is "Byzantine Greeks". To support this you say you are "based on the works of Khazhdan for Oxford, of Ducellier, of Arweiller, of Paparigopoulos, of Sathas and of Runciman", all of whom "call them [=the "Byzantines"/"Rhomaioi"] Greeks". It is correct that these are historians that are considered as "experts and more or less leading figures" in the world of Byzantine scholarship and I could not possibly disagree that their contribution has been very important for advances made in the study of the Byzantine world. However, this is not tantamount to accepting that the views they held on any particular issue are identical with the current consensus in Byzantine studies. To start with, the floruit of all the scholars you mention lies in the past (Alexander Kazhdan and Sir Steven Runciman are now deceased, while Sathas and Papparigopoulos lived in the 19th century! Appealing to their views in a discussion regarding contemporary scholarly consensus it the equivalent of invoking Droysen as a representative of contemporary consensus in a discussion about an issue of Hellenistic history.)

In other words, and as stated in WP:AGE MATTERS, "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed" and we are prompted "to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." It so happens that such a development has taken place in the last few years as far as the issue of the self-understanding, i.e. the identity, of the "Byzantines", the soi-disant Rhomaioi, is concerned, with the emergence of a new paradigm, which takes seriously their own linguistic practices, in particular their own self-description as Romans, and has been elaborated in recent studies (monographs, articles and essays in edited volumes, cited in the article and also in previous discussions in this talk page above) specifically devoted to exploring the issue of Byzantine Roman identity.

Again per the same WP policy, we should scrutinize the level of acceptance of a new approach that purports to have replaced a "long-standing consensus" by referring to "reviews that validate the methods used to make [a new] discovery". In addition to these studies and positive references to them by other contemporary scholars, I have referred to two complementary descriptions of the contemporary state of the art of Byzantine scholarship regarding the issue of Byzantine identity by Ioannis Stouraitis who verifies that the "established consensus" on the issue of Byzantine identity does not call into question their Romanity, but that it rejects the view that they were "Greeks".

Are there any other recent discussions of contemporary scholarship on this issue (Stouraitis's articles were published in 2014 and 2017), published in venues of at least equal scholarly standing, that provide a contrasting account of the matter? If yes, I would be happy to learn which are these accounts that you may have in mind. If no, it appears that, against your accusation of "cherry-picking", the approach that takes seriously the self-description of the "Byzantines" as Romans is indeed the current consensus and that references in the article to the Byzantines as "Greeks" or "Byzantine Greeks" should be removed (especially in sentences where this POV-ish misdescription of the "Rhomaioi" as "Byzantine Greeks" is not even to be found in the sources cited as references) or appropriately explained and/or modified and the article's title should also change to the much simpler and less POV "Byzantines". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Questions, do you imply that Kazhdan is not reliable? What about Arweiller? or Ducelier? What about Frankopan? Is he also out of date? Is that Stouraitis and Kaldellis fit your point of view thats why you cherry picking them? Your recent edits here [1], [2] clearly so that you are NPoV pushing because you feel uncomfortable with the current state of affairs in these articles hence you got immediately reverted, especially on the last edit on the Greeks article where someone else say that same thing to you. The article is finely sourced, it is completely nonsense that is not neutral. It states clearly the self identification Roman. Please feel free to make a suggestion here and achieve a consensus before you add again material vaguely sourced claiming that is the current consensus. I am more than happy to participate to this discussion. Until then the article is perfectly fine as-is. Best Othon I (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Othon I, I have not claimed that the work of those Byzantine historians is in toto unreliable, not do I wish to make any claims against your opinion that the article is "finely sourced", but I have argued above that when it comes to this particular issue presently under discussion, contemporary scholarly descriptions of the relative prevalence of contrasting interpretations of the identity of the Byzantines demonstrate that the current majority opinion among Byzantinists is not the one that considers them as "Greeks", but the one that takes seriously their own self-description as Romans. It is not merely that an ensemble of scholars publishing in recent years in highly reputed venues of scholarly publication have put forward this view, but also that secondary sources that discuss contrasting viewpoints regarding the matter of "Byzantine" identity, describe the view that the "Byzantine" Rhomaioi *were* Romans and not Greeks as being upheld by a majority or an "established consensus" of scholars in the field.

Wikipedia's policy on balancing contrasting viewpoints prompts the encyclopedia's authors to take into consideration such presentations of the relative prominence of scholarly viewpoints in secondary literatyre. This is the reason I think that describing the Byzantine "Rhomaioi" as "Byzantine Greeks" in this article leads to the article not being in compliance with Wikipedia's policy regarding the maintenance of a NPOV [in other words and pace your affirmation of this proposition the article is not "perfectly fine as-is"] and, hence, I do indeed "feel uncomfortable with the current state of affairs" in the article and this is the reason I have initiated this discussion. As a minority viewpoint among scholars (that the Byzantines were "Greeks") cannot be taken as the baseline of presenting the matter to Wikipedia's readership, (I repeat myself) references to the "Byzantine Greeks" should be replaced with the simpler, much more common and less POV-ish "Byzantines". I hope that this does not seem vague to you.

You might want to consider bringing as recent and as reputable reliable sources as those to which I refer but offering a contrasting description of the contemporary prevalence of different viewpoints in the field, in the spirit of the encyclopedia's policy [incidentally I think it would be helpful (at least for me) to refer to specific pages and passages of scholarly publications that you may have in mind instead of merely invoking names of scholars], but you are of course free to abstain from this discussion if you are not "happy to participate" in it or to continue labeling my very arguments as POV-pushing or proclaiming them as "completely nonsense" -- though, as I am sure you know, WP guidelines again suggest exploring other argumentative pathways for making one's case in a talk page. In any case, the suggestion I make (and that you ask me to "feel free to make") is the one in my message above: that this misnomer ("Byzantine Greeks"), which is at variance if not in direct contrast with the majority/consensus view of experts in the field, as evidenced by its description in secondary sources, be replaced in this article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that we have a misunderstanding. I haven’t claimed that Byzantine Greeks did not self identify as Rhomaoi, on the contrary, I am actually in favor of clarifying that in the article which is clearly clarified hence I do not understand why you are insisting on placing POV tag. However, there are a ton of sources in the article and the ones that you placed here that clearly state that their self identification was Rhomaoi, but, the majority were of Greek culture and ethnicity especially towards the end of the empire. You cannot turn a blind eye to that. There is no consensus that Roman is an ethnic identification but rather a form of citizenship and that they were not Greeks, two scholars is not consensus. Please, if you would like to Change the name to Byzantines, and remove any reliable source which are numerous, that are connecting them to Greeks and Ottoman Greeks, in my personal opinion an absurd claim, feel free to request a change and the community will vote for sure. Best Othon I (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Othon I, first, I would be thankful if you could please stop ascribing to me proposals that I have not put forward (e.g. "If you want to remove any reliable source which are numerous that are connecting them to Greeks and Ottoman Greeks [...]"). Second, disagreements in WP are not resolved by a vote -- Wikipedia is not a democracy -- , but by achieving consensus primarily via the exchange of opinions in talk pages.

Third, I am afraid that there is truly a misunderstanding. The POV problem I have described does not have to do with a supposed absence of mention that the "Byzantines" called themselves Rhomaioi. As I have written above, it stems from the fact that, even though this important piece of information is mentioned in the article, the Rhomaioi are presented and described throughout the article (including in its title) as "Byzantine Greeks" -- even in sentences where the sources cited speak merely of "Byzantines". To present the Greek-speaking Christian Rhomaioi as "Greeks", i.e. (in Stouraitis's words) to "question the[ir] self-designation" as Romans by presenting them as being (in Neville's worlds) "Greeks who thought they were Romans", goes against what has become (per Stouraitis) the "established consensus in the field", which fails to detect the existence of a "Greek" consciousness or ethnicity among the Greek-speaking Rhomaioi/"Byzantines" from Late Antiquity onwards during the Middle Ages. You assert that there is not a consensus that the Rhomaioi were not Greeks, but this is refuted by secondary sources cited -- again, these are not "two scholars" (in my last message only, I cited passages from the works of six!!), but a number of recent works.

WP policy, to which I referred in my previous message, prompts us to determine the prominence of any scholarly viewpoint by resorting (not to your assertion or mine, but) to "sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". I have thus provided passages from two recent articles from a Byzantinist (Stouraitis) which describe the view that the Greek-speaking Christians of the Middle Ages, the Rhomaioi, were Greeks as being either a minority view or as not being compatible with the "established consensus" which considers them Romans, as they called themselves. As Stouraitis proceeds to explain in his description of ongoing contemporary discussions among experts, the exact trope of this Roman identity (i.e. whether and during which period it was a civic/national identity, an ethnic identity and so forth) is a matter that is still under investigation among historians. However, these discussions operate starting from the common premise, the "established consensus", that the self-designation of the Greek-speaking Christian Rhomaioi as Romans is not a species of false consciousness of some supposed "Greeks", but their actual identity. You are free to consider this "absurd" and reject it as such, but --per WP policy-- the encyclopedia's article should be written from the point of view of the consensus among experts and not from a minority POV. Hence, if the article is to conform with WP policy about maintaining a NPOV, the Rhomaioi of the Byzantine Empire should not be presented as "Greeks", as is currently done in this article, but with their more common and less POV-ish historiographical appellation, that is "Byzantines". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

My reference to voting has to do with the name changing. You can suggest a new title for the article and usually the users agree or oppose. This is how it has been done since I started here. Not sure why you took it wrong. Anyway, WP:TITLE, WP:PAGENAME, WP:NPOVNAME etc. give guidelines to this. I understand were you coming from, but the main issue of your claim is that yuo are based only on a few scholars presenting it as the current consensus. None is saying that Byzantine Greeks or Byzantines are not Romans, it is reflected in the article very well. Your issue is that you feel uncomfortable because it contains the name "Greeks" in the title. This what is shown as well from your latest edits, I am not the only one who disagrees e.g. Edit in Greeks article which you tried to include the same thing and you got reverted immediately. I disagree with you, it is crystal clear, other users as well. Byzantine Greeks is a common term and not a POV name, it is also established in historiography since if not Byzantines, scholars just calling them Greeks and is backed with many sources from leaders in the field.Your phrase "the encyclopedia's article should be written from the point of view of the consensus among experts and not from a minority POV." is complete invalid since you are the one who is WP:CHERRYPICKING Stouraitis and Kaldellis and present it as current consensus. But feel free to suggest a new name for the article. Best Othon I (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119:, your suggestion for a name change to Byzantines who identified as Rhomaioi (Romans) is sensible in light of the scholarship and much that you have presented. These kinds of articles exist here and there that are in need of being addressed. Another similar article is Greek Muslims. It used to be known as Greek speaking Muslims (the neutral term that scholarship uses), as Grecophone Muslims in no way identify as Greeks but as Turks (and interestingly they still use appellations like Romeika for the language), nor do modern day Greeks consider them as Greeks. Yet the article name now bears a title that is not reflective of the scholarship and wrongly asserts identification with a people which they never have identified with. So Ashmedai 119 there are articles like this, if you think that going ahead with a name change here is the way to go to be in line with scholarship and Wikipedia policy, i will support it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I bring to your attention the introduction from the same article in Bulgarian. I think you will be interesting: The Byzantines, or as they called themselves in Greek: Rhomaioi ('Рωμαίοι = Romans), were the Greek-speaking subjects of the Roman Empire, and later of the Eastern Roman Empire (Medieval Romania) called post-factum by the historians Byzantine Empire, by the name of the city of Byzantium (Byzantine), later Constantinople, which became the capital of the Roman Empire in 330 AD. The Latin-speaking population, both in the Roman West and in the Roman East, had been called Romans (Romani). Although relatively rare in the Eastern Roman chronicles before 1453, the stylized term "Byzantines" implied only the inhabitants of Constantinople. The inhabitants of the city, however, were perceived as Romans, and not as "Byzantines," a term that was not relevant in the then-current reality. Under certain terms, the term "Byzantines" (when referring to the inhabitants of the whole Empire) can be considered as a neologism, which dates back only to 1557, i.e. was used for the first time by Western historiography a century after the conquest of Constantinople (sic!) by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The term "Rhomaioi" (along with "Romanes" in Latin, "Rum" in Persian, Arabic, Turkish and Coptic, "Ромеи" in Bulgarian and so on) is in fact itself a polytonym rather than an ethnonym . After 212 AD, ethnic origin was not essential to the subjects of the Roman Empire. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? You can't be serious. Khirurg (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Resnjrari, I thoroughly believe that you must be in some kind of confusion to not be able to see the difference between the article that you have placed. The article of Byzantine Greeks is backed with various reliable sources which are calling the Rhomaioi, just Greeks (see below). In anyway, modern Greeks are self identifying themselves as Romans/Rhomioi as well, were the "Greek Muslims" as Turkish throughout the history. I wouldn't disagree to change that article because your claim has a basis but, changing the name of this one, were Ashmedai 119 proposes a change, that he applied various times in articles like Greeks like here and got reverted immediately is a tantamount endorsement of his POV which I am really disappointed that you do so. Othon I (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Othon, modern day Greeks come from multiple ethno-linguistic backgrounds (i.e Arvanites/Orthodox Albanians, Aromanians/Vlachs, Bulgarians/Macedonians or Slavic speakers) in addition to the larger Orthodox Grecophone community (the Rhomaioi) that came together to create modern Greek (Hellene) identity from 1821, initially under the banner of Orthodoxy. It was during this time onward that Orthodox Grecophone people began switching their self appellation of Rhomaioi (i.e Romans) to Hellene (i.e Greek) [1]. Muslim Grecophone people never followed that trajectory and have referred to themselves as Turks to this day (the Wikipedia article title on them is very problematic to say the least, similar to this Grecophone community of the past). Both things are related because Byzantines only identified with mainly the linguistic aspect of Greekness, but referred to themselves as Rhomaioi (Romans) [2]. Hellene was something completely different to both Byzantines and later even for a part of the Grecophone community which became Muslim. I agree with Ashmedai 119 comment's and if the editor wishes to proceed with such a name change i would be included to support it. Most other Wikipedia projects have only Byzantines or Rhomaioi (the words as given in their respective languages) as the name of these pages without the additional word Greeks. @Jingby also made good comments about solving the impasse in the article by citing neutrally written material.Resnjari (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You are free to support your preference for sure. What I don't understand is what the ethnic composition of the modern Greeks has to do with article. It seems that it is an obsession of yours. Following your logic, Arvanites never called themselves Albanians but you just assigned that name to them, they were just Albanian-speaking. However, it is known in the historiography says that they have Albanian origin. You just contradicted yourself. Same for here, I am full aware that these people self identified as Roman, I even had great grand fathers myself idenfying as such, I know what is it but, modern historiography treats them as Greek. The are many reliable and secondary sources which you can find in this article from Kazhdan, Arweiler and other leading figures in the field. Rhomios is a synonymous to Christian Greek. Apart from that the term Greek was an exonym of the Romans from Western Europeans.. I have said about 4 times that Ashmedai is free to request any change to the article, never said to not do that, please be civil and put false words in my mouth. Best Othon I (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from saying so and so editor has a "obsession". @Ashmedai 119 brought up points that are sensible and i agree with them. Also i did not assign the name Albanian to Arvanites, if you noticed i placed the "/" to indicate differing names for peoples of similar ethno- linguistic groupings. Arvanites were Albanian speaking in the same sense that Rhomaioi people were Grecophone. On Arvanites having an Albanian origin i am surprised that you now refer to this considering that you opened a whole thread on English Wikipedia and made a very big deal involving administrators and so on about how German and Albanian Wikipedias should not in any way represent Arvanites as having connections to Albanians last year [3]. Anyway no one denies that Byzantine Grecophone people stemmed out from ancient Grecophone people who called themselves as Hellenes. Byzantine Rhomaioi never denied this themselves. So referring to the origin of a people via scholarship is fine but it still does not take away that they did not identify as Hellenes themselves and refused that identification. The designation of Hellene gave way to Rhomaioi after Grecophone people of antiquity became Christians. Hellene was associated with pagans among Byzantine Grecophone people. The revival of the term Hellene among the bulk of Grecophone people (only among Orthodox Christians, Muslims did not embrace the term) of the modern era happens after 1821, and by extension Christian Aromanian, Slavic and Arvanitic speaking people also embraced the term under the umbrella of Orthodoxy creating the modern Greek nation. @Jingby offered a neutral solution to solving some of the wording in the article and if @Ashmedai 119 wants to initiate a page move to bring it line with other Wikipedia projects, i support it.Resnjari (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

First, I would be grateful if you presented the events happened last year in a truthful manner and not your interpretation. Arvanites have been presented as an Albanian minority in Greece which is a tantamount endowrsement of Albanian nationalistic PoV hence I brought that hoax into the attention of the community. Next, again don’t really understand what the morn Greeks have to do with the article. I am aware again about the self identification of Rhomioi/Greek people, I am one of them at the end of the day. But trying to disassociate Greeks from Rhomaioi when this connection is backed with many reliable and secondary sources, I am pretty sure that it won’t work. Ashmedai can present anything that he prefers but for sure for this, he won’t have my consent.Othon I (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it was just your view as in perceiving something as a "hoax", and admins really gave little if any attention toward it. However you have gone on about "Albanian nationalist POV" and it associating Arvanites as Albanians, yet associating the Rhomioi as Greeks (i.e Hellenes) is also something similar. Byzantines were Grecophone people who did not identify as Hellenes, a people and concept they associated with ancient pagans and not themselves. You can't have your cake (by going on about nationalistic POV when it comes to one community) and eat it too (by saying its 'different' with another). Its either one or the other.Resnjari (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand you confusion, thats why below you can see various references, reliable and secondary from leading figure in the field confirming this connection. Romioi were the Greeks before become modern Greeks as similar for Albanians who were calling themselves Arbers and then Sqiptars. Arbers never identified themselves as Shqiptars. You must stop contradicted yourself because we will need to change the whole WP with your logic. Your personal opinion is thin air... But arguments of ignorance is a common incident is WP. Please come back with something more serious than thin air and stop ignoring the references placed below. Best Othon I (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) "Byzantine Greeks" is widely used and well established as a term, e.g. "byzantine+greeks"+-wikipedia&oq="byzantine+greeks"+-wikipedia&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1719.3870.0.4085.12.12.0.0.0.0.100.752.11j1.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.ImE-T8ecQWY. "Byzantines" is vague and can refer to any of the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, very many of which were not Greek. By Ashmedai's logic, we would have to rename "Mycenean Greeks" to just Myceneans, etc...I would vigorously oppose any move requests. Khirurg (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Most other Wikipedia projects either employ the terms Byzantines or Romaioi without adding "Greek" to the name, thereby signifying objectivity and neutrality in naming the topic. Ashmedai 119 points are sensible and valid. We don't have articles called "Italian Romans", but Romans etc etc.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me help you there "is" one article: Latins (Italic tribe).Alexikoua (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't are less what "most other wikipedia projects" use. Using other wikipedia projects as an argument is about as weak an argument as it gets. Khirurg (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire was a millennium long political entity thus the ethnic & geographic composition changed from time to time, even the correspondent terminology. For example "Albanians" in medieval Greek were the inhabitants of the Caucasus era, 11th cent. Turks were called "Persians" & "Helene" was an alternative term to "Byzantine/Romaioi" in post 12th century official correspondence. It's OR to offer generic comments that Hellenes were the Pagans in the late medieval age. This page move proposal ignores some essential facts.Alexikoua (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does like Byzantines not identifying as Hellenes. Most other Wikipedia projects have either Byzantines or Romaioi as their name for this topic without the additional term of Greek.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If that's the strongest argument you can present then something is problematic: Scholars have observed that during the Nicene period the term “hellene” came into general use among Byzantine intellectuals as a synonym for “Roman.” [[4]]. As I've stated terminology was of dynamic nature (for example Albanians in early medieval Greek were located in Caucasus nothing to do with the Albanians of the late medieval era)) 19:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that's not my argument. Others have referred to initiating a possible page move. I merely would partake in the following discussion and vote accordingly. Also how Byzantine intellectuals viewed themselves (a small group of people) to the Orthodox clergy and Grecophone populace is a different matter. What is certain is they did not identify as Hellene but Rhomaioi (i.e: Romans). This is not contested. Because of these matters, like most other Wikipedia projects who do not have any ethnic qualifier when it comes to the Byzantines (in the naming of the page) the same neutral approach can be observed here. With the Albanian example i fail to see where your going with this. Byzantines called other peoples as they wished and so did thier successors the Ottomans -of whom a large chunk of their populace came of old Byzantine stock. In this article is about Byzantines, not their world view of other non-Grecophone people. On themselves they had an awareness of who was who and what was what. Byzantines did not define themselves as Hellenes but Rhomaioi, a designation that continued until the early 1800s among (Orthodox) Grecophone people.Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The above is very good example of where this "logic" leads us if taken to its conclusion: Rename "Greeks" into "Orthodox Grecophone", or "Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians". Khirurg (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, just to Byzantines, as most other Wikiprojects have it. The main Greeks article on Wikipedia is that Greeks. The only article requiring a change with qualifiers like "speaking" is the Greek Muslims one. It used to be Greek speaking Muslims, a term that scholarship uses for those communities in both the Balkans and Anatolia and is neutral considering they identify themselves as Turks, while Greeks don't view them as Greeks. Adding qualifiers like "speaking" to other Grecophone communities in English Wikipedia would not suffice as they identify with the Greek world. Anyway if other editors decide to initiate a pagemove here then i'll partake in that lengthy conversation. In the end the ball is in @Ashmedai 119's and @Jingby's court. I leave it up to them.Resnjari (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

We do not decide article names based on what other Wikiprojects use. Khirurg (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No we don't but it certainly is a good indicator at times as to why most have opted for a certain name like Byzantines without qualifiers while a very small handful have opted for something else. Obviously a pagename move would involve the factors at play on this page and this wikiproject. The ball is in @Ashmedai 119's and @Jingby's court if one of them wishes to proceed.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Byzatine Greeks is the most appropriate title for this article. So far I can't see a page move proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If other editors want to initiate a pagemove process there is nothing wrong with that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A pagemove process usually needs arguments. What other wikiprojects or what other editors claim are usually not the strongest arguments for such an initiative.Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The onus is and always has been on the initiator of such a process to present a case. How other vote is up to them.

I always wonder why specific editors are eager to move Byzantines Greeks to ... Byzantines, while Ottoman Turks should never become Ottomans. Any thoughts?Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

While I don't care about this issue, it's worth pointing out that this is not a good comparison, as Ottomans, like Hapsburgs, refers to the royal house and its members, not the common people. Late Ottoman "Ottomanist" nationalists tried to establish an "Ottoman" identity for the populace, but they failed. That semiological issue doesn't exist for Byzantine (Greek)s. For what it's worth, identity issues aside, some authors do differentiate "Byzantine Greeks" (on basis of language, and customs, not "identity") from the other ethnic groups present ("Byzantine Armenians", [Byzantine Slavs], etc..) --Calthinus (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Following the policy on dispute resolution, I will not be offering my thoughts in answer to queries that do not concern if and how the article ought to be modified, such as the one asked right above this comment by Alexikoua, but I will try to address the arguments made in comments above (a) regarding whether "Byzantines" or "Byzantine Greeks" is the term through which the Rhomaioi of the Byzantine Empire should be presented in this article NPOV-wise and (b) about whether the article's title should also be modified. My comment is somewhat long as it addresses a number of points raised in the previous discussion and I apologize in advance for its length.

As far as (A) the NPOV appelation of the Byzantine Rhomaioi is concerned: Othon I has produced (see footnotes 3 and 4) a list of works to which, along with "many others", he refers us as evidence that "scholars [are] just calling them [=the Byzantine Rhomaioi] Greeks" and that "modern historiography treats them as Greek". These works are found cited in footnote 21 of the current version of the article on the Byzantine Empire, where they are used as sources verifying the sentence that the Byzantine Empire "became identified by its western and northern contemporaries with its increasingly predominant Greek element". If one bothers to actually take a look at what is written in these pages to which Othon I refers us and which he subsequently invokes, asking other editors to "come back with something more serious than thin air and stop ignoring the references placed below", s/he will find out that Othon I's claims about them are somewhat misleading. I only examine the six more recent references provided by Othon I [Gross 1999, Lapidge, Blair & Keynes 1998, Davies 1996, Ahrweiler & Laiou 1998, Millar 2006], as the three works whose publication dates more than thirty years ago cannot possibly be regarded as indicators of contemporary scholarly consensus.

1) "Gross 1999": This is the only work that clearly and undeniably states what Othon I argues for, as Gross writes (in p. 45) that the Byzantines "spoke Greek and were of Greek ancestry, what we would call today "Greek ethnicity", belonging later to the Easter Greek church. But they called themselves Roman and were Roman citizens [...]"). It should be noted that this book, Citizenship and Ethnicity: The Growth and Development of a Democratic Multiethnic Institution, is a 1999 book by Feliks Gross, not a Byzantinist or even a historian, but a Polish-American sociologist, who does not bother to refer to any work of Byzantine historians verifying his claim. What's more, no such simple argument can be found in the rest of the works, composed by historians, medievalists and Byzantinists.

2) The statement by Byzantinists Angeliki Laiou and Eleni Ahrweiler that ("Preface" in Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, p vii) the "Hellenic element was predominant, especially in the later period" of the Byzantine Empire seems to refer not to the supposed Hellenic ethnic identity of the Greek-speaking Rhomaioi, but their culture and language, as in the same page a few lines below, when presenting criteria for inclusion in the Roman community, the two historians write that "Language was more or less important, depending on the period and on social class; Greek was a conditio sine qua non for the elite" and that "the closest one can get to the Byzantine reality is to say that in order to succeed -- in order to be a full-blown and unquestioned [viii] "Roman" -- it was best to be an Orthodox Christian and a Greek-speaker, at least in one's public persona". Otherwise, Eleni Ahrweiler writes in the same book (p. 1) that the Byzantine Empire was perceived as being ""Hellenic" not as far as the ethnicity of its subjects was concerned, but "in culture and language".

3) "Lapidge, Blair & Keynes 1998": I happen to not have access to this work, the first edition of The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England of 1998 (those with access to it are, of course, more than welcome to provide the relevant quote), but in any case this work has in the meanwhile been superseded by the revised 2nd edition, published in 2014 under the title The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, edited by the same group of scholars along with the help of Donald Scragg. The article on "Byzantium", written by Michael Lapidge (and now moved to p. 83 due to new material having been added in the 2nd edition), does not contain any reference to a supposed Greek ethnicity of the Byzantines, but states that "BYZANTIUM is the name given to the eastern, largely Greek-speaking, part of the Roman empire, from the founding of Constantinople in 325 (and especially from the effective division of the empire into western/Latin-speaking and eastern/ Greek-speaking under Honorius in 395) until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453" dedicating the rest of the article to a brief sketch of the Empire's territory and (naturally) an account of testimonies of its contacts with Anglo-Saxon England.

4) Norman Davies's Europe: A History (1996), p. 245 similarly makes no reference to a supposed Greek ethnicity of the Byzantines, but states that "Three years later, with Heraclius at this death bed, the Empire's wealthiest province in Egypt was on the point of falling. The first round in Byzantium's 800-year war with Islam had been lost. None the less, all the main outlines of Byzantine identity were present. The Empire's territory was reduced to its Greek heartland." That this "Greek heartland" of the eastern Roman Empire is to be understood in cultural and linguistic terms becomes evident when taking into account the explanatory sentences immediately following the one I just quoted: "The Greek language was the sole vehicle of culture. And the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the loss of his colleagues in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, was left as the unchallenged leader of the Greek Church." That the reference to the "Greek Church" does not have to do with the supposed Greek self-understanding of its flock, but with the language and rite used in its liturgical life etc is demonstrated by looking at other references to the "Greek Church" in the same book by Davies, where it appears that "Greek" is used as a term distinct from "Latin", in other words it has a cultural and linguistic meaning -- see p. 239: "[in the eleventh century] the Greek Church of the East finally parted company with the Latin Church of Rome", 292: "the joint authority of the Latin Church and a Catholic Emperor" is contrasted with "the authority of the Greek Church and a new Orthodox Emperor" ... "in the East".

5) Again, in the pages from Fergus Millar's, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief Under Theodosius II (408–450) mentioned by Othon I, there is no mention of a Greek ethnicity to be found, but plenty of discussion on Greek language and culture dominating the eastern Roman Empire (p. 2: "the normal language of the vast majority of the population was Greek" ... "there were more, and more fundamental, senses in which it [=the eastern half of the Roman Empire] was Greek -- in its culture and literature, in the language spoken in the street, in the language in which individuals and groups addressed the State and its agents, and above all in the language of its Church" ... "there had been such a thing [as a "Greek Roman Empire"] for centuries" since "the whole Greek-speaking from the Balkans to Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Cyrenaica (Libya)" had been incorporated in the Roman Empire, p. 15: due to Greek-speaking communities surviving outside the eastern half of the Roman Empire being "marginal exceptions", "Theodosius's empire was not only a Greek-speaking world, it was the Greek-speaking world" ... "not only an area of Greek culture but in effect, represented or incorporated the whole heritage of Greek culture and Greek expansion").

5) Finally, the information, relayed by Paul Fouracre and Richard Gerberding, that "The Frankish court no longer regarded the Byzantine Empire as holding valid claims of universality; instead it was now termed the 'Empire of the Greeks'", which is used in footnote 23 of the article on the Byzantine Empire, is a well known fact, but has little to do with the exact question we are discussing. For, although it is well-established that, as put in an abstract of a recent article by Laury Sarti in the Journal of Medieval History discussing this matter at grater length, "The Franks came more often to label the Eastern Romans as 'Greeks', a term with increasingly pejorative connotations that was used to distinguish the Byzantines from the ancient Roman past, and thereby to reconnect Western identities with both ancient and papal Rome", this relates to the exonym(s) and the outward perception of the Byzantine Rhomaioi by the Frankish/Latin West, not their own self-understanding and identity. As Tasos Kaplanis writes in a recent article on "Antique Names and Self-Identification" among Greek-speaking populations (in Dimitris Tziovas (ed.) Re-imagining the Past: Antiquity and Modern Greek Cuture (Oxford: OUP), p. 81), "most scholars in the field of ethnicity consider self-naming and self-identification a sufficient and an important factor in the development of ethnic identities".

It is quite puzzling that Othon I refers additionally to Gill Page's book Being Byzantine as one of the books arguing that "Rhomios is a synonymous to Christian Greek". This is plain wrong. As written in the book's review by David Jacoby in the American Historical Review 115, 2 (2010), p. 597, "In tune with the Byzantines' self-identification as Rhomaioi, Page refers to "Roman" rather than to "Greek" identity". In the words of another of the book's reviewers, Dimitris Krallis, writing for the Journal of Hellenic Studies 131 (2011), p. 286 "[f]rom the outset, Page warns those readers accustomed to thinking of the Byzantines as Greeks that Being Byzantine is in fact a discussion of Roman identity in the later Middle Ages (6). Refreshingly, she speaks of Byzantine Romans throughout her work (the modifier 'Byzantine' being but a concession to her reader's familiarity with established conventions), clearly stating that the people we are accustomed to call Byzantines defined themselves as Romans. Thus, ironically, Page challenges the very premise of the book’s title with its emphasis on Greek identity and its orientation towards the Ottomans [...]". Moreover, Page rejects the "the nationalist historical tradition, beginning with Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos in the nineteenth century, which has posited an essential continuity from the classical through the medieval to the modern" (Page, Being Byzantine, p. 15) and more particularly, "[t]he modern nationalist position on any medieval Greek ethnicity", arguing that it "says more about modern Greece’s quest for legitimisation in the past than about the past which is ostensibly under examination", which "has been pervasive among Greek historians" and been "eloquently argued" against by Cyril Mango.

Alexikoua notes, and quotes from Cecily Hilsdale's book on Byzantine Art and Diplomacy, the "general use among Byzantine intellectuals" of the term "Hellene" during the period of the Nicene exile (i.e. 1204-1261). However, as Resnjari has already pointed out above, this is not tantamount to a general use and endorsement of such a term among the general population. It would suffice to read the few lines following those quoted above by Alexikoua to see that Hilsdale herself proceeds to refer her readers to the work of scholars who "have cautioned against overemphasizing the impact of Hellenism on the imperial office -- by no means did it supplant the predominant Byzantine sense of Romanitas even in exile" and (in the next page, p. 85) clarifies that "Greek identity" was "a pendant to Roman, not a replacement". In this, Hilsdale is basically in agreement with the account of Page (whose book she cites in footnotes of this very page of Byzantine Art and Diplomacy, p. 85, n. 140), who concurs in the concluding chapter of Being Byzantine, when summarizing the findings of the study, that "the Hellenic did not emerge as a viable identity to replace the imperial Roman." (Page, Being Byzantine, p. 279).

To sup up, it seems that, when examined one-by-one, the sources invoked by Othon I and Alexikoua that were written by Byzantinists do not actually present the case for a distinct Greek ethnic identity of the Byzantine Rhomaioi. Now, Othon I claims that there are "many others" studies supporting his claim. Given the inaccurate mode in which sources, especially Page's book, have been presented in this discussion by Othon I, I am naturally skeptic about such claims. However, I do not wish to deny that there are studies published in the recent past by scholars that may hold this view. What is wrong, though, it to consider the mere existence of such a point of view among scholars sufficient evidence that this is the majority or the consensus view among scholars. If we are to determine which is the Neutral Point of View in accordance with Wikipedia policy on balancing different viewpoints, we cannot rely on the personal assessment of the importance of this or that scholar according to the views of this or that editor, but we should rather (per WP policy) be "drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". That is, istead of endlessly presenting the totality of works by Byzantinists produced regarding the matter, we are better poised when referring to scholarly sources that present these discussions. Thus, other than producing a number of recent scholarly works (NB that those works I referred to above are all works by Byzantinists written in the last ten years or so), I referred to the discussion of this scholarship in two pieces by Ioannis Stouraitis, one published in one of the oldest and most revered Byzantinist journal, the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, which clearly describes the view that the Byzantines were Greeks as being a minority point of view and another article in a scholarly journal presenting the view that the Byzantines were indeed Romans as being the "established consensus" among experts. I also refer you again to relevant passages from works cited by Stouraitis [=Kaldellis & Page] indicating that to take seriously the self-determination of the Byzantines as Romans entails discarding with the view that they somehow were ethnically Greeks. Now, Othon I can keep considering it entirely "absurd" that the Byzantine Rhomaioi were not Greeks and he has indeed stated that I "can present anything that [I] prefe[r] but for sure for this, [I] won’t have [his] consent". This, however, is the exact opposite of what is suggested in order to avoid status quo stonewalling ("Don't close your mind to the possibility of a compromise, or even changing your mind entirely."), and cannot be sufficient reason to forestall the attempt to achieve consensus regarding which is the NPOV appellation of the "Byzantines" and how they should be referred to in this article.

I now come to (B) the issue of the title. It is not simply that, as [user:Resnjari|Resnjari]] notes, most other Wikipedias adopt the term "Byzantines" or even "Rhomaioi" for the article's title -- a point that cannot be considered as decisive in determining the outcome of the present discussion, but to which I daresay it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to and ignore it as entirely meaningless. I also note that "Byzantine Greeks" is not a NPOV name by which to present the Byzantine Rhomaioi does not necessarily mean that it should be the article's title. According to Wikipedia policy on naming articles, "the prevalence of [a non-neutral] name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.". This, however, presupposes that "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" referring to the article's subject by this non-neutral name. Khirurg argues that ""Byzantine Greeks" is widely used and well established as a term". To support this claim he has rightly gestured towards the use of search machine metrics by linking to a Google Books search for the term "Byzantine Greeks", which returns c. 13,000 results (see WP:COMMONNAME for the suggestion to use such counts when determining an article's title). This testifies a non-negligeable presence of the term in English speaking scholarship. However, a search for "the Byzantines" in Google Books suggests that the frequency of "Byzantine Greeks" pales when compared to that of "Byzantines" --a Google Books search for "the Byzantines" returns c. 509,000 results. The difference is of such a magnitude that does not allow to consider "Byzantine Greeks" as a more common term than "Byzantines".

Now, Khirurg counters that "[the term] "Byzantines" is vague and can refer to any of the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, very many of which were not Greek". This way of seeing things presupposes the endorsement of the thesis that the Greek-speaking Romans were indeed ethnic Greeks, which (again, per Stouraitis's presentation of relevant scholarship) is a point of view that is not accepted by the majority of scholars in the field and thus cannot be treated as the view determining the organization and presentation of the article's material. The vast preponderance of occurences of the term "Byzantines" in scholarly sources written in English, as attested in Google Books search results, stems from the absence of the need to qualify the term when referring to (as per the passage from the book edited by Ahreiler & Laiou quoted above) the "Hellenic element [linguistically and culturally understood]" that "was predominant" in the Byzantine Empire. In this regard it is no coincidence that the source that is most often used in this article, the 1997 book edited by Guglielmo Cavallo, is simply titled The Byzantines (while there do not seem to be many books entitled on the "Byzantine Greeks"), even though sentences sourced by way of referring to it in this article speak of the "Byzantine Greeks". The same stands with the more recent book of 2014 under the same title (The Byzantines) by the historian Averil Cameron. Finally, Calthinus points to the solution for naming articles [that, one should note, do not currently exist, but might be created sometime in the future] about non-Greek speaking and/or non-Christian population living under Roman jurisdiction. What has already been implemented with regard to the Jews of the Byzantine Empire (see Byzantine Jews), can naturally also apply to other non-Roman populations of the eastern Roman Empire, if need be. This would be in accordance with what, mutatis mutandis, is already being implemented in the encyclopedia for contemporary states. For example, the existence of non-German minorities living in Germany and of a civic notion of "Germans" that includes them in a political way has not led to changing the title of the article on ethnic Germans. I mean to say that it does not follow that the Empire's dominant group, the Greek-speaking Christian Rhomaioi, should be presented as "Greeks", that is (against WP:NPOV) from a point of view held by a minority of scholars and against current usage, just because there is a need to carefully handle and present to the encyclopedia's readers borderline cases of Romanity in the Byzantine Empire during the Middle Ages -- as is the case with all collective identities really. In other words, occurrences of the term "Byzantine Greeks" in both the body of the article and in its title should be replaced with the more neutral and more common "Byzantines". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Apart from Greeks we have Byzantine Armenians (as Cal. noted), Jews, Slavs etc. the same way we have Ottoman Greeks, Armenians, Jews etc.. Large Empires are usually inhabited by several ethnic groups. So far I can't see a move request from Byzantine Greeks to Byzantines or better "Eastern Romans" but in case this is proposed the article needs to written from scratch.Alexikoua (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Alexikoua. I undestand where Ashmedai is coming from and from the looks of it and based on his analysis above where he is specifically searching for the word "ethnicity" he wants a generalist article (as if the characterisation Greek is not enough for him where most of the sources are referring to them), if this is to happen, then we can split the article to Byzantine Greeks (the predominant population in the empire), Armenians (second biggest group), Slaves (especially pointing out the Sclaveni, Ezeritai, Dragoubitai, Melingoi, Strymonitai and other slav invaders of the 8th century) and create a generalist "Eastern Romans" or "Byzantines" as an umbrella to them including an infobox with the above. Just changing the name and remove the Greek connection is Ashmedai's PoV and we have seen it here where he attempted it here and got reverted immediately due to not complying with WP:NPOV guidelines. Otherwise, I don't see any legit reason to move the article to Byzantines hence I strongly oppose it. For the record I referred to Harrison, 2002 and not to Gil that Rhomios/Roman is synonymous to Christian Greek. Othon I (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ashmedai: TL;DR notwithstanding, your work identifying 509,000 sources that use "Byzantines" is utterly meaningless, since it is entirely unclear what "Byzantines" refers to. Often times "Byzantines" refers to the state itself, e.g. "the Byzantines defeated the Persians...". Which is my point exactly. Khirurg (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone participating in this discussion for his/her patience and send my wishes for the holidays.

Now, I am sorry to see that Othon I, having repeated his view that "the majority [of the denizens of the eastern Roman Empire] were of Greek culture and ethnicity especially towards the end of the empire", keeps stating that not to present the Byzantine Rhomaioi as "Greeks" is merely my personal POV. This seems to me a case of filibustering to warrant the continuing use of this POV-pushing name (and Othon I has practically admitted as much ["Ashmedai can present anything that he prefers but for sure for this, he won’t have my consent"]), so I will not cite again all the sources I 've referred to above, neither the detailed examination of the sources mentioned by Othon I. I only summarily note that Othon I defends the --per Page (see [above])-- "modern [Greek] nationalist position on [the existence of] any medieval Greek ethnicity", which goes against the "established consensus" of scholars (per Stouraitis 2017) is a "Greek" ethnicity simply did not exist during the Middle Ages.

Having said that, I would like to respond to specific points raised re my last comment in this discussion about the name that should be used in this article to describe the Romans/Rhomaioi of the eastern Roman Empire. First, there is the issue of the existence of non-Roman populations living in the eastern Roman Empire. I explained in the last paragraph of my previous comment the reasons why this undeniable fact of the existence of minority populations (Slavs, Jews, Franks, Muslims etc) does not lead to the conclusion that a heavily POV-ish name ("Byzantine Greeks") should be prefered to describe the Greek-speaking Cristian Romans instead of the common and neutral "Byzantines". User:Alexikoua does not respond to any of the points I made there, but merely repeats this fact, without explaining why it means that we should present the Rhomaioi as "Greeks", against the (per Stouraitis) "established consensus" of Byzantinists. User:Othon I refers to the same point arguing that we should create separate articles for, among others, "Sclaveni, Ezeritai, Dragoubitai, Melingoi, Strymonitai", as if this is an absurdum that defeats the whole reasoning. As a matter of fact such articles already exist -- and I have linked to some of them in the previous sentence. The problem that still has to be dealt with is that, despite the existence of articles about minority populations of the eastern Roman Empire, the preponderant population of the eastern Roman Empire, the Greek-speaking Christian Romans, are presented in this article via a name that was neither used by themselves, nor is the most common name used in contemporary bibliography, and (against WP:NPOV) presents to the viewer an image of their identity which goes against the (as cited before) "established consensus" regarding their identity, which is that they (=the Greek-speaking Christian Romans, the Rhomaioi) were not "Greek", but Romans, as explained above.

Regarding the relative frequency of attesting the names "Byzantines" and "Byzantine Greeks" in contemporary English-language historiography, user:Khirurg argues that to "identif[y] 509,000 sources that use "Byzantines" [compared to a mere 13,000 results of "Byzantine Greeks"] is utterly meaningless, since it is entirely unclear what "Byzantines" refers to. Often times "Byzantines" refers to the state itself, e.g. "the Byzantines defeated the Persians...". While one cannot naturally deny the (commonly attested in all nations and their states -- we nowadays use "the Russians" to speak of the current Russian administration) use of metonymy in the case of this population and its state [the Byzantine Romans/Rhomaioi and their Empire/Basileia], it does not follow that we should present the population that is the subject matter of this article using an minority POV name as we currently do. For, the suggestion that out of the 509 thousand mentions to "Byzantines" there are less than 13 thousand (i.e. the number of occurences of the term "Byzantine Greeks" per Google books) that refer to [well] the Byzantines and that almost 500 are used to refer to the Byzantine Empire (it has to be noted) is arbitrarily offered, without the accompaniment of any kind of evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, there is evidence to the opposite, mentioned earlier, that Khirurg has ommitted to take into account, that is "that the source that is most often used in this article, the 1997 book edited by Guglielmo Cavallo, is simply titled The Byzantines (while there do not seem to be many books entitled on the "Byzantine Greeks" [ed. in fact, Khirurg fails to mention even one book title about the "Byzantine Greeks" which he puzzlingly suggests is the most common name to refer to the Greek-speaking Rhomaioi]), even though sentences sourced by way of referring to it in this article speak of the "Byzantine Greeks". The same stands with the more recent book of 2014 under the same title (The Byzantines) by the historian Averil Cameron." Moreover, what Khirurg argues regarding the term "Byzantines" is even more valid as far as the term "Byzantine Greeks" in concerned. As I have shown above, when examining the passages of works that Othon I referred to as containing the term "Greeks", the Greekness of the Byzantine Romans spoken of in contemporary sources is either of a broadly speaking cultural or specifically linguistic nature and does not warrant their presentation as "Greeks" in accordance with the minority POV regarding their identity. In other words, the supposed problem that Khirurg locates is one of his own creation, without any footing in mainstream historiography.

Even if we were to accept that the majority population of the eastern Roman Empire had to be somehow disambiguated from their state, we could naturally disambiguate between the two by adopting, instead of the neutral and common name "Byzantines", the appelation "Byzantine Romans", which is indeed used in contemporary pieces of scholarship (see Page and Kaldellis) that represent the established consenus regarding their identity. Whether the term currently used in this article to agressively promote a minority scholarly POV ("Byzantine Greeks") is replaced by the name overwhelmingly used in bibliography for the eastern Romans --i.e. "Byzantines"-- or by that preferred in recent works that represent the scholarly consensus ("Byzantine Romans" -- the latter, I have come to think, after your observations, might be preferable), it is sure to be an immense improvement, bringing the article in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

PS. Also pinging user:Calthinus, user:Resnjari and user:Jingiby who have participated in the discussion and may not otherwise take note of its continuation. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As we all stated clearly here and you try to counter our facts with you undianable minority based POV, which you already been reverted twice while attempting to enter this nonsense I other articles, the article is about Byzantine Greeks/Rhomioi. If you want to create an article about Eastern Romans you are more than welcome but denying the existence of the Byzantine Greeks/Rhomioi/Romans however aknowledging the existinece of Byzantine Armenians and others, is a very serious claim which we only meet in various “keyboard activists” with a nationalistic agenda. Please drop the stick an move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othon I (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Othon I, as most experienced editors are sure to inform you, in case that you don't know it already, opposing a proposal based only on asserting it's not supported by consensus is a blatant manifestation of status quo stonewalling.

Now, as I've written above more than once [though you choose to dismiss this], what you are time and again presenting as an "undianable [sic] minority POV" only supported by "“keyboard activists” with a nationalist agenda" is described in contemporary historiography as an "established consensus" among scholars, while the position you are defending of presenting the Byzantine Romans/Rhomaioi as "Greeks" is a "modern [Greek] nationalist position" which is not "preponderant within the field". It is equally not true that "all" participants in this discussion agree with you, as [until now, at least] opinions seem to be split among discussants regarding the best course of action to achieve a NPOV in this article. Nor is it true that anyone (the undersigned uncluded) is "denying the existence of Byzantine Greeks/Rhomioi/Romans": what is argued is that, according to the "established consensus" among scholars, the Byzantine Rhomaioi were not "Greeks", but Romans, and that they should not be presented in this Wikipedia article through an appellation that adopts a POV of a minority of scholars (i.e. "Byzantine Greeks").

You [and others] are naturally free to cease participating in this discussion if you don't find any meaning in it or if you are not willing to engage with the detailed arguments put forward above aiming to restore NPOV in this article. Otherwise, please refrain from misrepresenting the statements of others and basic facts and please consult the suggested means of engaging with editors that happen to disagree with your beliefs, if you want to participate in this discussion aiming to achieve consensus about the name by which the Byzantine Rhomaioi are to be presented in this article if it is to comply with contemporary scholarly consensus. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ashmedai, it looks like you forgot to ping me and @Alexikoua:. Why is that? Is it because we agree with Othon? Is this your idea of "achieving consensus"? And while we're at it, WP:HORSE. The name of this article is very unlikely to change. Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

user:Khirurg, I actually pinged both of you in my message of yesterday, along with all participants in this discussion irrespective of the opinions they have heretofore expressed. Given the provisions of WP:CONSENSUS ("In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view") and that, as I am sure you know, opining on the likelihood of this or that outcome of a discussion is not something that is taken into account when assessing the benefits of a proposal, you might want to reconsider the value of addressing the points made in my message discussing the objections you had raised and explain why (if it is the case that you still disagree) you reject both my initial proposal ("Byzantines") and my comprompise proposal ("Byzantine Romans"), lest you think that the change will have been made without your concerns having been taken into account. Regardless, best regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

And again for the nth time, the article is about Byzantine Greeks/Romans. None is denying the fact that the Byzantine Greeks were self identifying as Romans. In fact they were Roman citizens and it is reflected in the article however, the ethnically we had Armenians, Greeks, Slavs, Varangians and many others apart from the fact that Rhomios is a synonym to Greek, a self appellation that even modern Greeks still use. Minority consensus such as the opinions of Kaldellis and Stouraitis is not a consensus in historiography. If you want to to create a generalist article about Eastern Romans you can create it but, removing the name “Greeks” which is backed but many sources just because you feel uncomfortable is a very clear example of a person’s daydreaming. Good day and do not try to present it as if we are not blocking you, you have already been reverted twice in other articles immediately after you inserted your POV regarding this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othon I (talk • contribs) 09:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading back this discussion from the beginning, Othon I, I locate the source of this impasse in the following: you keep iterating your personal assertion that the view that the Byzantines/Byzantine Rhomaioi/Byzantine Romans were "Greeks" is not a minority scholarly POV without caring to base this claim in contemporary secondary sources. For, as I have previously written (here and here) and as all participants surely acknowledge, "WP policy [...] prompts us to determine the prominence of any scholarly viewpoint by resorting (not to your assertion or mine, but) to "sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint"." I have referred to two contemporary secondary sources that describe the relative prominence of different schools of thought [the two articles by Stouraitis -- it should be noted they are both used in this article as sources in the very first lines of the section on "Identity"] negating your assertion on the Byzantines being Greeks not being a minority view, along with other contemporary sources upholing the view that the Byzantines were not Greeks, but Romans, and other scholarly studies approvingly citing and referring to this view. You did not provide a contemporary secondary source presenting a different description of the scholarly landscape, but argued that there are "many reliable and secondary sources" saying otherwise and referred to a number of sources, which I discussed in some detail, I think, and have demonstrated that they do not lead to a different conclusion. Since then, however, instead of perhaps bringing some other secondary sources to the discussion presenting us with a different view of the relative strength of each historiographical school on Byzantine identity in contemporary scholarship, you keep iterating the same point about this being just my personal view. However, as this is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources and as NPOV requires us to take into account what secondary sources say in establishing which is the neutral point of view in each case, we cannot base the way the Byzantine Rhomaioi are presented in this article on your (or mine, for that matter) personal views either on Byzantine identity or the merits of each historiographical view, but on those of reliable, secondary sources. Since in this rather lengthy discussion noone has provided any contemporary review of contemporary scholarship on Byzantine identity upholding that the current way of presenting the Byzantine Rhomaioi as "Greeks" is the majority scholarly view point, they should no longer be presented as "Greeks" in this article, but either as "Byzantines" (the most common term in English historiography) or "Byzantine Romans" (a term used in works representative of contemporary scholarly consensus). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Your approach is ill fated seriously, if we follow it we should also rename the Medieval Germans as Romans since they were also identifying as such due to the HRE. The appellation “Greek” is how everyone else was calling the Rhomaioi and after 1204 we see that it is becoming common e.g Scandinavians (Grikkland), Franks, Bulgarians and others. Modern Greeks apart from Greeks, they are still calling themselves Rhomioi and their culture Rhomiosyni so removing the connection from Ottoman and Modern Greeks I highly doubt that you will succeed. However, you are free to core quest a renaming and we will vote or you can also create a generalist Eastern Romans or Medieval Romans which you will include all the ethnicities such as Greeks, Armenians, Slaves, Varangians, Galatians, Arabs and others which were part of the empire. If you follow the second suggestion, as Alwxikoua noted, you should rewrite the article from scratch and we will keep a separate Byzantine Greeks. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othon I (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Othon I, the parallel you are drawing [again, without any reference to contemporary, reliable secondary sources] between the Byzantine Romans and the medieval Germans is fundamentally mistaken. The Germans were not collectively identifying in everyday life as Romans, they were not calling their language Roman language and so on. It was the "Holy Roman Emperor [of the *German* Nation]" who was appealing to Roman heritage in his title. This does not mean that his subjects till the 19th century would call themselves Romans. The vast difference between the two cases is evident from the fact that, while a scholar writing in a globally reputed University Press can write as a matter of course that "the Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greek who happened to call themselves Romans"" [see Anthony Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 113 and the work is referred to (by Stouraitis 2017, p. 70) as an example of recent works whose analysis begins from the "established consensus" on the Roman identity of the "Byzantines" -- those people that you and the article in its present state call "Byzantine Greeks"--, it is inconceivable that such a claim for the medieval Germans would even be considered for publication by any serious academic press.

It is likewise not true that "The appellation “Greek” is how everyone else was calling the Rhomaioi", given that, as it is stated even in the article, Arabs and Turks (who had no reason, like the Westerners did --see, most recently, the conclusions of Sarti 2018 --, to question the Roman identity of the Greek-speaking Rhomaioi) called them "Rum" and continued to do so till the 20th century. That members of the modern Greek nation (who call themselves Hellenes) trace their heritage not only to the ancient Hellenes but also to the Greek-speaking Byzantine Romans does not mean that the latter should be presented as "Greeks", as [per Page, Being Byzantine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 15 -- another work cited by Stouraitis as representative of recent publications that elaborates the "established consensus" on Roman identity] "[t]he modern nationalist position on any medieval Greek ethnicity [...] says more about modern Greece’s quest for legitimisation in the past than about the past which is ostensibly under examination".

Alexikoua's -and your- proposal to leave this article as is and create a new article on the whole population of the Byzantine Empire within its borders throughout the centuries does not solve the problem that this discussion is intended to address -- as I've written again (see here: "The problem that still has to be dealt with ... not "Greek", but Romans."). Again, it is the supposedly Greek ethnicity of the Greek-speaking medieval Romans that the "established consensus" of Byzantine scholars refutes and per WP:NPOV the article should reflect this throughout its body, that is, also in the name used to present to its reader the Byzantine Rhomaioi. In other words, the name "Byzantine Romans" is not used in contemporary scholarship to denote, for example, the Franks, the Turks, or the Bulgarians that happened to live in territory that belonged to the Byzantine Empire, but (as evidenced by Kaldellis's and Page's books, and also Malatras's essay, which is cited in the article) to describe the Greek-speaking Rhomaioi, those that are (at defiance of the established consensus) presented as being "Greeks". Given that I have written all this above, I am afraid this is a case of continuous wilful misunderstanding. If there are no objections concerning the NPOV position of contemporary scholarship, it seems to me, from the mere repetition of the same (misconceived) positions by Othon I, that this discussion has run its course and the change of "Byzantine Greeks" to either "Byzantines" or "Byzantine Romans" should be implemented. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119 Again thanks for the thorough explanation but I am afraid that I am not convinced hence I cannot give my consent for your dubious claims. You cannot accuse me of misunderstanding intentianally something that i understand very well. Please be civil and refrain from such accusations. It seems that you reject that a "Greek" nation existed in medieval times and that's why you want to change the name. This is a serious claim that you need to back it with various sources and not only your cherry-picked Stouraitis and Kaldellis (see WP:CHERRYPICKING) which for sure is not a scholar community wide consensus. AS for the NPOV issues of the article, you are more than welcome to request a reassessment of the Good Article status. For the record, you cannot change the name of the article without following the WP:MOVE guidelines and achieve consensus from the votes of the other editors. Lastly, for the last time, I am not denying (you present it as if i do so) that Byzantine Greeks self identified as Romans, I am not denying that it should made crystal clear in the article but, removing the connection from the name "Greek" which is a exonym and not an endonym for the Medieval Romans/Rhomaioi/Byzantines or whatever you want to call it, is a blatant endorsement of various nationalistic POVs from the Balkan area and should be avoided at any cost. Medieval Romans have been called "Greek" by outsiders same as Medieval Deutsche or Teutones have been called "Germans", same as the Medieval Danes or Rus other northerners have been called "Varangians" and goes on and on. We should change then the Greeks article and rename it as "Hellenes" or the Ottoman Turks as "Osmanli". Also, your phrase It was the ""Holy Roman Emperor [of the *German* Nation]" who was appealing to Roman heritage in his title" is irrelevant, from the article we that "In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was changed to the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" a form first used in a document in 1474. and that Before 1157, the realm was merely referred to as the "Roman Empire".. Best and Happy New Year. Othon I (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• It would be absurd to remove the term "Greeks" from the title of this article, since that very term is attested in numerous Latin and Slavic medieval sources as designation for "Imperial" Greeks. For example, in all medieval Serbian sources, Greeks of the Empire were always referred to as "Greeks" (ser. Грци / Grci). The Empire was referred to as "Greek Empire" (ser. грчко царство / grčko carstvo), the Emperor as "Greek Emperor" (ser. грчки цар / grčki car) and so on. Even in 1346, when Serbian King Stefan Dušan claimed the imperial title, he proclaimed himself as Emperor of Serbs and Greeks, and his title in Serbian language was: царь Срьблѥмь и Гркωмь (tsar of Serbs and Greeks). Medieval Serbs and Imperial Greeks were neighbors for nine centuries, frequently fighting between themselves during much of that time, but Serbs never had any doubts regarding the identity of "Imperial" Greeks, and same goes for all other Slavs, medieval or modern. For all of them, Greeks of the Empire were real Greeks. Also, numerous medieval Latin sources are using terms like "Imperium Graecorum" and "Imperator Graecorum" as common designation for the Eastern Empire and Eastern Emperor. In other words, there is no real problem here. The term "Greek" should not be removed from the title of this article. Sorabino (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine people not interchangeable with Byzantine Greeks

I see several problems with the title of this article - namely the fact that while the Byzantine Empire was certainly Greek speaking, in ethnic terms its citizens were far less homogenous than the modern Greeks and included dozens of nationalities and ethnic groups. This article seems to conflate "Byzantine" with "Byzantine Greek" as though they are interchangeable, and the civilization, culture, and mores of the Byzantine Empire belonged to a single class - the Greeks - alone. It would be inaccurate to describe the Khazars, Isaurians, Armenians, Slavs, Hellenized Goths, and the many other ethnic groups that were part and parcel of the empire's civilization (indeed, many of them becoming emperors and notables) as Greek and treating them as such for academic purposes.

The ancient Roman Empire may have started as an Italic civilization, but that doesn't mean "Roman" and "Italian" are interchangeable (by the same logic, "Byzantine" and "Greek" are not interchangeable either). It is for precisely this reason that Romans redirects to Roman Empire and the separate article Ancient Rome exists to describe the civilization itself. Again, there is no article entitled "Roman people" or "Roman Italians", because while the empire started in Italy, Italians were a minority for much of its history, and Italy's cultural and geographic significance to the empire diminished over time, especially with the founding of Constantinople and the increasing influx of Germanic peoples. That sets an excellent precedent. Rather than structuring "Byzantine Greeks" as an article about an ethnic group, I would recommend we merge it into Byzantine Greece, where the information would be more appropriate to describing, specifically, Greeks who lived in Byzantine era rather than this Greek-centric article which erroneously paints all Byzantines as Greeks. An alternative would be to merge this article into Population of the Byzantine Empire with added sections covering all the ethnic groups that were represented.

As an added bonus, merging "Byzantine Greeks" into "Byzantine Greece" would eliminate the current dispute over naming conventions we have now. --Katangais (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You can create that article. None objects that. However this one is focused on the group defined in the current title.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, why does the "people" link in the Byzantine culture article box redirect here? Why are Byzantine Greeks described as "also known as Byzantines" in this article? Why is this article listed in Byzantines (disambiguation)? There clearly is a definitive trend here to identify all Byzantines as Greeks, as the discussion above this one suggests. --Katangais (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't it be listed in Byzantines (disambiguation)? This article (Byzantine Greeks) has a legitimate and distinctive subject, Greeks of the Byzantine Empire, and it should be kept in its present form and under its present title. It relates to the main article Byzantine Empire, for example, in similar way the articles Ottoman Turks, Ottoman Greeks, Ottoman Armenians, Ottoman Serbs etc. relate to the main article Ottoman Empire. No one would even think of merging articles on different peoples of the Ottoman Empire into one mega-article "Ottomans". And also, there is no logic in merging Byzantine Greeks with Byzantine Greece because those are two different subjects, one relating to Greeks all over the Empire, from Egypt to Thrace and from Sicily to Syria, while the other is focused only on the region of Greece in Byzantine times. And one final remark, since I am Serbian, and therefore a Slav. Regarding some considerations, that were expressed in reference to those Slavs who were subjects of the Byzantine Empire, their role in the internal life of the Empire could be described in a separate article "Byzantine Slavs" and same goes for politically much more important "Byzantine Armenians" (we currently have only a territorial article Byzantine Armenia). That would be the best way to go forward, as was done with peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Sorabino (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, we should delete all references in this article to "Byzantines" where "Byzantine Greeks" will suffice. The exception of course being references to the population as a whole rather than those describing the distinctly Greek component. --Katangais (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Since we reached a consensus about this article which is focusing only on the Byzantine Greeks and not on Byzantines as a whole population my opinion is that we should remove the NPOV tag which is placed there. Should we proceed? Also, we should plan to create the articles for Byzantine Slavs (focusing on Thomas the Slav, the Slavic populations moved and stayed from and to Peloponnese after they lost the Siege of Patras (805 or 807), Melingoi, Ezeritai, Dragoubitai and Sclaviniai), for Byzantine Armenians (Emperors, clergymen, officials) and other Byzantine people if possible such as Arabs, Franks, Varangians etc. Any thoughts? Othon I (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Brand new academic book

"Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium" Harvard University Press, 2019, ISBN 0674986512, 336 pages. Anthony Kaldellis, the author of The Christian Parthenon, Hellenism in Byzantium, and The Byzantine Republic, argues that in the empire we know as Byzantium, the Greek-speaking population was actually Roman, and scholars have deliberately mislabeled their ethnicity for the past two centuries for political reasons. Jingiby (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• The view of Kaldellis and Stouraitis is well known it is the base of the argument here. None says that their identification was not Roman, even until now Greeks are interchanging the terms Rhomios and Hellene for self identification and Romiosyni and Hellenism for their culture. There is a constant struggle of where to belong. The argument that they weren't Greeks, they were Romans is utter garbage just because Greeks is the name, an exonym, that the Latins and Franks called the Medieval Romans, their empire as Imperium Graecorum. The Roman Empire in Viking maps is named as Grikkland. The Greece runestones, the runestones of of the Varangians from Sweden are mentioning Constantinople as Miklagard, the word Grikkland ("Greece") appears in three inscriptions, the word Grikk(j)ar ("Greeks") appears in 25 inscriptions, two stones refer to men as grikkfari ("traveller to Greece") and one stone refers to Grikkhafnir ("Greek harbours"). Serbians and Bulgarians called them Greeks as Sorabino mentioned above. Its like Shqiptars are not Albanians but Shqiptars. You see the why it is absurd? Please I understand that it is important for you to disassociate the name Greeks from the Medieval Romans but I would suggest to not go down that route. This is their exonym, this is also, how they started identifying from 1204 and onwards. Also, since none object the removal of the POV tag, I will proceed removing it since I waited 2 weeks already for an objection. Just to add, the book is mostly trying to explain that the name Byzantine is an artificial name and they have been mislabelled, for example the following a one of the first reviews in Academia.edu and Amazon.com , apart that they did not identify as Greeks but Romans which is absolutely true and right. It does not say that the name Greeks was not in use as an exonym nor that the aforementioned groups above did not call the Medieval Romans as Greeks. Othon I (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Addition to my comment, further below on the description of the book that Jingiby wrote, we can see the following. "In the Middle Ages, he explains, people of the eastern empire were labelled “Greeks,” and by the nineteenth century they were shorn of their distorted Greekness and became “Byzantine.” Only when we understand that the Greek-speaking population of Byzantium was actually Roman will we fully appreciate the nature of Roman ethnic identity. We will also better understand the processes of assimilation that led to the absorption of foreign and minority groups into the dominant ethnic group, the Romans who presided over the vast multiethnic empire of the east.". As you can see, even Kaldellis is referring to he exonym of the Romans as Greeks. Othon I (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The article devalues the major and prominent ethnic Greek presence in Byzantine History

Not only devalues but wholly ignores (!). According to the keepers of this article, we should not speak of ethnicity in Byzantium from 330-1453, more like America, a ghost state of unidentified people, because this will reveal the prominence of the Greek community, Greek Patriarchs and clergy, Greek generals, Greek emperors, Greek scholars and so on. There is too much Greek history for them to handle. Should I dare you to list all the ethnic Greeks in the history of Byzantium and the city before and more even after 1453?

The keepers of this article are quick to adopt the title "Greek-speaking". Why do we then have ethnic Greek groups all over Minor Asia after 1453? From Pontus to Smyrne (which the Turks called Greek Smyrne) until the Greek genocide. The hanging by the Turks of Gregory V, Greek Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and massacre of the Greek population of Constantinople (1821). Where are the other minorities? Where are their communities, their cities, their prominent figures, their theology schools, their Christian Fathers, their patriarchates?

Clearly there is no apparent connection in this article between "Byzantine Greeks" and the Greeks of Constantinople and Minor Asia after 1453. Is the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople today not consisting of ethnic Greeks?! and always has been since the See founded by Apostle Andrew, the See of the Greek city of Byzantium? The minorities of Khazars, Isaurians, Armenians, Slavs, Goths have had a lesser historical presence than the Greeks, so you absolutely cannot equate them with the Greeks.

The Greek history in the Byzantine Empire is enormous. I would like to remember the Greek emperor who won Constantinople back from the Latins in 1261, the Greek emperor who died defending it from the Turks in 1453 (Last emperor), and the First emperor of the empire who founded the empire in 330 whose mother was a Greek.

The Turks themselves only identify the Greeks with Constantinople and the greater part of Minor Asia until the Greek genocide even until today. Ignorant and suspicious article clearly with anti-Greek sentiment but I doubt if it can fool even the simple reader. More likely written to create a status-quo in Byzantine history, for whatever unachievable reason. The Greeks are proud of their Byzantine history and we will not be deprived of it. Ate Nike (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Like any other article on Wikipedia, this one follows what reliable sources say. You're welcome to change things around, if your changes are supported by reliable sources. The fact of the matter is that this article is about the Greek-speaking population of the Byzantine Empire, not Greeks as a whole, hence history post 1453 is unnecessary here. People we today would recognize as Greeks were not the only group in the empire, which I assume is why "Greek-speaking" is used throughout. It's not incorrect since these people did not self-identify as Greeks.

I would also inform you that for most of its history, the Byzantine state vehemently opposed being designated as "Greek", which the Byzantines considered deeply offensive as it downplayed their Roman status and associated them with the pagan ancient Greeks rather than the Christian Romans. Figures like Justinian I and Basil II would be rolling in their graves if they knew the modern self-designation of the Greek people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is concentrated on the the Greek-speaking Romans/Romioi/Rhomaioi, of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire collectively Byzantine Greeks. The self-designation Greek has was initiated by the nobles of the Empire of Nicaea during the reign of Lascarids. Other population groups of the Empire were the Byzantine Slavs, Byzantine Armenians, Byzantine Arabs and goes on which all treat in this article Population of the Byzantine Empire. I don't believe that the modern Greeks feel less "Romioi", they use this self-designation too interchangeably with the self designation "Greek" as seen in Names of the Greeks. Maybe we should change the lead and wite the "the Greek-speaking and Hellenised Romans"? Othon I (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that the very term "Byzantine Greeks" means that we are not devaluing the "major and prominent ethnic Greek presence in Byzantine history" - even the article title alone makes it clear that these people were what we today would recognize as Greeks. That said, I'm not opposed to a small change like you suggest, though I think one problem with "Hellenised Romans" is that it could imply the Romans weren't hellenised before this point or that they once were Romans that now had somehow gotten hellenised. They were just as hellenised before Byzantine histoy as they were during it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I of course agree with you however, with the term Byzantine Greeks we could include the Hellenised people of other ethnicities such as the Armenians or the Norse (Varangians) hence my comment. Maybe we could change the "Greek-speaking Eastern Romans" to "Greek and Hellenised Eastern Romans" or "Eastern Romans of Greek ethnicity and culture"? Othon I (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

In this case I feel that it's important to not undermine the romanness of the Byzantines (which is already undermined by the term "Byzantine Greeks"). I think specifying Greek culture in this regard could cause issues since while Byzantine culture undeniably is the precursor of modern Greek culture, it was also undeniably the evolution of late Roman culture. To reach a conclusion to this discussion I think we could specify that the Byzantine Greeks were ethnically Greek, however. This article only treats the ethnically Greek population of Byzantium anyway, like you allude to. How do you feel about: "The Byzantine Greeks were the ethnically Greek and Orthodox Christian Eastern Romans throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages"?

I also think that it would also be of value to examine whether WP:RS prefer "Greek-speaking" or "ethnically Greek" or something else. Perhaps there should eventually also be articles on other ethnic groups in the empire, such as the Byzantine Armenians, Byzantine Arabs etc. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that your suggestion will add value to the article. I will try to find some WP:RS, I think the Romanland from Kaldellis is very interesting to have a look apart from the ones already included in the article. As for the other articles, the plan is to have an article for Byzantine Armenians, one for Byzantine Slavs and then for the lesser known groups such as Arabs, Goths, Khazars etc. There are categories at the moment for Byzantine Armenians and Byzantine Slavs but the articles are not there yet. I will get to that if I find time towards the near future. Best Othon I (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the change. That sounds good. I think an article on Byzantine Armenians would be especially important given that several Byzantine emperors were of Armenian origin. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Yes indeed, there are plenty of Emperors, clergymen, military and other people of Armenian origin that makes the creation of the article essential.Othon I (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I reverted the change. It seems to me that it is very obvious that the change countered with what the Identity section says. Anyways, maybe User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has sth good to say since they apparently are the most active on this page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My impression from the above discussion was that "Byzantine Greeks" only refers to the ethnic Greek portions of Byzantium's population. Given Future Perfect at Sunrise's experience with Byzantium in general, I would also be interested if they have any input. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Identity section mention 3 theories. If there was no doubt that they were all ethnic Greeks, then there would not be 3 theories around. The section further says that "After 1204 the Byzantine successor entities were mostly Greek-speaking but not nation-states like France and England of that time. The risk or reality of foreign rule, not some sort of Greek national consciousness was the primary element that drew contemporary Byzantines together". It says also that " The defining traits of being considered one of the Rhomaioi were being an Orthodox Christian and more importantly speaking Greek, characteristics which had to be acquired by birth if one was not to be considered an allogenes or even a barbarian " and that "Being a Roman was mostly a matter of culture and religion rather than speaking Greek or living within Byzantine territory, and had nothing to do with race.[94] Some Byzantines began to use the name Greek (Hellen) with its ancient meaning of someone living in the territory of Greece rather than its usually Christian meaning of "pagan" ". Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No one said that all Byzantines were of Greek ethnicity, that would be a nationalistic POV, that's why there are the other articles about the Byzantine Armenians, Byzantine Slavs and others that are currently under development. This article though treats the Romans of the Greeks ethnicity who becameOttoman Greeks and the modern Greeks. Please read the first line before the lead and you will understand "This article is about the medieval ethnic group. For Byzantine people generally, see Population of the Byzantine Empire.". Best Othon I (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Some Byzantines began to use the name Greek (Hellen) with its ancient meaning of someone living in the territory of Greece rather than its usually Christian meaning of "pagan"" The term "Greek" was, at least according to one view present in the Identity section, initially used to refer to pagans, and later and gradually to refer to people who lived in Greece. I do not see any kind of academic consensus on any degree of Greek ethnicity at the time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note really, Greek was the exonym of the Byzantines by everyone else. Bulgarians, Serbians, Varangians and all other western people call Byzantines as Greeks (see section Etymology). The national Greek consciousness is something else and is not really referred to the article. The article treats ancestors of the modern Greeks. As said, you are making a case about all Byzantines. The article after a consensus as seen in the above section changed the scope to be about the Greeks of the empire. Othon I (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about Byzantine Greeks. And the Identity section of this article says that "Greek" meant either "pagan" or "someone living in Greece". Someone who lived in Greece at the time did not necessarily self-identify as an ethnic Greek. Even today, one can easily find Greeks with Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian or another ethnicity. An Albanian immigrant in Greece is a Greek in the national sense, but an Albanian in an ethnic sense. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really get what the ethnicity of Modern Greeks has to do with that nor what's your point here there are Greeks of various origins and the are Greeks of Roman origin, you can check the Names of the Greeks for reference. Your are also mentioning only one school, the one fits your purpose. again the article is about the Greeks of the empire, the Rhomaioi/Romei/Romioi. There are also other populations groups as mentioned. Try to argue something relevant and not the ethnicity of modern Greeks. Othon I (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I never said that the view that "fits my purpose" is the only one. I said that there are several views, and you can not add the one you like to the very first sentence of the article. No need to understand me, you just need to gain consensus from the wider community of interested editors through an RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The consensus from previous talks as seen above, is that this article is about the Greek population of the Byzantine Empire, then there is the umbrella article for the Population of the Byzantine Empire generally and the plan is to create articles about the Byzantine Armenians, Slavs and then other lesser known groups. You can read the lengthy discussions above. I can bring the editors involved in any case. Othon I (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Ktrimi wrote above. Ahmet Q. (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has been saying "Greek-speaking" for years. That is the stable version. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it has been saying it for years it does not mean that it cannot be improved. Since the scope is about the Greeks of the empire and Kaldellis's book Romanland explains how ethnicity was evolved around the Byzantine Greeks and not all Byzantines (Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, Khazarsetc.) The discussion was about how to improve it.Othon I (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The article can be improved, but only if everyone agrees that what you want to make indeed improves it. Otherwise, there is no consensus for changes, and you can follow the steps described by WP:RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I will request it. As I said, the article is about the Greeks of the Empire. and there is a consensus above for this if you did not notice. I will ping all the users involved to this once I open the RfC. In any case, I am trying to understand what you are trying to achieve here, not showing that the Medieval Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks) were of Greek ethnicity? Best Othon I (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha That is funny. It seems that you are accusing me of having some kind of secret bad intentions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes straight and clearly because you arguments are off topic. You continue to treat the article as Byzantines in general sense, with your logic, we will write for the Byzantine Armenians, the Armenian-speaking Eastern Romans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othon I (talk • contribs)

Do not forget to sign your comments. It is not the first time you do so, though this time I am adding the "unsigned" template. Read WP:SIGN for more information. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought that it was a mere coincidence that you are so off topic on this discussion but now I see that being off topic is not something that you are not familiar with. Othon I (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Since you are now familiar with me as an Wiki editor, stop calling me "Ktrilimi", "Kritimi" and "Kitlimi". I am Ktrimi. Hahaha Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ichthyovenator, to make a summary. The main issue is the definition of the term "Greek" at the time. Lets see if Future Perfect at Sunrise has sth to say, and then the proposed change can be evaluated through community discussion as described by WP:RfC. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware that the Byzantines, for most of their history, did not self-identify as Greeks (I brought this up above). Because the term "Byzantine Greeks" and because the disambiguation line at the top (which describes the Byzantine Greeks as a "medieval ethnic group") I assumed that the term applied only to the ethnic Greeks (whatever an ethnic Greek was before Greece) - I did not read the relevant sections further down in the article. I agree that the definition of "Greek" is the issue here. In my opinion it would again be best to check relevant sources for how they refer to the Greeks in Byzantium; per this article, it seems that the term can be used for the ethnically Greek population, the Greek-speaking population or the population of the empire as a whole but these are three (albeit overlapping) different groupings of people and "medieval ethnic group" might not work as a definition for the two latter ones. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The consensus that was reached back in 2019 in the above sector “Name” between various users and Ktrilimi being part of the discussion was to treat in this article the Byzantine Greeks. Then keep the article population of the Byzantine Empire as the general article for Byzantine population. I am not sure why Kritimi intentionally oversee that Othon I (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

JUFT FYI you can find info here Greece Runestones, Piraeus Lion regarding what Greek meant or as per Harrison and Earl, During most of the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Rhōmaîoi (Ῥωμαῖοι, "Romans", meaning citizens of the Roman Empire), a term which in the Greek language had become synonymous with Christian Greeks. Ichthyovenator I am not sure what is the purpose of Kitlimi comments. Othon I (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that Othon I is preparing a RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)