Talk:Justinian I/Archive 1

message: No mention of the Plague of Justinian?  I would think that it had major lasting effects on the Eastern Empire, and we do know that Justinian made policies to deal with it.  Sadly, I know not to where my copy of Charles Panati's Extraordinary Endings of Practically Everything and Everybody has disappeared; it treats the plague extensively.
:Well...that's probably not the best source to use for the plague. But we do have a Plague of Justinian article, I thought it was linked from here. Adam Bishop 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: Sorry, saw "Uncle Justin" and thought it was Dukes of Hazzard or somthing. Stbalbach 17:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justin I 

message: Sorry, I meant to put in the history comment of my recent edit to the picture caption that I was removing POV that the mosaic is Byzantine in nature. I personally agree with a very convincing Discovery Channel documentary called "Barbarians" that put forward that the figure in the mosaic looks exactly the same as coins depicting Theodoric, and the label "IVSTINIAN" was added later. I haven't read the whole article, but I would guess from this that it's still filled with POV. elvenscout742 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest we find a more authoritative source for that than some Discovery Channel documentary.  What was the basis of their claim? They thought little images on coins kind of maybe sort of looked like a really big mosaic image? And why is it POV to suggest the mosaics are Byzantine, even if they do depict Theodosius? What style would he have been using, if not Roman/Byzantine? Adam Bishop 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't exactly represent it well. We know that Roman historians were incredibly biased against "barbarians", and so would try to exterminate any trace of civilized Gothic culture if they found it. The strange disembodied hands on some mosaics, as well as the fact that the crown, the "IVSTINIAN" label and anything else that would make them explicitly Byzantine were added later, as well as explicit Gothic elements removed. I am not saying it's POV to say that they may have been Byzantine, but that reference was naively assuming that they were Byzantine. I merely said that some historians contend that it depicts Theodoric, and removed the word "Byzantine" from the label, as it explicitly supported the POV that those historians are wrong. elvenscout742 09:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I was not talking about Theodosius I. I was talking about Theodoric the Great (who, I might add, was also an Arian Christian, rather than a Roman Catholic ... he certainly shouldn't be allowed get away with that >: ( ). elvenscout742 09:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a larger pic :commons:Justinian_mosaik_ravenna.jpg. There is actually no label saying "IVSTINIAN". But I've never heard anyone claim that it was someone else. Did the documentaty say who the woman on the other wall could be? :commons:Image:Theodora mosaik ravenna.jpg. -- Jniemenmaa 12:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The only person labelled in the San Vitale imperial mosaics is Maximianus, the Archbishop of Ravenna who was the patron of the mosaic work. As he was Catholic, he'd hardly be associated with the Arian Theoderic. Furthermore, if there was a label attached to the emperor, it should read IVSTINIANVS, not the Anglicised version presented above. The argument recalled by Elvenscout742 seems to be built on unproven possibilities and lacks any evidence. I've never read that these mosaics are anything other than Justinian and Theodora, which is the overwhelming scholarly consensus. It would be more NPOV to report any doubts in a paragraph on the San Vitale page rather than doctoring image captions in this article. Reporting scholarly consensus (in what is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for debating historical theory and fact) is hardly POV.--Iacobus 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Just a small note. The different names in the introduction are quite chaotic:
* Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus is the Latin full name,
* Μέγας Ιουστινιανός means Justinian the Great, cf. Alexander the Great = Megas Alexandros,
* Justinian is a modern/modernised version.
The Latin version of Justinian is Iustinianus, the Greek one ist Ιουστινιανός/Justinianos.
:I agree.--BlaiseMuhaddib 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justinian, Justinianus, Ιουστινιανός 

message: I have put Caričin Grad as Justinian's birth place according to:
The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Edited by Michael Maas, Cambridge University Press 2005, p. 355 (with figure of Justiniana Prima = Caričin Grad on p. 356).
ClaudiusGothicus 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I reverted your edit before seeing this, I will restore it, and add the source. --- Stbalbach 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caričin Grad 

message: This was just added:
:Justinian was a Latinized Macedonian peasant  William George DeBurgh, 1953, “The Legacy of the Ancient World” - Penguin Books, p.421 Justinian  
Which replaced/deleted text that said he was born in the Illyricum Province. I had always read the Justinian was an Illyrian. Is this not true? Was there a Macedonian Roman provence? -- Stbalbach 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the wording, too. You can't say Justinian himself was a Latinized person, his whole family just came from a Latin-speaking region. Iblardi 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illyrium?

message: Wouldn't it be a good idea to use this site: http://www.roman-emperors.org/ as a source of information on Justinian and other Roman emperors? (http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm for Justinian) It looks thorough and reliable and has lots of primary and secondary sources listed.Iblardi 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good information on Justinian 

message: Hi, I was just wondering if there should not be a reference to the epithet often used with Justinian, "the Great". Whether or not this is a modern tag (I'm not really sure), it's certainly a relevant and popular identifier (it's the name by which I knew Justinian as a child). The last article edit that described "the Great" as vandalism is a bit of a stretch, particularly without an explanation. Also, new Wikipedians are just going to keep adding the epithet whenever they see it is not in the article. Just a thought.  Rob Lindsey 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless its how the person is most commonly known as it's not part of the article title, and thus not in bold text. I suppose a case could be made that he is most commonly known as "the Great", but I think it would be controversial (not if he was "great" or not, but that "great" is most commonly attached to his name). I can say personally that in my studies from recent secondary sources he was not called "the great", but I understand there is a line of tradition that has done so. -- Stbalbach 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does not follow World Book Encyclopedia conventions. -- Stbalbach 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Great" 

message: The article is biased against the Emperor, with words like "despotic" all over the body of the text.
:See despotism. I believe this is being used in the non-pejorative sense? -- Stbalbach 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He achieved what no other Byzantine Emperor had before or ever would again after him, the reconquering of the city of Rome itself. Partly, this was because he did not realize that a full Roman empire was a concept of a bygone era.
is clearly a discourse lapsus that deteriorates the text to ridicule - if he had succeeded, then it hadn't been a "concept of a bygone era" - but now he failed, and we're proving that he could do nothing than fail by observing that he failed. That's a circular "proof". Or else we claim that concepts rule the universe, not matter and consequences of acts - how then do we observe those concepts?? Something must be done against this big frog! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are both right, the comment is not in place here. Iblardi 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the article is biased 

message: To Stbalbach and others,
I removed a comment on Justinian being "by no means" of Slav origin, because it seemed to me irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. First of all, it looks rather polemical to put it that strongly, but that may be a matter of style. But more importantly, why so much attention for a "romantic tradition" that doesn't seem to be very wide-spread at all? I myself have never heard of it, and though I'm by no means a specialist, I don't consider myself completely uninformed. The Slavs entered the Balkans in any great numbers some time after 500 anyway, so there is no obvious reason to think Justinian was a Slav. (Personally I don't really care about his ethnicity.) Why state the obvious? This would be like saying "Alexander was not of Persian descent at all" in an article on Alexander the Great because there are some Persian legends that claim he was. That was my motivation. With regards, Iblardi 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is notable enough to include. It is historiography and every history article on Wikipedia should have more of it. In this particular case, there is a lot of racist and nationalistic scholarship out there that needs to be corrected and Wikipedia does a pretty good job at that. I suspect the reason you never heard of it is your not exposed to that kind of scholarship, which is a good thing, but take a look at Huns for example (origins section) and the article talk page to see how various countries nationalistic and/or racists agendas often make claims on history. Or Goths. Or Ancient Egyptians. etc.. -- Stbalbach 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe it could be included in the form of a footnote then. I think some people's nationalistic claims don't deserve so prominent a place in an article that is supposed to merely reflect the scientific consensus. When I look up 'Justinian' in any encyclopedia, I find no references to this 'discussion'. If anything, it should be put in a separate section "Romantic traditions on Justinian's ethnicity" or something like that, or even a separate article on racist/nationalistic 'scholarship', linking to the encyclopedical pages. Iblardi 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah it's fine and normal to deal with historiography issues this way in history articles. -- Stbalbach 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it reflects serious historiography issues, not some uninformed or politically-inspired opinion. Why is this opinion so important that it should be dealt with so explicitly in an otherwise very general section? We could refer to every pseudo-scientific 19th-century tradition, however marginal, in every article, stating those theories are absolutely wrong. For instance, in an article about the Solar system, would you expect to find a comment like "the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun" otherwise than in a separate section on "historical misconceptions" or the like? I still think a case can be made for mentioning it, but not here. The fact that he was born in the Balkans before the Slavs entered should speak for itself. Iblardi 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Ilbardi here. I have never come across any statements that he is a Slav, and I have been reading up on Justinian pretty well. Who claims he is a Slav, then? Which Romanticist said so? Certainly not the Romantic School of Paris. Maybe it is something for a footnote, if you would find a source. Until then, I'd suggest removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by La Belle Aude (talk -- La Belle Aude 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Slav connection 

message: I have made some modifications in the section "Military activities". I'll give some examples why I thought the old version was inadequate.
A) In general:
- Too little information on the Persian wars as compared to the West.
- Too much mentioning of Belisarius and too much written from his POV. He has an article of his own.
B) On sentence level:
- "Like his Roman predecessors and Byzantine successors" - This implies Justinian is the one 'last Roman emperor'. No general agreement on that.
- "However, his primary military ambitions focused on the western Mediterranean Sea" - An assumption is made about J’s ambitions (although admittedly a plausible one). Why not let the facts speak for themselves?
- "as a reward after successfully putting down the Nika riots" - How do we know?
I expanded the text in some places and cut it short in others and have, in general, tried to make it more balanced. Iblardi 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Military activities 

message: In an article on an emperor or king one normally expects to find  some mention of any children and of the matter of succession. I wonder if this could be added? Norvo 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it in the 'Life' section. The whole article is in need of serious revision anyway. Iblardi 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession and child(ren) 

message: While the article covers the suppression of Hellenism, missing is the criminalisation of homosexual acts, apparently based on the grounds that 'they cause earthquakes'. A reference is made in the Wiki article on pederasty, as practised by Classical and Ancient Greece.
I've only a secondary source: Gore Vidal, United States, Abacus, 1993, pp 531, 922-23,1051.
As sexual politics are fundamental to understanding a culture and the individuals within it, I think it's worth a mention. If no one can find a better source, I'll put it in myself.
--TresRoque 12:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather see a better source than Vidal who is a great 20th C American playwright, author, statesman etc.. (and who is openly homosexual) -- something from a neutral mainstream historical source would be great. -- Stbalbach 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justinian did issue a couple of Novellae concerning homosexuality, and there is some legislation against it in the Institutiones. See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/just-novels.html (The earthquakes make their appearance in Novella 77.) These laws are also mentioned in John Moorhead's Justinian, London/NY 1994, pp. 36 and 37. Iblardi 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justian on Suppression of Homosexuality

message: Please, please, PLEASE do not randomly change back sections of this article. Greier, whom I stress I don't know, may have been banned, but the version you deleted contained some good factual information. Try to keep Iblardi and the Justinian article out of your personal crusades, whatever they may be, and allow other users to contribute. What you are doing right now amounts to vandalism, and you're really getting on my nerves. Your behaviour strikes me as childish. Iblardi 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU keep bringing it up!!!!!! I agreed with a previous version of the section, restored it twice (or so), then rewrote it completely. I have been very patient with you for a long time, but now I'm getting convinced you are really a troll. Since you keep restoring outdated versions robotically, I have to assume you are uninterested in Wikipedia as such, but rather pursuing secondary goals. You are not contributing anything to the encyclopedia. You are not giving me any credit, I won't give you any. I'm through with it. Iblardi 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is sad that I have made you involve me in a flame war like this. I did drop the subject, that is, the discussion over reverting/not reverting, and decided to rewrite the section. And don't talk to me about it being "all a show". It's you that gets personal all the time. Iblardi 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin, one more time, take the trouble to assume good faith (this is important) and re-read all of my edits. Sometimes things are not as they appear, especially when many people and many points of view are involved. What looks suspicious to you may just be coincidence. You are wasting your time, I am not the guy you are after. Iblardi 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah sure. "Prove to me that you didn't do it!" Nice tenet to go by. I told you about the IP thing, but obviously, you are not one to be convinced in any way. Iblardi 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You remind me of those users that keep turning up in internet fora and add random provocative comments in order to disrupt discussions. It's never about the subject matter; their sole purpose is to piss off other people. I think your hate-mongering is meant as a provocation and you yourself may very well be the one that is a sock puppet. Iblardi 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miskin 

message: It appears over the past few weeks that various editors .. anons, red editors, etc.. keep deleting, changing and adding and deleting etc.. very well cited material in a low-grade on-going edit war without much discussion. There appear to be multiple points of view from cited sources that are not being fully represented - one cited view gets added by one person, then deleted by another, then re-added by a third, then deleted by a fourth, etc... Until this is resolved, when ALL cited views are represented in the article, it needs to be flagged as disputed. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one anon is in fact myself having forgotten to log on. I don't know what exactly the problem is regarding the contents, but it all seems to have something to do with the first part of the 'Life'-section. In order to start with a clean slate, I tried to rewrite it and included references to Moorhead's study, which is of course not the ultimate source on Justinian (as he admits himself), but at least the book is peer-reviewed and the references are verifiable. I understand your reasons for placing the tag though. Iblardi 13:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed a link to this discussion in the other section. I am not trying to hide anything, except that I referred to my own IP number being exposed in the edit history in order to convince you of my good intentions, then deleted the section. Your initial reversions had nothing to do with the content of the article but were just a part of an apparent obsession-like flame war you seem to have. I know it sounds pityful to admit it, but I'm trembling with anger behind my computer right now. This is the world turned upside down. I repeat: my intentions are sincere and I am not Greier! Iblardi 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about?! Yes, I agreed with the previous version of the article section. YOU are the one that fails to discuss the matter properly. Shame on you. Iblardi 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And since I am contributing to the article, I'm not a neutral user. I care for the integrity of the article. And don't you get angry when someone keeps throwing unmotivated accusations at you? Iblardi 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I may have been a bit over-zealous. I did a rewrite of the whole section, and I must have missed the reference to Thomas. And it's allright with me if the part concerning the Slav connection is restored. We had a dispute over that, but it's not a big issue as far as I'm concerned. Iblardi 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, to tell you the truth, I just now realize that the fact my name appears red in the article's history may mean something else than just the fact that it's my contribution. You may want to Google my name and find out... It's kind of... embarrassing. The anonymous edits I already explained.  Iblardi 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: re: "Google my name" I don't know what your saying, please be specific. Also if you could respond to the above questions/concerns about the content changes. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just after I registered, I was involved in an unintentional vandalism accident. It has to do with a slow pc, a slow connection, being unexperienced in the editing process, and a copy/paste action gone wrong, resulting in the sentence "All your base are belong to us" turning up in a Wikipedia page... It's right there in the "Random Acts of Kindness" section, darn it. Iblardi 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further explanation: It was a bit late, and me and my girlfriend were discussing that expression. Wondering were it came from, I intended to copy/paste it into Google. Unfortunately my computer was choking, and I accidentally (due to lag and repetition of acts) pasted the expression into the Wikipedia window, then incidentally must have saved it by pressing the wrong button upon closing the session. I know it sounds improbable, but there it is. !blardi 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see I have been blocked. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iblardi. !blardi 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, some people can actually be that stupid to prove their innocence. !blardi 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am thinking: if this is what Wikipedia is all about, then I'm considering to quit it completely. Maybe I am too much involved in this article, I don't know. I have no interest in advocating one or another view on Justinian's ethnicity (I guess that is what it's all about), I'm just interested in history as such. I couldn't care less if Justinian spoke Greek, Slavic, Turkish or Chinese. It's kind of saddening and at the same time frustrating that my account has been banned on the suspicion of being someone's sock puppet. I hate being accused of something I have no part in whatsoever. My home phone number and private e-mail address are out there on the user's page. Go ahead and call me. I'll be out to work during the day from Monday to Friday though. !blardi 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy disputed 

message: Other users have indeed correctly mentioned that Procopius' Secret History may not be the most unbiased source on Justinian's character. Why then is it still cited? Maybe it would be better to cite Procopius explicitly, and with it stating that he was, to say the least, no great fan of the emperor.
La Belle Aude 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sometimes the only source we have for certain things so it might be notable to mention it, to take with a grain of salt how well we know the "fact" in question. -- Stbalbach 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it be far more correct then to either just omit it (since technically speaking it is a 6th century point of view) or make absolutely clear that it is a biased point of view? --La Belle Aude 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically in the article are you referring too? -- Stbalbach 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This part in the life section: "Justinian was a man of unusual capacity for work (sometimes called the "Emperor Who Never Sleeps"), and possessed a temperate, affable, and lively character; but was also unscrupulous and crafty when it served him." -- La Belle Aude 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it reads like something from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procopius 

message: I was about to edit the article, but now it's reverted it's a lot more work. Maybe I'm new and don't understand why, but could somebody explain it to me? I liked the old version better, although it needed serious revision. So before I set myself to work, please: why has it been reverted? 
La Belle Aude 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making it harder 

message: Decided to remove the mention of his Slavic background. It appears to be from a old source  which says he was from "the Latin race". Sounds fairly antiquated (what's a "Latin race"). Also found some newer sources that say he was Slavic. Open question for now. -- Stbalbach 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is extremely interesting. Are they paper sources or electronical sources? Are they serious? They can't be. Would you cite? If this is indeed the case, I may have been mistaken and we may want to keep it there, or cast it in a different form. -- La Belle Aude 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slav again

message: I added a new section "Economy". Feel free to comment/add/cull; any constructive input is appreciated. Iblardi 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition and good sources. -- Stbalbach 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I see I'll have to work on my English though. Iblardi 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: I made a separate heading "Nika riots". The subject seemed out of place in the section on the Justinianic wars, where it was treated until now. I'm not sure whether it deserves its own chapter -the Nika riots often get special attention in the literature- but if not, the section could be expanded to include other revolts/conspiracies against Justinian and given an appropriate title. Iblardi 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nika riots 

message: Shouldn't the 'Justinian' page really have a list of Justinians (ie. Justinian I, Justinian II) rather than redirecting here? fluoronaut 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from Justinian 

message: This may seem trivial, but I think it is fundamental to understanding the kind of job we are doing here. My comment is prompted by the last revert made by Stbalbach. The previous version of the line read: 
:"Justinian is generally considered to be one of the most historically significant rulers of Late Antiquity". 
This was changed back to an earlier version: 
:"Justinian is one of the most historically significant rulers of Late Antiquity". (Italics mine)
I find that making such strong assertions about someone's historical significance is rather un-encyclopedical. After all, we can not know exactly how important Justinian was, and an encyclopedia is not there to pass judgement on such matters; we are only to reflect the mainstream scientific opinion on the subject, which we do know, and i.m.o. we should make clear that it is an opinion, not an established fact - all the more so because history is not an exact science. We should be representing instead of claiming. (It would be a whole different thing if this was a scholarly paper of course.) Because of this I would prefer the first version of the sentence over the second one. Any thoughts on this? Iblardi 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Weasel words. "One of" already covers any concerns about 'strong statements' - I don't think there is anyone that would not say he was "one of" the most significant rulers of Late Antiquity - that is a pretty wide and general statement. Adding "is generally considered to be" on top of the "one of" dilutes it to the point that it seems like there is some controversy about his importance, something being left unsaid, which is not the case and arguably POV. -- Stbalbach 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is with the use of "historically significant", which is a vague and subjective qualification in itself. If we would say he was one of the most "famous" or "studied" rulers of Late Antiquity, it would be a different matter; that is something that can be established objectively. But what is "historically significant"? The use of this qualification would be justified if, for instance, we could link to another Wikipage where the term was clearly defined, or otherwise explain it to the reader. Although I agree that Justinian is one of the most important figures of his time, I still think that we, as an encyclopedia, are not the ones to make this claim. In my opinion, saying that it is agreed upon that Justinian is an important figure and letting the facts speak for themselves would be the most neutral and therefore the best way to deal with it. Iblardi 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These kinds of things are intentionally vague, it is just to put him into historical context in the lead section per WP:LEAD as a high-level summary. This is not a professional-level thesis written for experts, it is providing uninformed general readers who have never heard of Justinian before some context that this guy is important. The paragraph then goes on to justify the statement with some specific statements of fact. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines on how to write a lead section. I don't really care what it says but it needs to say something about Justinians importance and significance in the big picture. -- Stbalbach 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. We shall keep it this way then. Iblardi 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making strong assertions 

message: It seems to me that Justinian's name contradicts the outlines given in the article on Roman naming conventions (as do, in fact, many names of Roman Emperors). Following those outlines he would have been called something like Flavius Iustinus Sabbatianus (assuming, that "Sabbatius" was his original nomen gentile). Why did he take another way and took his adopted father's name in the -ianus-form?194.166.222.215  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.222.215 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that naming conventions had become blurred by Justinian's time. It would also be irrelevant to speak of 'Sabbatius' as a nomen gentile in Justinian's case, since his ancestors were not of ancient Roman stock but rather Romanized Illyrians. Iblardi (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Ireland101, this is ridiculous, we are not claiming that Justinian himself was Greek, simply that his name in Greek is important to history. The majority of his empire was Greek, and he is a saint in the Orthodox Church. Greek is entirely relevant here. I apologize that this has absolutely nothing to do with Macedonia; no need to be offended this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still do not understand what you mean. A majority of his empire was Greek? Last time I checked Greece is quite insignificant in the whole spectrum of Byzantium. I know he is a saint in the Orthodox church, did you know that there are 15 orthodox churches, only 1 being Greek. I do not know what you are getting at, the church was made by Constantine a Roman. Greeks make up a minority of Orthodox Christians just as Romanians and Serbians. The majority are Russian. Although it is unrelated to the dispute, it does have to do with Macedonia as Justinian was born in Macedonia, just as Nero was born in Rome. Ireland101 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it makes sense to include Justinian's name in Greek. Almost all of our direct sources on him and his reign are in Greek; the culture and the unofficial language of his empire were Greek; all important literature during his reign was written in Greek; his later laws were issued in Greek. The only thing not Greek about Justinian is the man himself, a fact of which we are informed in the article. So yes, keep the Greek name. Iblardi (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've thought Ireland would pop up here as well. Don't worry about the naming issue - he is keen on removing names in certain languages and adding such in irrelevant once to prove some odd point of his. Just a little comment - how could Greek be irrelevant for an empire whose official language is, let me see, yeah - Greek. --Laveol T 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why the fact that Justinian spoke Latin rather than Greek would be a reason to introduce the Albanian language. The point is that Justinian was primarily known by his Greek name to the majority of his subjects, including Procopius, who is the main literary source for his reign. Iblardi (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There is also a relationship between Latin and Italian. That doesn't mean that Italian names should be included in every article dealing with classical figures. Iblardi (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very little evidence to connect the modern Albanian language with any of the Illyrian languages.  To suggest that Justinian was "Albanian" is ludicrous.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is trying to "erase his ethnicity"; the article is clear that he was from Illyria.  The point is that this is an English encyclopedia, and the government he headed conducted its business in Latin and (ancient) Greek, and not in modern Albanian.  Tb (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The link between Albanian and Illyrian is the subject of current debate.  The question is by no means settled, unless you are an Albanian nationalist.  The "substantial linguist evidence" you speak is in fact not substantial at all and the linguists you mention are outdated.  Our understanding of the ancient Balkans has changed considerably since then, and there are good reasons to believe Albanian is derived from an ancient language other than Illyrian.  Please consult the articles on the Albanian language, Illyrian languages and Origin of Albanians before making drawing such conclusions.  To suggest that Albanians and Illyrians are one and the same people is very imprudent.   Moreover, Justinian was descended from Illyrians that had been thoroughly Romanized and spoke Latin as his native language, not "Albanian".  That's why you won't find a single reliable source that calls Justinian "Albanian".  Until you find a reliable, modern source that claims Justinian was "Albanian", there is no question of inserting his name in Albanian.  Good luck.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - even if it were 100% true and undisputed that Illyrian and Albanian are related and Albanians are descended from Illyrians, it is  entirely irrelevant to someone who lived in the 6th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  The reason to list the Greek is not because he was Greek, it's because his empire used Greek as its primary language, and all the primary sources are written in Greek.  It has nothing to do with ethnicity.  Tb (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek name 

message: Don't know if you want to include a literary reference section, but for what it's worth, Justinian appears in Dante's Divine Comedy.  He is on Mercury, in the second realm of heaven.
:Sure, go ahead and add the section. Perhaps A Struggle for Rome and other historical novels could also be included. Iblardi 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary References 

message: I need help! Please help me with information on justinian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.123.253 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  justinian 

message: Spring, year 540 
When the devoted general Belisarius approached Katlanovo, he didn’t have any high expectations. "Plague does not choose either by gender or by merit” - he perplexed himself. When he left his emperor Justinian Prima three months ago, he was half passed on the other side. 
...The night they called upon him at the royal Palace he first saw the sovereign as a human being. Dark in the eyes and lips, just as those ill people in the poorest neighbourhoods of Constantinople, his emperor gave him a sign to come closer. “Take me home” – his pallid lips whispered – “If I can get well, the only place it can happen is in Macedonia”… 
The road that devoted Belisarius took twice was not a short one at all. But it was nothing compared to how long the path from the bridge over Pcinja to that two-storey edifice over the spa seemed to him. With his helmet off, prepared to take the heaviest of all consignments, the royal crown that he was supposed to return to Constantinople, Belisarius stood in front of the double winged gate. When the heavy shafts moved, the morning sunshine got through on the other side and callously walloped his face. As the gates were widening, thus was his faith in Justinian Prima’s words: “Katlanovo is the fire-pot where the Sun is born, if anything can cure me then it is there, between the Sun and the water.” There, through the rock, the earth and the trees that melted under the morning glimmer, through the water evaporation in which the rock was boiling and the rock in which the water was boiling, he perceived the whole splendour and immaculate masculinity of his master. Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus or Justinian Prima, stood in front of him with his arms wide open and a smile saying “Haven’t I told you?!.”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dime atanasovski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague of Justinian - Recovering 

message: Can anyone tell me what this source is? I am unable to find it (except in source lists for things like the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). What *is* it, exactly, so that I can obtain a copy? NJMauthor (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Gian Domenico Mansi's enormous collection of documents from church councils. It's probably online somewhere, it's like 300 years old. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Which, the 6th century document, or Mansi's collection? Mansi was Catholic, but there wasn't really a "Roman" Catholic church in the 6th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Source "Mansi, Concilia" used in the article

message: In the fact sheet under the picture at the beginning of the article is said that he was buried in  372 bc, which is before the date of his death (565).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.58.72.168 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for spotting the error.  The incorrect date has been removed from the infobox.  I currently have no information on when Justinian was actually buried, so I have left the entry blank.  --Chewings72 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial date 

message: I don't know why was recent info deleted I added that Justinian never spoke Greek, it was well sourced. It is said in another one "Justinian s government was Roman and the language of the government - Latin" see here . I don't know how you can be so rude with Ip-users everybody is labelling me a sock the investigation will revail that is not true. Maybe I should create an account finally. Don't bite new users. And nobody explained with valid sumaaries why is the sourced information undone - just labelling me a sock. That's not nice, some users have the right to edit anonimously here. --107.178.46.170 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "nobody explained with valid sumaaries why is the sourced information undone" Really? I rather don't think that is the case. I at least used the edit summaries to pass you a message, which you blithely ignored at least once. More to the point, if you wish to edit an article, you have to have a modicum of knowledge about it, and writing the nonsense you wrote about Greek and Latin, you obviously don't. And this is remarkably similar to another edit-warring user active in these articles recently. Plus, for a "new user" you are remarkably conversant in wiki-speak, what with edit summaries and "Don't bite new users". I hope to be disproven about that, but let's see... Constantine   ✍  19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The source you cite above states that the Greek language had become "the ordinary dialect in use at court," so listing both the Latin and Greek translations of his name is completely appropriate.  And whether you are a sock or not, you appear to be engaged in edit wars on numerous pages.  Please stop your disruptive editing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Justian is somehow labelled by modern Greek historiography as the conqueror-hero of Rome, while his wars aimed at restoration of the old Roman Empire and he himself did not even speak Greek." [got this quote from here https://books.google.com/books?id=Nb6XM7HV4E0C&pg=PA32&dq=justinian+didnt+speak+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NFWIVb_fPNe5oQT49rD4AQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=justinian%20didnt%20speak%20greek&f=false]
As for experience, I used to edit Wikipedia as an IP since six years at least but I have the right to stay anonymous, I am often treated bad as a newcomer that is what I meant by don't bite. As for sock puppet labels, it is inappropriate when you don't know, but the investigation prove that we edit at least from different countries with that user. Not any valid reasons were stated except "sockpuppet". So I know everybody is tendencious towards their nationality, but please keep a neutral point of view as Greek, avoid biased edits. Justinian didn't speak Greek first, second - logicaly then he is not Greek by origin but Thraco-Illyrian, third- Latin was the language of the government at tge time. Before the legalization if Greek in 620 there were Roman emperors of Greek ancestry, even writers in Greek, for all these it would be relevant to include the Greek name, but Justinian was not one of them. I think I evidenced all these three. I thus reckon this name is relevant exactly forthis guy. Justinian was not at the court but at the government. I hope we enjoy this discussion and make a nice debate of this. :-) --107.178.46.170 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted info

message: What's with the spelling with an initial I instead of J? It's not spelled that way in English, though of course Latin had no J. I'd suggest deleting it as misleading. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: English version of name

message: This article is a complete mess; it is nothing but an unorganized collection of different topics related to Justinian. It doesn't have a clear beginning and ending. Whoever wrote this, I can only assume that he/she has no experience in writing. Most sections in the article would be better located in an article about Byzantium during Justinian's reign, but not on his biography. --Lecen (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs major revision 

message: Not that I have a problem with it, but when was Justinian cannonised? I know within the Orthodox church, there is not an official process, but I had never heard anyone referring to him as a saint. I doubt if anyone ever did. Is this a modern zeal? --Khodadad 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nimbus or halo was a Late Antique convention to indicate sanctity, it probably derived from sun-worship, it was later adopted by the Christian Church.  It was used in depictions of pagan Roman emperors (including Licinius) and gods, a surviving frontal image of Jupiter has a nimbus.  The image of Justinian in San Vitale with the nimbus was executed during Justinians lifetime. Urselius 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That page indicates that Justinian was healed by a saint but it didn't indicate that Justinian was thought to be a saint. I don't think that paintings showing him with a halo really suggest more than the opinion of the painter or the painter's sponsor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Orthodox Wiki certainly lists him as St. Justinian: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Justinian. That's not a sufficient source by itself if this is really contested.  Orthodox iconographic tradition does not tolerate individual painters making up who is a saint, btw.  That nimbus means a lot more than just one painter's opinion.  Tb (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as is said above, it is an iconographical convention to express Byzantine ideas on the sanctity of Roman emperorship, not as much of the person. Every emperor was depicted with a nimbus around his head during his lifetime, including historically impopular ones such as Romanus IV Diogenes or Alexios IV Angelos. I wouldn't draw conclusions about the saintly status of an individual emperor based on the use of the nimbus alone. Iblardi (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in general, though it's going to depend on the particular person.  In this case, there isn't any doubt. Tb (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Then what about Theodora? The site mentions Justinian and Theodora as a couple, yet according to tradition she had monophysitic sympathies, which makes her orthodoxy much less obvious. Iblardi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, what about a lot of things though? Cyril is venerated as a saint in the Coptic Church (Monophysite) despite the fact that he was strongly Dyophysitic. Nestorius was banished as a heretic, even though almost all of his arguments were accepted, with the exception of Christokos, instead of Theotokos. It just is what it is. She's also Canonized by the Orthodox Chruch, by the way. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Saint" Justinian?? 

message: Hardly any mention of this at all...should it perhaps not be mentioned a little more, even if it is now considered more of a polemic than even-handed history? Especially since Procopius is the primary source on his reign, it doesn't seem even handed to select the propagandistic (most of Procopius is recognized as being far too complimentary of Justinian, probably out of fear) over the polemic (the Anecdota).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I love primary sources, much prefer them to secondary, that being said... Most primary sources require interpretation. Interpretation of a Primary Source becomes a secondary source, which is what Wikipedia wants, specifically from peer reviewed journals. Anecdota is wonderful, and also wonderfully biased, so a quote or something along those lines would be fine, but written in context, and sections shouldn't be based off of it, but rather a secondary source, now then with this, it's fine to add in a bit about what Anecdota says, or it's view of the subject, but it shouldn't be used as the weight behind a subject. Do you see what I'm getting at? (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdota of Procopius 

message: This doesn't make sense, a decline did come, but not until really several decades later, when Maurice was assassinated by Phokas in 602, starting the devastating Byzantine-Sassanid war. Up until this point, there was mismanagement which led to the loss of land in Italy, but there was also great land gains by Maurice in the East, so territorially there was no decline. Economically Justin the Younger wasn't the greatest emperor, but Tiberius, and Maurice did a good job, the northern borders were kept more or less safe after Justin the Younger's death; Maurice even had expeditions go north of the Danube. So I don't quite see this at all. If no one objects, I'd like to remove this sentence. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What's the point of crystal ball gazing a few centuries ahead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Empire entered a period of territorial decline not to be reversed until the 9th century." 

message: Don't you think that the part about the birthplace of Iustinian should be changed or at leat corrected to reflect the lack of certainty where exactly it was? The site if Justinianan Prima is identified as Caricin Grad near Lebane, Serbia in all Wikipedias that have an article about it (Serbian, German, English, Albanian). As far as I know, and I do know a bit about it although it is not my speciality, Caricin Grad is considered to be the most likely candidate for Justiniana Prima and Justinians birthplace by the majority of scholars that deal with this period. There is also a sizable litterature on the topic, of which I cannot at the moment mention anything since I don't have my own bibliography with me nor am I close to a library. I've also excavated on the site and, the way I see it, the earchaeological evidence (since the literary one is less than clear) points to Caricin Grad as the site. I didn't want to make any changes myself since there are other people who have put a lot of effort and good work into this arcticle and the final decision should be theirs but I believe that at least a note on the ambiguity of evidence should be added. Dagobert 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to take on this and ask a question for better understanding this "point". Justinian appears, on it's page, as from Tauresium but on the citations there is doubt regarding Him being from Tauresium or from Justiniana Prima (which states on it's page as being erected by Justinian). My question is regarding if there is a plausible doubt regarding the place of birth of Justinian (Tauresium or Justiniana Prima) or about it's location (if Tauresium is near Skopje or where it's supposed to be Justiniana Prima). In any case my questions come, probably, from a lack of my part in understanding the way in how this information is presented in Justinian's Wiki EN page. I'm a Wiki PT user trying to update it's information while using the superb work done in this page. --Paulo Especial (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr:80/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am questioning the neutrality and encyclopedic style of the section regarding Justinian's relationship with Roman Christianity. It seems at times written more like a school assignment arguing one side, and there is a visible bias against Western Christianity (what would become Roman Catholicism). Please correct me if I am out of place here. I have not read the entire article, but I will only place the POV template on this particular section for the time being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus1 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And rightfully so,  Timotheus1. I have overhauled this section, cutting it down in size and removed all the POV pushing and silly name calling. Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Relations with Rome 

message: "In addition long-distance trade flourished, reaching as far north as Cornwall where tin was exchanged for Roman corn." I thought corn was only found in the Americas at this time. 70.129.167.102 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's maize...corn is, well, whatever grain the author meant. Wheat I guess? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Corn? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justinian I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311111356/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/ to http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified