Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Identity in Demography section

Starting a new thread as the above is hard to read. We need to understand the scholarship as well as get better consensus on wording.

Summary of positions

1. @Bogazicili, after many discussions we had on the FAR, made this edit.. Roman or Byzantine Empire is referred to as multiethnic by various historians. Kaldellis suggests that Romanization had lead to the emergence of a common identity among people from various cultural backgrounds. I copy edited and it led to a discussion with the interim consensus of the following: "Multiple historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis arguing that Romanisation fostered a common identity among these diverse groups of people."
2. @Khirurg believe we should reflect scholarship about the empire later resembling a Hellenic ethno-state. That the empire underwent significant demographic changes over the centuries and I'm waiting to hear from him to unpack that as what exactly beyond population decline that needs to be included
3. @Piccco believes we need to add something about the decline in ethnic diversity in the middle and late periods as essential to understanding Byzantine demography throughout its history, given that vast territories had been lost in North Africa and the Levant, for example. We agreed on the following: "With the loss of territories, the empire gradually became less ethnically diverse as it was concentrated mostly in its Balkan and western Anatolian provinces.
4. @Itisme3248 raises Kaldellis is being misinterpreted and his latest edit is as follows: Some historians consider the empire multi-ethnic, with Anthony Kaldellis suggesting that Romanisation mainly of the ancient Greeks during the late Imperial Roman period led to the emergence of a common Roman identity among the Greek speakers. Some assimilations of minorities did happen later but the Greek speaking Romans were always the majority in Byzantine Greece and Anatolia.

@Itisme3248 Your contribution is appreciated but as the other editors have said please be mindful of their requests. As a response to this thread please propose how you want the text to look like, with sentences referencing the source (last name, year, page number will do). I haven't had time to read the scholarship but I want to put this out there and say I am looking at this when I get some time. Biz (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

First, we need to make a clear distinction between the ethnically diverse subjects of the Byzantine Roman state who didn’t identify as Romans and weren’t considered Romans ethnically, and the Byzantine Romans themselves, who were a unified ethnicity with a common, non-diverse culture and a strong ethno-national identity. Kaldellis makes it clear that the Byzantine Romans saw themselves as a distinct ethnos, separate from the diverse non-Roman populations within the empire. Their Roman identity was probably even more rigid and unified than modern ethnic groups, since there was no globalization and a strong emphasis on ethnic continuity.

This distinction is important to avoid confusion when discussing Byzantine demographics and identity. The empire ruled over multiple ethnic groups, but its politically dominant population overwhelmingly identified as Roman in an ethnic, not just political, sense. Any edits on this should reflect that distinction accurately, based on the sources.

Bogazicili’s edit misrepresents Kaldellis, falsely claiming he suggested diverse cultural groups had a common Roman identity but Kaldellis never says this.

Here’s a summary of page 8 of Romanland by Anthony Kaldellis:

Byzantine Romans saw themselves as a distinct ethnos, not as a multiethnic population. Romanization primarily applied to Greek-speaking populations, not all imperial subjects.

Kaldellis states that, by modern standards, Konstantinos VII’s views would be seen as xenophobic, racist, and nationalistic.

He argues that the Byzantine Romans saw themselves as an ethnic Roman nation, not a multiethnic empire, and that modern scholars have misrepresented this by overemphasizing religion. They were the politically dominant ethnic group within the Byzantine Roman state and ruled over non-Roman populations, who were subjects of the empire but not considered Romans in an ethnic sense.

Romanization primarily applied to Greek-speaking populations, not all imperial subjects.

Kaldellis cites Emperor Konstantinos VII, who opposed mixing Roman blood with other ethnicities and emphasized distinct national identities based on language, race/genos, customs, and laws.

Romanland p.104

In general Kaldellis talks about how the Greek language became the Roman language and was renamed to Romaic, obviously Semitic, Slavic and other languages were not seen as Roman, only Greek (Romaic) and Latin were.

Quoting Kaldellis:

"According to the evidence presented above, the Greek language began to be popularly called Romaic no later than the eleventh century, and possibly earlier"

Romanland p.68:

Kaldellis talks again about how being Byzantine Roman was not just culture, but also racial

Quoting Kaldellis:

"Birth and descent counted."

Quoting Kaldellis:

"It was also possible, in some contexts, to imagine the Romans as a large family. The national Roman collective could rhetorically take the place of one’s birth family, a sure sign that we are in the presence of a national ideology"

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, p. 30:

Kaldellis states that despite being Roman citizens and Christians, Egyptians were still seen as barbarians and non-Romans by the Byzantine Romans. He provides examples of this perception, such as in 403, a supporter of John Chrysostom described Egyptian bishops as having “half-barbarian names” and “barbaric” speech, despite being Christian. Kaldellis uses these examples to show that Byzantine Romanness was an ethnic identity that excluded even Roman citizens who did not fit their cultural and ethnic norms.

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, p. 31:

Kaldellis states that Syrians and Egyptians were not allowed to stay in Constantinople, as they were not considered Romans by the Byzantine Romans. Emperor Justinian enforced this by appointing special units called the Syrian-Catchers and Egyptian-Catchers to arrest Syrians and Egyptians found lingering in the city and expel them. The burden was on these individuals to prove they were not Syrian or Egyptian, showing that, despite being imperial subjects, they were still seen as foreigners rather than part of the Roman identity. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Quoting Bogazicili:

"Kaldellis 2023, p.26

Modern historians routinely call the Roman empire “multiethnic” but rarely name the ethnic groups in question. To be sure, the ancestors of these new Romans came from vastly diverse cultural backgrounds: they had built pyramids, written the Hebrew Bible, sacrificed children to Baal, and fought at Troy, and many once had empires of their own. They had different norms, practices, memories, gods, cults, and languages. They lived in the Nile river valley, in the rocky uplands of Cappadocia, in the fertile coasts of western Asia Minor, on Greek islands, or along the forests of Thrace. Yet this diversity, except for the ecological, was measurably on the wane. ... But more than Hellenism, it was Romanization that congealed millions of provincials into a common identity"

Why are you omitting that even Kaldellis recognizes different cultural backgrounds??"
— User:Bogazicili 19:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Bogazicili above is misrepresenting what Kaldellis meant by "new Romans." Kaldellis was referring to the period when Roman citizenship was extended to all free inhabitants of the empire, which happened before the formation of the distinct Byzantine Roman identity. By "new Romans," he meant the newly granted Roman citizens in that context. This was not a statement about the ethnic origins of the Byzantine Romans but about how Roman citizenship, which was once limited to Latins, was expanded to include all peoples within the empire.

Bogazicili is using that quote out of context to suggest that Kaldellis claimed the Byzantine Romans came from a mix of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, including Egyptians and others. But if you actually read Romanland, it’s clear that Kaldellis wrote an entire book to debunk that myth.

Kaldellis consistently argues that by the Byzantine period, the Roman identity had solidified into an ethnos, a distinct national group, formed primarily through the Romanization of Greek-speaking populations. The Byzantine Romans were not a blend of various ethnic groups from places like Egypt but a cohesive people with a shared language, culture, and identity, distinct from the non-Roman populations they ruled over. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

From: https://www.academia.edu/33442069/_The_Social_Scope_of_Roman_Identity_in_Byzantium_An_Evidence_Based_Approach_Byzantina_Symmeikta_27_2017_173_210?email_work_card=title

"After centuries of denials and evasions, the debate over the nature of Roman identity in Byzantium is finally picking up. I have previously argued that the Byzantines’ view of their own Roman identity was a national one, making Byzantium effectively a nation-state. Being a Roman was premised on common cultural traits including language, religion, and social values and customs, on belonging to the ἔθνος or γένος on that basis, and on being a “shareholder” in the polity of the Romans2."

For context γένος means race in Greek. The word gene/genetics comes from the Greek word genos. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for the well-organized summary of everyone's points. As I said above, having seen the discussion regarding the opening word between "some" and "multiple", I proposed a number of historians which to me sounds the most neutral. AirshipJungleman29, also pointed out that the quote from Kaldellis is explicitly about the situation c. 300. so perhaps this could be reflected by adding the early empire in the sentense (?). There seems to be a consensus that the demographic changes (notably the decline in ethnic diversity) of the following periods needs a mention. The above quote by me is just a proposal to show how I would envision it.

Now when it comes to medieval ethnic groups, they change and adapt throughout history. They are often defined by things like language and culture, or at least all of these are often discussed interchangeably. For example, Stathakopoulos (2023) p.7-8 mentions the following The demographic changes had clear repercussions in the linguistic landscape of the empire. Up to the loss of the eastern territories in the seventh century, Byzantium was a clearly multilingual empire [...] When the Empire was on its way to becoming an increasingly homogenous state after the seventh century, the supremacy of Greek was almost absolute. So by that time, the Greek-speaking Romaioi of the empire are treated as a homogenous group and, per the source, the dominant one in the empire. The sentence by Treadgold (2002) added by AirshipJungleman29 in the Language section seems to follow the same logic of connecting the predominance of Greek and the 7th century territorial losses with a loss of 'ethnic' diversity.

Bogacili above also further touched upon identity, giving an example of the evolution of the word "Hellen(ic)" by some Byzantine intellectuals; an interesting discussion. Piccco (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium that Bogazicili shared previously at the FAR when we first discussed this issue seems like it's the WP:RS we need to consult with to make a decision on this topic.

Of the 23 chapters, there is one by Kaldellis and based on the abstract, I think it supports Itisme3248's interpretation. We need to see what other chapters from this book we can use, from other historians, on this complex topic. Obviously, this is being challenged in scholarship with Kaldellis the lead voice but we need to hear it from other scholars. As it stands, multi-ethnic is what older scholarship called it (ie, the 2008 Oxford Handbook for Byzantine Studies) but it's now no longer the consensus.

The question for me is when we can say this change occurred from multi-ethnic to only Roman ethnicity: the Edict of Caracella which Kaldellis talks about as creating homogeneity, the 6th century hellenisation we talk about in Languages (possibly related: Justinian's policy of forcing conversions we talk about in religion), the loss of territory to the Arabs that Stathakopoulos mentions (with areas that were bilingual like Egypt and not solely Greek), or later. Biz (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

In 212 AD the Edict of Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire but even after the Edict of Caracalla, having Roman citizenship didn’t mean someone was truly seen as Roman. At that time, only Latins were fully recognized as such by the Latin Roman society. However, the Romans clearly favored Greeks over other non-Latin citizens, as seen in the example below. This could have been one of the early steps in the Romanization of the Greeks, first granting them citizenship, then treating them on par with Latin Romans, and above other non-Latin and non-Greek subjects.

The New Roman Empire: A history of Byzantium p.30:

"The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. “You will know true Egyptians,” he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter’s supporters denounced them as “bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt’s ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech.” This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek."

Nearly 200 years later, as a distinct Roman identity began forming among Greek speakers, we see Kaldellis noting that in 403 AD, Egyptian Christians were still regarded as barbarians and were insulted as "barbarian abominations". Despite being Christians and holding Roman citizenship, they were labeled as barbarians and treated with contempt. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you your point is very clear. We now need to see what other historians say. Anyone in The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium would be most helpful. Kaldellis is important, but not the only historian we want to consider. Biz (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, Kaldellis is the only historian you can probably cite, because he is the only historian who has felt this was an issue worth talking about, in Romanland (2019) and unsurprisingly maintaining his argument in his Routledge Handbook entry. Until the question attracts further sympathetic or opposing views (they can exist! the Routledge Handbook introduction notes that Kadlellis' argument that Procopius was pagan has failed to convince most Byzantinists) it is in my opinion WP:UNDUE to include a sentence on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with AirshipJungleman29. Wikipedia articles need to be slightly behind the curve as scholarship develops. If this becomes a mainstream view we can cover it. For now it would appear to be UNDUE. John (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium

I haven't read all of the discussion above, but here are some quotes from The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium:

p. 10, intro chapter:

Kaldellis strives to clear up a great deal of confusion among historians who are taken in by these labels and assume that Byzantium was a multi-ethnic empire because it consisted of Macedonians, Paphlagonians, Cappadocians, and the like. As we observe in this chapter, being a “Roman” cut across stereotypes and ethnic divides. What emerges is a “Romanness” more widely diffused and with deeper cultural and social roots than assumed by many Byzantinists.

p.81:

Much has been written around Roman identity in relation to the Byzantine state, whether as “collective identity,” pre-modern “Nation-state,” or deconstructed “multi-ethnic Roman Empire.”1 There has been some recent opposition to such views. For example, Meredith Riedel disagrees with such views and suggests that neither definition of Byzantine identity favoured by scholars like Stouraitis and Kaldellis applies

p.257, Provincial Identities in Byzantium chapter by Kaldellis, Conclusion section:

We must distinguish among foreign groups that were present on imperial territory (e.g., Goths in the early period, Slavs and Varangians in the middle period); groups long resident in the empire who were nevertheless still perceived as ethnically non-Roman (Jews, possibly Egyptians and Isaurians in the early period); and provincial pseudo-ethnicities that existed only as subcategories of mainstream Romans. Based on the latter alone—Thracians, Macedonians, Helladics, Paphlagonians, Lydians, Pisidians, Cappadocians, and the like—we should not classify Romanía as a “multi-ethnic empire.” These were not true ethnicities, but regional subclassifications of Romans. ...

Given above, we should note the disagreement and give a short summary with in-text attribution in line with WP:NPOV. I can take a look at this later. Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The texts you sent mostly confirm that groups like Slavs, Goths, Arabs, Egyptians, and Jews were not considered Roman, which directly contradicts the idea that Byzantine identity was multicultural. You tried to argue that the Byzantine Roman identity was multiethnic, but even the sources you provided don’t support that claim.

Macedonians, Cappadocians, and similar groups were just Romanized Greeks from different regions, not separate ethnicities. The very text you cited is pointing out the confusion surrounding this issue, it’s arguing against the idea that they were distinct ethnic groups.

Also, when scholars disagree with a historical argument, they need primary sources to back up their claims. The issue here is that those who disagree with Kaldellis don’t provide any. Kaldellis is one of the only historians living in the West who has based his conclusions about Byzantine identity on primary sources, while others rely on secondary sources that simply repeat modern interpretations without primary historical evidence. That’s circular citation, which violates Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. If Wikipedia enforces rules about proper sourcing, then why shouldn’t those same standards apply to the scholars being cited?

Kaldellis even points out that previous scholarship has failed to fully examine the evidence found in primary sources regarding who exactly was included when Byzantine sources referred to "Romans."

page 174 of The Social Scope of Roman Identity in Byzantium: An Evidence-Based Approach:

It concerns a specific point that no one has so far elucidated fully with reference to the evidence found in the sources: What was the social scope of attributions of Roman identity in Byzantine sources? In other words, when the sources refer to Romans in Byzantium do they mean a narrow Constantinopolitan elite or do they refer to a much larger population, including that of the provinces, which crossed the divides of social class?

Itisme3248 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You said: Also, when scholars disagree with a historical argument, they need primary sources to back up their claims. The issue here is that those who disagree with Kaldellis don’t provide any.

We don't critique the scholars on Wikipedia, we just try to summarize sources here. When sources contradict, that contradiction is explained in line with WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If a secondary source doesn’t rely on primary sources, then it’s not even a proper secondary source, it’s just a scholar’s personal wish for something to be true.

I'm not the one criticizing here, Kaldellis himself has repeatedly criticized this issue in his books and articles, pointing out that many modern scholars make claims about Byzantine identity without relying on primary evidence. Instead, they cite other secondary sources that also lack primary evidence, creating a circular system where scholars keep repeating each other’s claims to reinforce something that isn’t actually supported by historical texts.

We wouldn’t use a fantasy TV show as a historical reference, so why should we accept secondary sources on Roman identity when they aren’t backed by primary records? If a historian’s claim isn’t based on actual historical sources but instead on a web of secondary citations repeating the same unverified ideas, then it’s not real scholarship, it’s just speculation masquerading as fact. It's more like mythology at this point. Modern Mythology is not a valid secondary source for historical claims. Itisme3248 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You can add something like "Kaldellis criticizes ..." based on source above if people think it's WP:DUE. But it doesn't invalidate the opinions of other scholars. The above is also one journal article, we need overview sources such as review articles or books.

And even Kaldellis acknowledges the diversity, at least in early empire, from the above quote: Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity. I haven't read how he described later periods of the empire. Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Kaldellis was referring to the diversity of people who were granted Roman citizenship, not the actual Roman people who identified as ethnically Romans. The "Roman name" on paper may have encompassed different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups, but that does not mean those groups were considered Romans in an ethnic sense. The passage you’re quoting says that this diversity was already disappearing, with local traditions fading under Roman law and cultural assimilation. But, this did not mean barbarian non-Romans/Greeks became ethnically Roman, but only that they lived under the same legal and administrative framework as the Romans and Greeks.

You tried to make an edit that falsely claims Kaldellis claimed that the culturally/ethnically diverse people identified as Romans. Your argument overlooks the fact that Kaldellis consistently distinguishes between Roman citizens and ethnic Romans even in the early period. Just because someone had citizenship didn’t mean they were seen as Roman. He provides multiple examples showing how non-Roman subjects, like Egyptians and Syrians, were still treated as foreigners, banned from settling in Constantinople, and even expelled from Alexandria for simply not being Greek and Roman. And all of this was already happening under Caracalla, he ordered the Greeks to expel the Egyptians from Alexandria simply because they were barbarians, even though Caracalla himself in 212 AD gave everyone citizenship, he only did it for tax reasons, not ethnic reasons.

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium by Kaldellis p.30:

The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. “You will know true Egyptians,” he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter’s supporters denounced them as “bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt’s ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech.” This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek.

You must look at Kaldellis' argument as a whole. You cherry picked out a phrase about diversity out of context but Kaldellis' broader point is that the Roman identity itself in all periods, including early periods, was not diverse but a distinct homogenous ethnos, made up of Latins at the beginning and then later of mainly Romanized Greeks. His work directly refutes the idea that the Roman ethnicity and identity were diverse. Reading his arguments in full makes this clear. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This quote is from The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, page 27:

Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity

I don't see anything that it's just about "people who were granted Roman citizenship, not the actual Roman people who identified as ethnically Romans" on page 27. Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop cherry picking quotes out of context. This is very dishonest of you, you keep doing that. Kaldellis literally talks against your misconception in many parts of his book, in fact many of his books are literally centered around disproving your misconception.

When Kaldellis refers to the "Roman name," he is talking about the legal and administrative category of Roman citizenship , not an ethnic identity.

After the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, all free inhabitants of the empire were granted Roman citizenship. This meant that legally, anyone living within the empire could be considered Roman in an administrative sense, but that did not mean they were seen as Romans ethnically according to Kaldellis.

Kaldellis makes it clear that while the Roman name on paper included a wide range of peoples, actual Roman identity remained exclusive. Ethnic Romans, first Latins, then later Romanized Greeks, still saw themselves as a distinct ethnos and did not view all imperial subjects as truly Roman. This is why Kaldellis himself said that non-Roman groups like Egyptians and Syrians were still treated as outsiders, despite having citizenship. They were expelled from cities like Alexandria and Constantinople, referred to as barbarians, and were not accepted as part of the Roman people.

So when Kaldellis says the Roman name encompassed diversity, he is referring to the legal status of Roman citizenship, not ethnic identity. The mistake is in conflating legal citizenship with ethnic belonging, which Kaldellis repeatedly argues against.

If you stopped cherry picking and read his whole books you would have known and realized that Kaldellis makes the exact opposite claim about diversity in the actual Roman ethnic identity. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Itisme3248 I appreciate your input and, as it turns out, Biz finds your interpretation of Kaldellis accurate. However, please just try to write shorter responses to avoid WP:TEXTWALL when possible. Piccco (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i was left with no choice to share a lot of details against an obvious constant cherry picking out of context.

We might as well need a secondary source now to analyze Kaldellis's opinions/claims who is also a secondary source because some wiki editors just cherry pick quotes by Kaldellis to misrepresent what he meant. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Kaldellis, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019. Pp. xv, 373. | Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies | Cambridge Core even cambridge university talks about it. Itisme3248 is telling the truth and Bogazicili dude is wrong not everyone was a Roman Eternal RiftZ (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Kaldellis is one of the only historians living in the West who has based his conclusions about Byzantine identity on primary sources" does anyone who is not called Kaldellis say this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Another way to put it — and where I believe a key difference lies with Kaldellis — is that he translates Greek sources that have long been known in Greek historiography, bringing new perspectives to light in English scholarship. I also believe this is why there is such a divide between Greeks on this topic and readers of English and German historiography, which dominates the scholarship. This is a healthy debate, and we should continue evaluating the sources. I'm currently going through the Routledge book's other chapters, and I appreciate everyone’s contributions so far. Let's keep the discussion respectful and focused on sources beyond Kaldellis now. Biz (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, it will still take some time for non-Greek scholars to even realize that these primary sources exist. Itisme3248 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Biz, I agree it is a healthy debate but I think what we need for now is a short, bland summary of the currently accepted scholarship of the matter that we can all live with. John (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Noted @John. I’m working through every chapter of the ‘‘Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium’’ since only a thorough reading will allow us to fully grasp the scholarship on Byzantine identity. Unless another source meets the WP:RS standard we have set, this seems to be the most comprehensive work on the subject. I’ve previously come across Pohl’s work on Roman identity (see Roman people), but relying on his work like Kaldellis may raise concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV so seeing what else is out there. Biz (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've completed my read of the The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Kaldellis, Pohl and Stouraitis are identified as the scholars writing about identity that could be counted as recent scholarship. I'm sharing my notes below for everyone else's consideration who has an interest in this. Plenty we can use, the question is how do we do it in once sentence.

1. Finding Byzantium

• The Social Order > Page 5: In some ways, Byzantium’s territorial losses created greater homogenization in the reduced Roman state, which was left both more Greek-speaking and more Chalcedonian in its Christianity.42 There was no longer a need for as much religious negotiation between Dyophysite and Miaphysite.
• The Social Order > Page 5 As Byzantium moved into its middle and later period a variety of sources provide windows into other important markers of identity.
• Imperial Identities > Page 7: From this perspective, the Byzantines of the sixth century appear to have a mixed imperial identity—Greek (broadly philosophical, cultural) and Roman (narrowly administrative, legalistic)—at the same time.
• Macro and Micro Identities: Religious, Regional, and Ethnic Identities, and Internal Others > Page 10L After all, the Byzantine state was not a well-structured bureaucratic machine like the nation-states of modernity, which intervene extensively in the everyday life of their subjects with the aim of producing stable and coherent national identities.
• Gendered Identities: Literature, Memory, and Self in Early and Middle Byzantium > Page 11: Little wonder then that from this period orthodoxy became an even more important indicator of one’s Byzantine identity, which could then be contrasted to the Latins or “others” (including native Byzantines) who had allowed themselves to be “infected” by these westerners’ “heretical” teachings.

5. Imperial Identity: Byzantine Silks, Art, Autocracy, Theocracy, and the Image of Basileia

• Page 81 Much has been written around Roman identity in relation to the Byzantine state, whether as “collective identity,” pre-modern “Nation-state,” or deconstructed “multi-ethnic Roman Empire.”1 There has been some recent opposition to such views. For example, Meredith Riedel disagrees with such views and suggests that neither definition of Byzantine identity favoured by scholars like Stouraitis and Kaldellis applies (neither Constantinopolitan solid Roman community in both a religious and political sense, “Chosen people and Romanness,” nor Roman nation-state or republic as opposed to Empire). Riedel proposes instead that Byzantines saw themselves as the “Children of God,” who were chosen to supersede the Jewish people, to be baptised Christians and to become more like God.2
• Relationship of Imperial Byzantine Image to the Concept of BASILEA (Byzantine Monarchy) > Page 89:The three sources of Basilea and of a largely non-verbal political theory Magdalino identified with: i. Hellenic (divine kingship, philosophical, and rhetorical tools for expression of imperial qualities) ii. Roman (institutions, systems, election of and title of Roman Emperor, Roman military imperial ruler cults and Constantinople as New Rome) and iii. Judeo-Christian heritage (Biblical monarchy, succession of Empires prefiguring the Roman Emperors and King as builder of Ideal Kingdom, Constantinopolitan court as imitation of Kingdom of Heaven).53
• Page 96: Imperial Byzantine silks gave agency to Byzantine political theory in direct visual form. They served to keep subjects and foreign powers alike in mind of the great Roman, Hellenistic, and Judeo-Christian heritage of Byzantium, whilst legitimising their rule.
• Notes > Page 96: In the context of debates on the definition of Byzantine identity in general, it appears that however much open to question, Imperial identity as autocracy upheld by theocracy, may have offered an anchor upon which to secure the diverse identities of a multi-ethnic, budding “nation state,” which over centuries had evolved out of a deconstructed Roman Empire.
• Notes > Page 96 For example, Ioannis Stouraitis, “Roman Identity in Byzantium: A Critical Approach,” BZ 107/1 (2014): 175–220; Anthony Kaldellis, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Cambridge MA: HUP, 2019), 159–278; Walter Pohl, Clemens Gantner, Cinzia Grifoni and Marianne Pollheimer Mohaupt, eds. Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018).

6. To Triumph Forever: Romans and Barbarians in Early Byzantium

• Page 107 Despite a stern rejection in most recent scholarship of a simplistic dichotomy of civilised Romans versus savage barbarians,8 scholars of gender examining interactions amongst non-Romans and Romans in the decisive fifth century still tend to trace parts of the well-trodden path laid out long ago by Edward Gibbon, by which increasingly non-martial Romans in the West are gradually overwhelmed by manlier warrior-barbarian peoples, who then carve out post-Roman kingdoms; the East Romans are largely ignored.9
• The Social Hierarchy > Page 108: Greeks and Romans over barbarians.13 So,
• The Social Hierarchy > Page 108 Walter Pohl aptly sums, “identities are always constituted by differences, and the Romans had inherited a power scheme of ‘us and them’ from the Greeks, for whom they had initially been barbarians themselves.”15
• The Social Hierarchy > Page 108 Barbarian was a matter of one’s perspective; those who disparaged Stilicho as a barbarian tended to be his enemies.20
• Intelligent and Courageous > Page 112: He made it clear that only the ancient Greeks and Romans were able to combine an unyielding and warlike nature with the inclination for political life.57
• Intelligent and Courageous > Page 113: The knack of ruling oneself by repressing one’s emotions and urges had long made up an essential component of Greek and Roman masculinity.65

7. Some Considerations on Barbarian Ethnicity in Late Antiquity

• Debate > Page 124 The debate concerning ethnicity is primarily between two research centres: the already mentioned Vienna School gathered around Herwig Wolfram and the so-called Toronto School whose mentor is Walter Goffart. Building on the works of Reinhard Wenskus, Wolfram has constructed a model presenting the process of the formation of the Goths.11 It was thus a long series of Gothic ethnogeneses which ended in the Roman territory when the Ostrogoths settled in Italy and the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain. This theory has been developed in many respects by Wolfram’s former student, Walter Pohl.
• Origo gentis Langobardorum as an Instrument of Shaping Longobard Identity > Page 134: Codifying this “counter-identity” gave the Longobard elite a powerful instrument that activated the ethnic identity of the Longobards at a time when only the consolidation of their community could allow them to achieve victory over the external enemy—Eastern Romans—who wanted to win back Italy from them.

11. Contested Identities in the Byzantine West, circa 540-895

• Page 200 The inhabitants of the East Roman/Byzantine empire remained Romaioi and were ruled by the Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans (βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων/basileus kai autokratōr Rhōmaíōn).19 For the enemies of the empire, the inhabitants were Romans, but westerners tended to simply refer to people of the empire as “Graeci” (Greeks).20 This seems to be the implication of Erchempert’s less-than-positive appraisal of “Achivi” (Greeks) in the ninth century. Yet akin to the Umayyad (661–750) and Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) it was at varying points in its iterations multi-ethnic.21 Over the course of our period, one could posit the case for a narrowing of perception and the creation of an identity associated with a conscious Hellenisation that flowed from Constantinople. One example of this process was the disappearance or at least the marginalisation of Latin speakers and communities in the Balkans during the seventh century.22 One could suggest that composite identities such as “a” Byzantine identity are in themselves essentially oxymoronic, but one may see that identity is not ineluctably associated with a political authority but can operate tangentially with slower cultural and religious rhythms.23 Byzantine identity was then somewhat more than “Greek” and at the same time something else than simply “Roman” (in its classical context).24
• New Realities in the Long-Seventh Century circa 602-751 > Page 204: By the end of this period, the Byzantine empire’s control became mediated through local power networks for example, in Naples, in Sardinia, and in the Balearic Islands that operated separately—although elites in these areas “funnelled” their legitimacy through adherence to the emperor in Constantinople. There was no inherent association in this period with the East per se, but a strong attachment to the Mediterranean focus of the empire.70 This
• Page 208: Such then is the case in parts of Italy from the late-seventh century onwards. In this respect, then and aside from specific cultural isolates, Byzantium became a “foreign” place with an identity that remained focussed and mediated through local networks, where local identity stayed primordial. At any given point in time, elites might or might not be subject to cooptation in respect of authority and power. This might, on the one hand, result in direct governance through imposed representatives sent by Constantinople but increasingly in our period it simply meant an association between elites and the centre. In practice, this might mean no more than that an individual was bestowed with a Byzantine honour, for example, the dux of Benevento, and that emperors were acknowledged in charters. We must, however, as we have seen remain wary if not sceptical at narratives that seek to homogenise the varied and multifaceted experiences of individuals across the whole of the central Mediterranean and how their responses and impulses were demonstrated.

12. Overlapping Identities and Individual Agency in Byzantine Southern Italy

• Page 218: it categorises complex individuals into discrete groups based on tiny pieces of information. Ethnicity and religion are, along with sex and language, the main markers of identity for individuals in the writing of the history of southern Italy.
• Page 218: Yet ethnicity is not a firm category. Dion Smythe writes that ethnic identity is not a black and white matter, but rather “a spectrum of shades of grey.”5 Placing historical figures into groups based on their ancestry is itself a constructed oversimplification of a complex reality.
• Southern Italy in Context > Page 220: Identity cannot be reduced to a single factor or two, nor should we expect it to be expressed with uniform consistency by individual human beings, and this suggests a degree of caution should be taken by scholars willing to understand the region.
• Southern Italy in Context > Page 221: At the invitation of the papacy, the Franks from north of the Alps became active in Italy, capturing the capital of the Lombard kingdom of Pavia in 774.
• Identity and Political Allegiance > Page 222: to depopulated areas, they did not account for the overall trend of demographic increase. Ghislaine Noyé suggests that the increasing Hellenization of southern Italy (particularly Calabria) did not result from deliberate imperial attempts to forge identity. She
• BIdentity and Political Allegiance > Page 223: Constantinople’s role in deliberately shaping religious identity is a bit more difficult to ascertain. Religious identity could certainly influence political identity, especially in the case of the Byzantine Empire, where there was a strong connection between church and state. The courtship of the nascent Bulgarian church by both Rome and Constantinople in the 860s, on the eve of the Byzantine resurgence in southern Italy, highlights the close ties that could exist between ecclesiastical affiliation and political allegiance on the ecclesiastical borderland between Greek and Latin Christianity.25
• Overlapping Identities > Page 224: Certainly, the Byzantines did attempt to foster political allegiance in southern Italy. Rather than relying heavily on ethnic connections or using religious identity to connect the region with the capital, they used other means to promote political allegiance. The administration brought local leaders to the capital or offered them refuge, either as a way to overawe them with the size, wealth, and splendour of the capital, or to isolate them from local affairs. It granted imperial titles to important local figures, legislated, and showed force by sending large armies to provide security from outside destabilizing raiders.
• Overlapping Identities > Page 224: Local rulers were more likely to identify with Byzantium, as evidence on both coinage and in charters shows, when Constantinople was able to be militarily useful.
• Overlapping Identities > Page 224: While ethnicity and religious identity are often some of the few pieces of information the historian knows or can surmise about an individual in the source record, the links between ethnic and ecclesiastical identity and political allegiance were not fused tightly together. Cases that run counter to what one might naturally assume, those in which these identities did not result in political allegiance, can serve as a helpful reminder that identity is complex and often affected by local priorities or a self-interest shaped by influences on identity that competed with ethnic or religious connections. These underlying influences on how a person understands himself and his relation to the rest of the world often go unrecorded by the sources, but the history of Byzantine southern Italy is full of instances of actions that contradict the expectations that link ethnic and religious identity with political allegiance and its behaviour. Not only did groups and individuals sharing ethnicity and religious affiliation fight among themselves, but they were willing to ally with those outside of the group against those with whom they shared these aspects of identity.
• Overlapping Identities > Page 226: In some ways, the division between Latin and Greek Christianity might be the place where group identity should be most evident, considering the close connection between church and state in Byzantium. Yet there are numerous examples where the divisions do not seem to have mattered much. As Valarie Ramseyer noted, “People in the early Middle Ages did not belong to a religion as much as they practiced one.”53 Scholars have noted the lack of animosity between Greek and Latin Christians in southern Italy, even as high-level ecclesiastical rhetoric suggested otherwise.54
• Conclusion > Page 228: Relying too heavily on specific categories of group identity obscures the dynamism of the pieces by reducing individuals to a single, even if dominant, aspect of their individuality. Of course, the historian desires to appreciate not only the individual pieces but also the entire image.

14. Provincial Identities in Byzantium

• Page 248: For example, there is the model of Byzantium as a “multiethnic empire,” which presupposes the existence of many ethnic groups in the empire’s territories. Which were they? Until 2019, there was no focused study of ethnicity in Byzantium and so potentially any group that had an ethnic-seeming name could be listed as such. A book from 1985 listed “Macedonians, Cappadocians, Bulgarians, and Varangians.”2
• Roman and Local Identities in Byzantium > Page 249: This chapter will try to make sense of Byzantines’s provincial identities within the overarching framework of their Roman identity, which, by the middle Byzantine period if not earlier, was an unambiguously ethnic one. The Romans of Byzantium were, roughly speaking, that part of its population that was Greek-speaking and Christian Orthodox. It was not these qualities alone that made them Roman, but we can track them more easily through them. This Roman identity, moreover, was not exclusively focalised on Constantinople (which was also known as New Rome), but on “Romanía,” which was the common name for the whole of the Roman state and its society; after the tenth or eleventh century it also became its official name in court documents.
• Notes > Page 258: characteristics to such identities.”59 Byzantine provincial groups lacked almost all the constitutive elements of a real ethnicity, such as a separate language, religion, laws, social structure, distinct history, customs, and a sense that they were different from their neighbours, who in this case were just the Romans of the adjacent provinces.

Biz (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed text

This is my proposal which can be referenced by several of the chapters above The people’s identity was anchored in Roman, Hellenic, and Judeo-Christian traditions. Scholars disagree on whether there was a singular collective identity—such as Roman or Orthodox Christian—if it functioned as a distributed ‘multi-ethnic’ empire, or if it can be considered a pre-modern Hellenic ‘nation-state.’ Over time, as the empire lost territory, it gradually became less diverse, concentrating mostly in its Balkan and Anatolian provinces. Biz (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there are WP:OR issues. "Roman, Hellenic, and Judeo-Christian" are listed for Basilea (p. 87), which is Byzantine Monarchy (p. 86).

But you are saying "The people’s identity". The source talks about monarchy, you are talking about the entire people. This is WP:OR.

The overall issue is the minimization of diversity in Byzantine Empire. Multiple historians call the Empire multiethinc.

In The New Roman Empire, Kaldellis says Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity (p. 27)

In Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, Kaldellis talks about their mixed background: p. 43

About the "Hellenic 'nation-state.'", the quote I gave from The Oxford History of Byzantium, Chapter 11: Palaiologan Learning was about intellectuals "By the thirteenth century".

Your above quote talks about In the context of debates on the definition of Byzantine identity in general, it appears that however much open to question, Imperial identity as autocracy upheld by theocracy, may have offered an anchor upon which to secure the diverse identities of a multi-ethnic, budding “nation state,” which over centuries had evolved out of a deconstructed Roman Empire

You paraphrased all that "or if it can be considered a pre-modern Hellenic ‘nation-state.’ ". Again, that seems like a big WP:OR and WP:NPOV issue. Who calls Byzantine Empire "a pre-modern Hellenic 'nation-state.'"? Bogazicili (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In terms of WP:DUE, the entire logic doesn't make sense.

Even if we ignore all the above issues, which we shouldn't, why does your proposed sentence start with information that is in page 87 of the source?? The source is The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Ideally you should have started with the introduction chapter. This source is not an overview source such as the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. If you were citing the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies with its dedicated summary chapters, I can understand starting with page 87, but it doesn't make sense for The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

For that draft I was incorporating feedback earlier which you can see from the start of this broader thread but yes let's stick to sources now. I'm fine in referencing the introduction which synthesises but I don't agree dismissing outright the more focused chapters.

The medieval expression of a Greek identity is heavily influenced by Modern Greek national discourse. p.176 Strouratuis (2014). I deem it as a significant minority view as it's been a part of Greek historiography since the formation of the nation, and I liken it to another major view influenced by German historiography that has the Late Antiquity Roman Empire as their origin. As Strouratuis explains, this plus the "preponderant" multi-ethnic view you are in favour of, and thirdly a pre-modern nation state in which Romaness had the traits of national identity were the three main opinions about identity when he wrote in 2014. Given this was a decade ago, this is already aged scholarship and relying only on the multi-ethnic view referencing sources written before 2014 is WP:UNDUE

Strouratuis gives us additional commentary which is helpful

• These refer to the continuance of Roman imperial structures in the East, the gradual linguistic Hellenization of the imperial administration, and the apparently increased cultural homogeneity. The latter refers to the conclusion of the process of Christianization in the sixth century as well as to the survival of only one lingua franca(Greek) within the contracted Eastern Empire after the seventh century. These developments seem to represent a better starting point for the formation of a state-framed national identity, or alternatively of a (Graiko‐)Roman ethnic identity among a core population,within the post seventh century Eastern Roman imperial order.
• Anthony Kaldellis opened this discussion a few years ago in his monograph “Hellenism in Byzantium”. There he argued for the transformation of the so-called Byzantine Empire into a Nation-State up from the seventh century on-wards, in which the Roman political culture had assimilated them as ses and abrogated ethno-cultural diversity within the state-frame to create a Roman nation

Kaldellis explains his critique in page 248 of Routledge of the preponderant view where he states that the model of a "multiethnic empire" is based on assumptions and that before 2019 there was no focused study of ethnicity. His expands that a lot of what was called an ethnicity were just regionalisation. Your reference of p27 Kaldellis (2023) talking about the early Byzantine period is exactly this point. The following sentence says these are pseudo-ethnic names and he continues over the next few pages on his point that they were "Greek-speaking Romans" at this time who had forgotten their Asia-minor ancestors, and it was only a few with their separate religious communities that seem to have their identity survive and that continued under Muslim rule.

As for "Roman, Hellenic, and Judeo-Christian traditions" yes you're right this should be only applied to the state not the people which page 96 expands as a tactic by the emperors on the population and other powers. Replacement first sentence: Although the state anchored people’s identity in Roman, Hellenic, and Judaeo-Christian traditions, the population had more diversity but this is debated.

p5 in the Routledge introduction supports that there was greater homogenization following the 6th century, which is further repeated in page 7 and p11 supporting Orthodoxy in the late era which aligns with your p81 reference to Meredith Riedel who believes Christianity is the identity. However, before the 6th century I'm not sure how to word it and arguably, this is the WP:DUE issue as the "empire" lasted 1,123 years and we are only taking about at best 300 years. Kaldellis's view, even with your referencing, is suggesting a Roman Greek Speaking Christianity ethnicity. His view is clearly the "nation state" ethnicity, and referencing to him calling it "multi-ethnic" view selectively choosing sentences not his overall argument which he states across all his publications.

For the second sentence: how do you propose we write it in light of the above? We haven't even discussed Pohl yet, but if we can get Strouratuis in addition Kaldellis (and related, correctly interpreting him) then we are tapping into the latest scholarship and balances the aged scholarship to make it WP:NPOV Biz (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop repeating your obviously cherry picked phrase by Kaldellis. We have been over this 100 times and everyone agreed that you cherry picked the phrase. At this point you are trying to promote your biased view.

"In The New Roman Empire, Kaldellis says Even so, the Roman name encompassed considerable ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity (p. 27)"

Kaldellis was referring to the diversity of people who were granted Roman citizenship, not the actual Roman people who identified as ethnically Romans. The "Roman name" on paper may have encompassed different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups, but that does not mean those groups were considered Romans in an ethnic sense. The passage you’re quoting says that this diversity was already disappearing, with local traditions fading under Roman law and cultural assimilation. But, this did not mean barbarian non-Romans/Greeks became ethnically Roman, but only that they lived under the same legal and administrative framework as the Romans and Greeks.

You tried to make an edit that falsely claims Kaldellis claimed that the culturally/ethnically diverse people identified as Romans. Your argument overlooks the fact that Kaldellis consistently distinguishes between Roman citizens and ethnic Romans even in the early period. Just because someone had citizenship didn’t mean they were seen as Roman. He provides multiple examples showing how non-Roman subjects, like Egyptians and Syrians, were still treated as foreigners, banned from settling in Constantinople, and even expelled from Alexandria for simply not being Greek and Roman. And all of this was already happening under Caracalla, he ordered the Greeks to expel the Egyptians from Alexandria simply because they were barbarians, even though Caracalla himself in 212 AD gave everyone citizenship, he only did it for tax reasons, not ethnic reasons.

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium by Kaldellis p.30:

The emperor Caracalla empowered the (Greek) authorities of Alexandria to expel native Egyptians who overstayed their welcome. “You will know true Egyptians,” he clarified, from their speech, clothes, appearance, and uncouth life, a clear case of ethnic profiling. In 403, a group of Egyptian bishops came to Constantinople to depose its bishop John Chrysostom. One of the latter’s supporters denounced them as “bishops with half-barbarian names, derived from Egypt’s ancient abominations, whose speech and language were entirely barbaric, and whose character imitated their speech.” This was a Christian talking about bishops of the same faith as himself who likely also spoke Greek.

You must look at Kaldellis' argument as a whole. You cherry picked out a phrase about diversity out of context but Kaldellis' broader point is that the Roman identity itself in all periods, including early periods, was not diverse but a distinct homogenous ethnos, made up of Latins at the beginning and then later of mainly Romanized Greeks. His work directly refutes the idea that the Roman ethnicity and identity were diverse. Reading his arguments in full makes this clear.

Itisme3248 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe this, or any discussion of "identity" longer than a short sentence, meets WP:WEIGHT. As a reminder, subjects in the article should be represented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. We agreed at the beginning of this rewrite that the best way to analyse prominence, for this article, is to look to the overview works, which as we have seen, do not discuss the issue in detail (aside from Kaldellis). A Routledge Handbook is the opposite: they are specialist publications for academic researches. Relevant Handbooks for us include "Byzantine Visual Culture in the Danube Regions, 1300-1600" and "Human-Animal Relations in the Byzantine World". I hope no-one is suggesting we devote over 60 words to both of those topics? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I am open to one sentence, assuming it covers all the perspectives appropriately. What would be most helpful is if people suggest what that sentence is. But since you questioned, let me expand what I believe think actually matters.

I disagree with the idea that WP:RS are limited only to Oxford and Cambridge compendiums from 17–30 years ago, as representing a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. We also agreed that if a topic is mentioned in the narrative sources, it merits inclusion. The fact that Kaldellis is not only a major figure in this debate but is also actively challenging the earlier Oxford compendium (2002), which represents the previously preponderant "multi-ethnic" view, makes his perspective all the more essential. This is especially important because his interpretation shapes his entire narrative and it shapes future periodisation debates that could one day see this article be reduced to just a few paragraphs. If we fail to highlight and explain that lens to the reader, we risk presenting his view as settled fact—when, in reality, it remains highly contested. This is particularly important for a subject so deeply intertwined with nationalism and contemporary political debates, which I'm sorry to disappoint you, but is an entire chapter in Routledge and is cited in our legacy section. A chapter that is also cited by the highest WP:RS there is in this article, The English Historical Review, and which also discusses ethnicity and which should question if not rebalance your point of what coverage (and what really are) overview sources.

Strouraitis (2014), Pohl (2018), and Kaldellis (2019) are recognised as leading the scholarship, as evidenced by their mention in in Routledge and directly overlaps with other good articles, such as Pohl’s inclusion in Roman people, which Roman identity also redirects to. The fact in the rewrite of languages "multi-ethnic empire" is used is an example of how this article fails in quality as it violates WP:NPOV and why it may be worth understanding this topic a little deeper, regardless the fate of this single sentence. The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium synthesises these debates across multiple chapters on all dimensions and uses language that is both current and appropriate for discussing this complex subject. That alone provides significant value, whether or not individual chapters are directly cited.

To discuss Byzantine identity without referencing these scholars—or to dismiss The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium as not WP:RS—while suggesting that visual culture or human-animal studies are equally central, is humour that is irresponsible. The Byzantine Empire plays a foundational role in the national narratives of many modern nations and in both Western and Eastern European civilisation. If we can't treat this topic with the seriousness it deserves, we risk failing not only our readers but also our AI overlords absorbing our work, and we will be all the worse off for it. Biz (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's address the issues here sequentially:

"I disagree with the idea that WP:RS are limited only to Oxford and Cambridge compendiums from 17–30 years ago, as representing a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." this is not very intelligible. I assume you are trying to say "not only Oxford and Cambridge compendiums fulfil the "well-researched" FA criterion? You are correct, but I was discussing not breath of scholarship, but the next criterion: my point was that the overview compendiums clearly establish DUE prominence in a way other sources cannot. You have never participated in any sort of quality control process before this FAR, and so you underestimate how much emphasis is placed by reviewers on what is/isn't included; reference to overview sources which also provide an encyclopedic summary of the topic (just much longer) are the best way of justifying content.

As for "if a topic is mentioned in the narrative sources, it merits inclusion" ... just read any dozen-page portion of Kaldellis 2023 and make a list of how many topics he touches on, and whether you want to make a case for all their inclusion here.

" The fact that Kaldellis is not only a major figure in this debate ... it remains highly contested." I don't quite understand this argument. The majority viewpoint is challenged by a minority viewpoint, but since some things could happen in the future, WP:WEIGHT must be ignored and the minority view focused on? If the majority viewpoint agrees that Justinian's empire was "multi-ethnic" (something even Kadellis admits was possible! see Handbook, p. 254), that is a violation of WP:NPOV? I don't think so. As an aside, if you challenge a mainstream academic viewpoint, you become a major figure in the debate you created. That says nothing.

"This is particularly important..." Don't see why I should be disappointed that a subject which has received general attention is mentioned in Legacy; that seems entirely appropriate. Rather confused, however, how the EHR can be considered "the highest WP:RS there is in this article", and why it may "rebalance [my] point of what coverage overview sources". Care to explain those last bits?

I'm sorry, but if there's a viable point in your increasingly hyperbolic second and third paragraphs, I don't see it. It doesn't matter what any WP:GA says, it doesn't matter that an academic publication fulfils its basic functions, it doesn't matter what subjects you ascribe contemporary importance to. The facts are thus: the majority view on identity has been challenged by minority views (emphasis on the plural, curiously undiscussed above!). Kaldellis, Strouraitis, Riedel, Cassis, Pohl, and others are all "leading the scholarship", however you want to construe that, but they are not the unified monolith you pretend they are. They each have their own minority viewpoints, which have not yet achieved academic consensus. I would like to see another proposed formulation from you which better considers WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

"If the majority viewpoint agrees that Justinian's empire was "multi-ethnic"

That’s not what this debate is about. The issue isn’t whether the citizens of the Byzantine Roman state were diverse, it’s that someone tried to edit the page to falsely suggest that Kaldellis claimed the people who actually identified as Romans were multiethnic, which is completely inaccurate. Kaldellis completely rejects that idea in his books and articles.

Itisme3248 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two users on this talk page who keep cherry picking quotes out of context and steering the discussion off track to mislead people. This kind of subversive behavior needs to stop. Itisme3248 (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The first line of this page reads "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Byzantine Empire article." I personally am debating with Biz how to best improve this article. Biz brought up the phrase "multi-ethnic" in the "Language" section, and I am directly responding to that. If you do not want to participate in discussions about improving the article, and instead just have problems with someone's conduct, you can take it to WP:ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is literally titled "Identity in Demography section". It is about improving the claims on the Byzantine Roman identity. You are again being subversive and try to twist what this discussion in this section is about. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please apologise for that direct personal attack or open a section at WP:ANI. I will not engage with you further until you do. Biz, I look forward to your response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You and Bogazicili have repeatedly derailed the conversation and misrepresented both our arguments and Kaldellis’ work. This kind of behavior is unacceptablee and honestly speaks for itself. I have no reason to apologize for pointing out these clear attempts to mislead and confuse others in this discussion. If anything, it’s you and Bogazicili who should be apologizing for distorting the discussion. If anyone else reads all my replies in this talk page, they will realize what is going on here. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was made because the user Bogazicili was trying to edit the page to falsely suggest that Kaldellis claimed the people who actually identified as Romans were multiethnic, which is completely inaccurate. Kaldellis completely rejects that idea in his books and articles. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree that we need to consider how reviewers approach these questions, and I appreciate that perspective despite my inexperience. However, I do think it's important to recognise that this topic is quite distinct — we’re dealing with a vast academic field covering a millennium-long state, where interpretations are shaped by different national traditions and scholarly approaches. In such a context, no single publication or publisher can fully set the standard.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss the 2022 Routledge Handbook of Identity in Byzantium as not meeting WP:RS — particularly when it's a recent, substantial work that reflects ongoing scholarly discussions. By contrast, relying primarily on overviews like the 2008 Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is a form of selection bias, given how much the field has evolved. It's conservative to stand up to critiques, but to the point of being inaccurate. Kaldellis 2023 narrative has set a new standard, but we also don't want to be dependent on him and yet this topic is at the core of his scholarship so needs to be understood. I understand we don't want to be ahead of the scholarship but we should at least reflect where it currently stands.

My preference is careful judgment and balance, not making decisions based on one aged source's treatment. In this case, it seems we've converged on a practical solution despite my initial reluctance when it was first raised in January: 1 (maybe 2) sentences in the Demography section is the appropriate way to reflect the topic without undue weight. The broader question we're dealing with is less about identity itself and more about how we define and apply WP:RS in this article. When issues are raised — as Bogazicili did here — and discussed with relevant scholarship, I think it's worth engaging seriously and collaboratively, rather than dismissing the attempt. That's the process we should be following and what my reaction is for.

As for the EHR, my point is a peer review of books in a credible journal, needs to be recognised as a reliable source. Regarding the EHR (October 2024), it notes a pertinent point, "In so far as Byzantinists have addressed the politics of our discipline, it is a truth universally acknowledged that Byzantine studies suffers from nationalism." — this should instruct us to be particularly thoughtful with topics like ethnicity. The Routledge book has now made me question what even is ethnicity. Continuing to prioritise the framing from a 2008 compendium to assert that "multi-ethnic" in other sections is wrong as it's not the consensus anymore (I mean, how many minority views does it take). Is there even evidence, in 2025, that it is still the preponderant view that it once was? how about 2024? 2023? is there anyone in 2022, but no, not you Routledge, you don't count. I would suggest we remove the sentence in Languages for neutrality reasons, be mindful elsewhere in the article. and focus on ensuring the phrasing in Demography captures the necessary nuance without overstating any single viewpoint.

And yes, it's on me to propose an acceptable version which I will focus on. Biz (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome, Biz. For the last time, the Routledge Handbook is a reliable source. Now go back and read my above comments, keeping in mind that that fact is not in dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The multiethnic discussion began, because that's what it says in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 777. It's in the first sentence of Language chapter.

@Biz: when you suggest Although the state anchored people’s identity in Roman, Hellenic, and Judaeo-Christian traditions, the population had more diversity but this is debated, you are making it complicated. For example:

The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium, p. 240

After Heraclius’s victory over Sassanid forces, the emperor initiated a formal policy of religious persecution against the Jews of the empire, resulting in the first edict of forced baptism in 636.

The above doesn't seem like "anchoring" to me. So the way you phrased above sentence might be factually inaccurate.

I know I gave quotes from several chapters in the Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium above, but I feel like that was a mistake. I was trying to summarize the disagreement in the field.

Seeing AirshipJungleman29's WEIGHT argument above, I agree we should be brief. Maybe we can add a sentence or two, using the overview source (The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies), Intro chapter of The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium, and a recent review article if it exists? Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the proposed text, I think "Judaeo-Christian" is undue, as Bogaazicili's example shows above. It would be more accurate to leave it at "Christian", or, even better, "Orthodox Christian" to include the period after the Great Schism. Regarding "multi-ethnic", it is somewhat of a tautology, as all empires are by definition multi-ethnic. Has there ever been a mono-ethnic in history. Trivial, uninformative sentences such as "The Empire was multi-ethnic" are also a good example of the "Quality issues" discussed in the section below. Lastly, I also think it's important to focus on more recent scholarship such as Kaldellis 2023 in favor of older sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if all empires are multi-ethnic or not. For this Wikipedia article, if reliable sources about Byzantine Empire mentions it, then it becomes a question of if it is DUE or not.

The fact that Byzantine Empire is multiethnic is mentioned in overview sources (The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 777, first sentence in Language section). As Kaldellis himself notes (p. 43 ), it's in the introduction of Cyril Mango's book. I'm also seeing it in the intro chapter of another one of Cyril Mango's books, The Oxford History of Byzantium

It's definitely DUE. The rest about all empires being multiethnic is WP:FORUM-like discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if all empires are multi-ethnic or not. Seriously? You expect anyone to take this seriously? Was the Ottoman Empire "multi-ethnic"? Yes, it was. Because all empires are multi-ethnic. I have very little time for empty generaliztions, and the article does not have room for them. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed text 2

Biz, with respect to Hellenic or Greek pre-modern nation-state, see the quotes in Draft_talk:Byzantine_Roman_identity#Original_Research. Even Kaldellis is very clear that most Byzantines did not consider themselves Greek

Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis

p. 12: Naturally, the eastern Romans disliked being called Greeks. ... pp 16-17: Thus, as the west was moving away from the paradigm of the “Greek empire” and toward the ethnically vague notion of Byzantium, nationalist historiography in Greece ensconced the old ethnic model in its official view of the past. While there is skepticism about this model in Greece today, the empire’s official Hellenization in national discourse was possible only because western historiography had already stripped it of its Romanness. Some Greek national historians still go through the same motions of dismissing the testimony of the sources and ridiculing the idea that Greek- speaking Orthodox people can “ really” be Romans. By stripping off that false label, they hope to expose the Greek underneath.43 These moves were pioneered by western medieval writers and are still with us. For different reasons, therefore, both western and national Greek historiography have an interest to engage in denialism. p. 29: With the exception of a tiny number of intellectuals in the later period, the Byzantines themselves did not think they were Greeks and resented the name, which was imposed on them by the Latins. p. 271, Conclusion section: The evidence is extensive and incontrovertible. What we call Byzantium was a Roman polity populated overwhelmingly by identifiable ethnic Romans and a number of ethnic minorities. “Roman” was not an elite court identity or a literary affect: it was a nationality that extended to most of the population regardless of its location, occupation, gender, and class (i.e., roughly to all who were Greek- speaking and Orthodox).

Biz and AirshipJungleman29, unless there is a very recent (2023 or 2024) high quality source, the intro chapter in the Routledge Handbook on Identity (2022) makes the current state of scholarship with respect to ethnicity clear. Bolding is mine

p.2

As Walter Pohl has recently discussed, in comparison to other groups like the Goths, the notion of Romanness as an ethnic identity remains controversial and needs much further elucidation.14

p. 10

In most modern scholarship, provincial labels (Macedonian, Paphlagonian, Cappadocian, etc.) are seen to have functioned as ethnicities in Byzantium. In Chapter 14, however, Anthony Kaldellis maintains that they were not ethnicities, ...

There is entire part about Being Byzantine in A Companion to Byzantium with multiple chapters. Insiders and Outsiders chapter deals with some of these issues.

Bringing all these sources together, here's my preliminary suggestion (need to check WP:CLOP, wording etc):

The identity of Byzantines is debated among scholars using a variety of approaches. Throughout a thousand years, Byzantine society had a "changing yet unchanging" nature. Historians usually consider the empire multi-ethnic,, where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity. In the medieval period, the empire was more homogenous as its territory declined. The imperial identity of Byzantines was Roman, Hellenic, and Christian Orthodox.

This is longer than what I had suggested above, but it's because I found extra coverage in A Companion to Byzantium (2010). Given The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is from 2008, the more recent parts come from the intro chapter (1. Finding Byzantium) in Routledge Handbook of Identity (2022). The first sentences are vague, but they are supposed to be vague, since there are multiple ways to approach this. Bogazicili (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we're making progress. I'm trying to read more sources that I can to contribute (Pohl, Stiourathi). But wanted to drop this note for consideration.

The challenge with this is that it’s multiple questions at the centre of the debate and that we need to be cognisant of

• what is an ethnos. Related to the topic but not this discussion: what is a nation?
• Another important consideration is that ethnicity is a historiographic issue. According to Walter Pohl, we are oversimplifying historical realities and reinforcing circulator assumptions based on modern assumptions.
• At the core of the debate is when did the people who followed the emperor, who were Chalcedonian-Orthodox Christians and Greek-speaking, transition into an ethnos? The consensus I'm identifying is that it happened by the 12th century at the latest.
  • Walter Pohl said defining a Roman ethnicity before the 12th century is dangerous. I’m still trying to understand why he thinks this.
  • Ioannis Stiourathi, who Pohl writes about in his introduction in Transformation of Romanness (2018), claims the ‘apparently enhanced cultural homogeneity (single lingua franca, Chalcedonian Orthodoxy)’ could be used to construct the image of the Rhomaioi as an ethnic group but the elites promoted loyalty to the state and emperor. That an ethnic image only appears in the historiography in the 12th century.

This also ties to Kaldellis' chapter about regional identities. Another way to express this debate is “Historians debate the cultural homogeneity that occurred, and when the Greek-speaking Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy citizens that supported the emperor became an ethnic group, the Rhomaioi. Key being we don't make a claim when but add as many sources as possible for the reader to explore. Biz (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Those quotes from the Handbook are illuminating; Biz, I believe that answers your question of "Is there even evidence, in 2025, that it is still the preponderant view that it once was? how about 2024? 2023? is there anyone in 2022, but no, not you Routledge, you don't count."

I like some of what you've done Bogazicili. I think the first sentences are too vague: the second sentence is unclear for the general reader, while the first could go for any section of the article, and are probably unnecessary if we convey scholarly debate in the later sentence. The last is also a bit confusing ("imperial identity?"), and the Handbook intro is clear that while these were primary, they were three "of many markers of identity". Taking that into account, something like

Scholars have traditionally viewed the empire as multi-ethnic, with three primary identities: Roman, Hellenic, and Christian. Other theories favour concepts of a unified Roman or Christian identity. As its territory diminished in the medieval period, the empire became more ethnically homogenous.

is maybe still too long, but I can accept it. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: this is missing one important aspect, the regional ethnicities. For example, there doesn't seem to be a Greek ethnicity, but regional ethnicities such as Macedonian etc (traditional view). Kaldellis argues for Greek-speaking Roman ethnicity.

And Roman, Hellenic, and Christian are not primary identities of the general population. See above quotes from Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium that most Byzantines did not identify as Greek. This is what Handbook of Identity says, p.3

“Roman” and “Greek” were only two of many markers of identity in Byzantium. It has been argued by some that the Byzantines’ religious identity as God’s “chosen people” who had super-ceded the Jews was far more important than their Roman or Greek identities. The increasing place of Christianity ...

And the handbook on identity talks about language and religion in terms of growing homogeneity, but asks if regional identities still mattered, p.5

In some ways, Byzantium’s territorial losses created greater homogenization in the reduced Roman state, which was left both more Greek-speaking and more Chalcedonian in its Christianity.42 ... Despite this seeming homogeneity of medieval Romans, however, regional differences continued to matter ... A major question is whether provincial identities themselves ...

I think some vague sentences about acknowledging the debate among scholars is fine, but I'm not going to press on that point.

Here's my revised suggestion based on your input:

Scholars have traditionally viewed the empire as multi-ethnic, where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity. Some of the main identities are Roman, Hellenic, and Christian. [Alternatively, a more narrow sentence about imperial identity which can be worded more strongly: The imperial identity of Byzantines was Roman, Hellenic, and Christian Orthodox] As its territory diminished in the medieval period, the empire became more homogenous in terms of language and religion.

Bogazicili (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, if you are still concerned about DUEness of provincial vs Roman identity, Kaldellis also talks about it in p.27 in The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium. Unlike the identity handbook, that is an overview source. Bogazicili (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

References

"More Homogeneous" is a euphemism. As time went on, it became more "homogeneously Greek". Your entire proposed sentence tries to avoid mentioning the G-word. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it became more homogenously Greek and Christian. We can add both of those in if you feel it is necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We can say more Greek-speaking and Orthodox. I wasn't sure if "more Chalcedonian" can be paraphrased as more Orthodox. Or Greek-speaking and Christian. Bogazicili (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason I'm not sayin Greek is because most people didn't identify as such (see above quotes). More than half of Greek-speakers also did not have Greek ancestry:

A Concise History of Byzantium p. 80:

The central part consisted of Greece, Thrace, and Anatolia, which later were to form the whole of the Byzantine Empire and were already becoming its core. Almost all the inhabitants of this region came to speak Greek by the end of the sixth century, though fewer than half of their ancestors had been Greeks. The only significant linguistic minorities to remain were Armenians in the far eastern sector, Latin speakers in the north, and some Illyrians (Albanians) in the west who had escaped Hellenization and Latinization by being isolated in the mountains between the two linguistic zones.

Bogazicili (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is that the text quoted above only deals as far as the sixth century AD, which only covers the first two-three centuries of the empire's 11 centuries of existence. The article should reflect upon the entire history of the empire, and not just focus on the first few centuries. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Then please provide sources that back up your claims, and we can assess them in addition to other sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum Bogazicili (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources for what? That the article is supposed to cover the entire period of the empires existence? Or that empire shrank drastically after the sixth century AD? Khirurg (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources for emergence of Greek ethnicity in Byzantine Empire. Bogazicili (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed text 3

The empire projected three composite identities of its people: Roman, Hellenic, and Christian. Historians debate the extent of cultural homogeneity among these identities and when the Greek-speaking Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy citizens who supported the emperor became an ethnic group, the Rhomaioi.

I think we have two sentences we can use that addresses all the discussion and aligns with the sources I've read so far. "Composite" is a word used by Pohl that I think captures the complexity without delving into the detail. The first sentence is a modification of the above that's being reused in the proposals. The second sentence I proposed this in my response above. No need to mention other ethnicities, if they existed beyond the early period, and the loss of territory being tied to homogenisation is dropped because they are not one-for-one, .Biz (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those sentences are intelligible: an empire cannot project identities, and "Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy citizens" doesn't make grammatical sense. Beyond that, the phrasing "when they became" suggests consensus on the matter of evolution that is not present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Biz: this is ignoring this part in Handbook on Identity: "In most modern scholarship, provincial labels (Macedonian, Paphlagonian, Cappadocian, etc.) are seen to have functioned as ethnicities in Byzantium"

That sentence clearly shows the modern consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree this is important to include as it's a scholarly debate. I think it's more neutral that we do not refer to them as ethnicities and instead call them identities. See my response to Airship of how I try to incoroporate this and the many other debates with: ...debate the extent to which these identities were composite with each other and other identities. Biz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• We could say closer to what you've said, what the source says that inspired this, and reflect the debate here (that the empire wasn't homogeneous) with Scholars have associated the Roman, Hellenic, and Christian imperial identities with the general population, but debate the extent to which these identities were composite with each other and other identities. I'm deliberately avoiding the word ethnicity as it's a minefield and should be considered modern bias to define it as such, reading Pohl and Stouraitis has made me sensitive to this
• "Chalcedonian-Orthodoxy" was lifted from Stiourathi above. Also discussed in Routledge on Page 5. Very important because it distinguishes the Egyptian, Armeninan, and Syrian Christians who rejected Chalcedon and Orthodox distinguishes it from western Christianity (which we say in the article is from the 6th century). Greek-speaking Chalcedonian-Orthodox citizens with one less letter corrects it, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
• "when they became" reflects consensus on the end state and self designation, the debate is when it can be considered an ethnic group versus the view that before the ethnicity's creation (that everyone seems to accept from the 12th century at latest, when political control decentralised and link to hellenism was emphasised), if it is more accurate to call it a nation. Quoting Stouraitis (2017) p70-71:
  • In roughly the last decade, a number of new publications have revisited the question of collective identity in Byzantium.1 This revived research interest testifies to a shift of focus. Departing from an established consensus in the field, which does not question the self-de-signation of the so-called Byzantines as Rhomaioi (Romans), almost all of these recent publications focus on the development of the form and content of Byzantine Romanness. Here, two basic approaches can be discerned: the first points to the configuration of a dominant Roman ethnicity within the framework of the medieval eastern Roman imperial community – at the latest from the twelfth century onwards 2 ; the second suggests that Romanness had already taken the form of a civic or state-framed national identity in the late-Roman Empire and that the medieval Rhomaiōn politeia was a nation-state and not an empire.

Biz (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Biz, how reliable is this source? "Journal of Medieval Worlds was suspended in 2021" [1] I can't see a record of it in SJR. I would say The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium is a high quality source. Bogazicili (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I shared this to help us align with the facts and scholarship: not proposing we use this source. We certainly don't want an out-of-print journal on a FA when there are plenty more places we can reference this same opinion. It's a published historian which is what matters and if you look at his work, we're going to be hearing a lot more from him: https://edwebprofiles.ed.ac.uk/profile/yannis-stouraitis. The fact Pohl and Haldon work with him indicate he is a well respected historian.

I have some more reading I want to do, but aside from this particular source, what else do you have an issue with? Your point about regional identities I'm thinking about and it's important, what else are you challenging? If it helps, here is a revised proposal with better nuance and flow, and with sources (these books have multiple editors, not reflected below):

Scholars associate the Roman, Hellenic, and Christian imperial identities to the general population, but there is ongoing debate about how these and other regional identities blended together. One example is the dominant Greek-speaking, Chalcedonian-Orthodox subjects who supported the emperor (known as Rhomaioi) and when they eventually became known as an ethnic group.

• Stewart, Michael Edward (2022-02-07). The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium (1 ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429031373. ISBN 978-0-429-03137-3.
  • Stewart, Michael. "1 Finding Byzantium". In Stewart (2022b), pp. 1-15.
  • Muthesius, Anna. "10 Imperial identity: Byzantine silks, art, autocracy, theocracy, and the image of the Basileia". In Stewart (2022), pp. 81-103.
  • Kaldellis, Anthony. "14 Provincial identities in Byzantium". In Stewart (2022), pp. 248-261.
• Pohl, Walter, ed. (2018-06-25). Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities. De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110598384. ISBN 978-3-11-059838-4.
  • Pohl, Walter. "1 Introduction: Early medieval Romanness – a multiple identity". In Pohl (2018b), pp. 3-39.
  • Stouraitis, Ioannis. "Byzantine Romanness: From geopolitical to ethnic conceptions". In Pohl (2018), pp. 123-39.

Biz (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

References

As for the debate about this topic and being a nation (Kaldellis) or something else like a city-state (Stouraitis) -- and which related to this if the Rhomaioi ethnicity formed in the early, middle or late era (this is touched on in the sourcing above) -- this journal which came out last month covers it: https://academic.oup.com/past/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pastj/gtaf003/8003752. Not proposing we use this source but sharing to point out this is being actively debated in the scholarship.

For example, "The Kaldellis–Stouraitis debate essentially forms a field-specific iteration of the wider modernism debate in historiography." and the note explains "Averil Cameron points out that this debate is conditioned by Greek nationalist ideology’s construction of ‘Byzantium’ as the medieval Greek nation-state, with Stouraitis completely rejecting any possible basis for this, and Kaldellis almost reproducing the nationalist vision in negative, with Romanness (rather than Greekness) as ‘the most ancient national identity in all of history’." Biz (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Biz, this completely ignores the multi-ethnic part. Even Stouraitis mentions this is largely the consensus, see Talk:Byzantine_Greeks#First_sentence:

This preponderant view on Byzantine society as a multi-ethnic society in which Roman self-identification was, nevertheless, predominant, raises some questions

Bogazicili (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it does address this pov. You may be missing the nuance I’m trying to address.

That quote is from 11 years ago and it’s clear that is not the preponderant view today. The reason I want to do more reading, is because it’s becoming clearer to me the consensus is ethnicity and nationalism are modern biases. Although helpful to have us understand complex phenomena, the modernity debate now challenges the use of those words before the 12th and late 18th centuries respectively because they were ethnic-like and nation-like but better viewed as processes towards those modern ideas not the same. This is a theme Stouraitis talks about in all his work and which is addressed in the review article I shared.

The use of “identity” is a more neutral way of addressing the “mutli-ethnic” issue. The use of the Rhomaioi is a way to express the debate as it’s arguably one of the oldest ethnic identities in the world (the eastern Romans, not the ancient Greeks, meet this criteria potentially even though this ethnic identity is claimed by modern Greeks). A note to my proposed second sentence incorporating this review article would be my suggestion of how we express this very complex topic with the nuance I am proposing. Biz (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Instead of "The empire projected...", we can switch to Wiley Companion for the dominant culture, p. 67

Mentioning Syriac Christianity draws forward one of the problems with the definition of “Byzantine,” for while the dominant culture of the Byzantine Empire was, for a thousand years, Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian, not all Byzantines conformed to this pattern ...

Updated suggestion:

Scholars usually view the empire as multi-ethnic, where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity. Greek-speaking Orthodox was the dominant culture in the empire. As its territory diminished in the medieval period, the empire became more homogenous.

I also removed the traditional part in the first sentence. The traditional definition was a "Greek empire", which western scholarship has moved away from. See above quotes in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium Bogazicili (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Having read all of the above, some points that, I believe, appear to be agreed upon are 1) The empire was composed of various groups, especially in its earlier period, but 2) it became more homogenous, as it lost territories in the middle ages (I think, most sources put that in the 7th century onwards with the loss of Africa and the Levant), 3) Greek-speaking Orthodox was its dominant culture and populace, and 4) provincial identifications were also important for the inhabitants, in addition to the emperial Rhomaios identity.

I'm avoiding the "provincial identification served as ethnicities", because it appears to be more confusing than helpful for the average reader, and perhaps opens a discourse that is a bit undue here. When we think of "other ethnicities", we may imagine Armenians, Slavs, Arabs etc. (people representing a minority language / culture). Regional identities are important even in modern countries, but to which extent the Byzantines imagined them as "ethnicities" and what an ethnicity even means in the middle ages, is a question that we, and scholarship, might not have one clear answer for all to agree upon now.

If the definition of certain terms, like "ethnicity", causes disagreements, we may reach a consensus wording without these words, like in my suggestion above. Piccco (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The scholarship seems to have a clear answer though. See the quote above. Do we have any sources that contradict it? Bogazicili (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, "more homogeneous" is vague. It should be explicitly states that with the loss of the African and Asian provinces (minus Anatolia), the Empire became more homogeneously Greek-speaking and Orthodox. This is sourced: Roderick Beaton, The Greeks [2], page 289: In the language of today, the Greek-speaking Roman Empire after the death of Heraclius in 641 had turned into the Byzantine. Out of this process a new Greek civilisation was emerging. Combining the suggestions of Airship Jungleman, Biz and Bogazicili, I propose:

Scholars have traditionally viewed the empire as multi-ethnic, with three primary identities: Roman, Hellenic, and Christian. Regional and provincial identities also played an important role. Other theories favor concepts of a unified Roman or Christian identity. As its territory diminished in the 7th century AD, the empire became more homogeneous, with the Greek language and Orthodox Christianity becoming dominant.

We need to keep it simple, this is an overview article. Khirurg (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Some people on this talk page keep misdirecting the topic from identity to the empire simply being diverse. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s WP:GASLIGHTING rule, which explicitly prohibits tactics such as:

   "Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of your own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. "

The discussion is supposed to be about the identity of those who identified as Romans, yet every attempt to focus on this is derailed and misdirected by irrelevant claims about the empire’s general diversity. The fact that an empire is diverse does not mean that all its inhabitants shared the same identity. The Persian Empire was diverse, but that didn’t make Anatolian Greeks Persians. Likewise, the Byzantine Empire had diverse subjects, but that doesn’t mean the ethnic Romans, the people who identified and were seen as Romans, of the empire were an indistinct population with no historical continuity speaking 100 languages and were ethnically diverse.

This pattern of misdirection disrupts constructive discussion and prevents honest engagement with the actual historical question. The focus needs to remain on Byzantine identity, not vague generalizations about imperial diversity that serve only to distort the issue.

The debate originally arose from an edit claiming that Kaldellis stated the people who identified as Romans were ethnically and culturally diverse. However, this is a misleading oversimplification. Kaldellis has repeatedly argued against the idea that Byzantine identity was an ethnically ambiguous construct. He explicitly distinguishes between those who were Roman in identity (ethnic Byzantine Romans) and those who were merely subjects of the empire with Roman citizenship.

Despite this, the discussion keeps being sidetracked with out-of-context quotes where Kaldellis acknowledges the empire’s diversity as a political entity. This is obvious, as many different ethnicities had citizenship and lived within the Roman state. But just because the empire was diverse does not mean that the Byzantine Romans themselves, the people who actually identified as Romans, were some undefined mixture of different ethnic groups. In fact, Kaldellis has repeatedly argued that Byzantine Romans, the people who identified as and were seen as Romans, were not an ethnically diverse population, yet some here continue to misinterpret his words.

This constant mix-up between the empire’s diversity and the actual identity of the Byzantine Romans is misleading. The focus should be on accurately representing historical sources and this SECTION'S TOPIC, not twisting scholarly work by pulling quotes out of context and misdirecting the SECTION'S TOPIC. The discussion needs to stay on Byzantine Roman identity, not on vague attempts to stretch the term ethnically identifying Roman to include every subject of the empire, which distorts what Kaldellis is claiming and misdirects this SECTION'S TOPIC.

Anyone who shifts the discussion away from the actual topic, the identity of those who genuinely identified as Romans, should be given a warning. The conversation must remain focused on Byzantine Roman identity, not on unrelated discussions about the empire’s general diversity or its subjects who did not identify as Romans. Itisme3248 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest Itisme3248, I don't think anyone really cares about what you think the discussion should be about.

You, it seems, are talking about the identity of the people who identified as Byzantine Romans (which seems rather self-explanatory, but whatever) and about something Kaldellis said. The six other participants in this discussion (@Khirurg, Bogazicili, Biz, Piccco, and John: and myself) have been talking (fairly productively, I might add) about the identity of the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, because that's what's relevant for an article titled Byzantine Empire.

If six editors care about one issue, and one editor decides they're all wrong and writes WP:WALLSOFTEXT proclaiming they're being gaslit and "the actual topic" has been distorted and misrepresented, that seems fairly disruptive, no? But sure, if you want to hand out warnings, be my guest—or open a section at WP:ANI, which after all is for "chronic, intractable behavioural problems". I'm quite close to going there myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This section, "Identity in the Demography Section," was created to address an edit in the Demography section of the Byzantine Empire article that misrepresented Kaldellis’ claims. The edit falsely suggested that Kaldellis stated the Byzantine Roman people who identified as Romans were ethnically diverse, which distorted what he actually claimed.

The previous talk page section was simply titled "Demography Section," but due to repeated misdirection and gaslighting, this new section was opened to clarify that the discussion is about the edit on the people who identified as Romans, not the general population of the empire.

You don’t get to speak for others or redefine the discussion. The original debate was about the ethnic identity of those who identified as Romans, not the entire imperial population. There is a clear distinction between these groups, yet you keep conflating them to shift the conversation. The only reason others started discussing the identity of all Byzantine inhabitants is because certain users deliberately misdirected and gaslighted them into shifting the debate.

This section was opened to focus on the identity of those who saw themselves as Romans, not whether the empire as a whole was diverse. Dismissing my argument as a "wall of text" instead of engaging with its content only proves you have no real counterargument.

If you disagree, then engage with the actual argument instead of misrepresenting it. Constantly shifting the discussion away from Byzantine Roman identity is not an honest approach.

So were the people who identified as Byzantine Romans ethnically diverse or not? That is the original argument about the edit. Itisme3248 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, because I know no-one does. I also don't care, because relitigating a twenty-day-old comment I didn't make has nothing to do with improving the article. That's what the rest of us are here for (you know, the purpose of a talk page). Do you care about improving the article, Itisme3248? If yes, please focus on it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly Itisme3248 I feel the same way as AirshipJungleman29. I was asked to copyedit this article in an effort to retain its FA status, and more importantly improve its quality and readability. It's an absolutely vital article and it needs to be as good as it can be. I can't copyedit the article while you are mounting a campaign to treat a fairly minor and inherently poorly understood aspect of the subject in a particular way, based on your reading of a particular historian. I'm a fairly busy older Scottish dude with limitations on my time. My background is in Chemistry but I have a lifelong interest in history, mainly 19th and 20th century. I have no view whatsoever on the putative ethnic identity of the subjects of the empire. It's therefore offensive to me to be potentially lumped into your gaslighting claims. It makes me less likely to try to improve the article, which I think is what is needed. An article like this is going to be a potential battleground. Please be a part of the solution here, and not a part of the problem. John (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn’t accusing you of gaslighting, John, you’re not the issue here. If you read through my replies and arguments, you’ll see who is actually gaslighting and misdirecting the discussion.

The real problem is that some users keep trying to shift the conversation away from what they don’t like, the identity or ethnicity of the people who actually identified as Byzantine Romans. Saying that the Byzantine Empire was ethnically diverse is irrelevant. The word Empire itself implies a multiethnic population, just like the Persian Empire or the British Empire. But that has nothing to do with the ethnic identity of the ruling population, the Romans.

So i will create a new section that will focus on just that, the people who actually identified and were seen as Byzantine Romans in order to avoid further confusion or misdirections by bad faith editors. (Gaslighting and misidirection is against wiki rules) Itisme3248 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that this topic is particulalrly comlicated and byzantine is the reason why I had suggested the option of chosing a simpler wording; to state some objective facts that can be agreed upon, without going too much into the more niche and ongoing scholarly debates and semantics (like what constitues a medieval "ethnicity" or "pseudo-ethnicity" etc.) My own wording may be a bit too simplistic; that was just an example; and I am not opposed to Biz's latest proposal either. What I'm saying is that, if something appears highly debated or ambiguous, then we may need to just gloss over it for the sake of finding a consensus wording, that is also comprehensible to the average reader. Piccco (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed text 4

While the proposed text by Khirurg is closer to the sources than suggestions by Biz, it's still problematic.

I know The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium has a part about tripartite identity in p.7, but its chapter abstract as linked by AirshipJungleman29 is more measured: Scholars have become increasingly aware that the rubric, “Byzantium” is largely a construct of later western European sources. “Roman” and “Greek” were only two of many markers of identity in Byzantium.

At a high level article such as this, the summary needs be concise and neutral. Neutral being the text can't be challenged by alternative sources.

Many sources such as Kaldellis explicitly reject calling Greek-speaking citizens Greek:

Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition pp 13-14:

The fact that Hellenic identity was in fact reconstituted in modern times – roughly two centuries ago, and very successfully at that – complicates inquiries into its historical evolution. Interest in the history of Hellenism among historians today is usually inspired by a fascination with classical culture or a concern with the national identity of modern Greece, which is usually a personal concern. As it happens, however, only in those two relatively brief periods – namely before the international diffusion of Greek culture in the fourth century BC and then after the foundation of the modern Greek state in the 1830s – do we find what may be called a national Greek consciousness, namely the belief that being Greek entails sharing a common language, religion, way of life, and ethnic descent. ...

p. 113:

Likewise, the Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans. ... Many Byzantine practices were inherited from Greek antiquity, but this does not entitle us to call them Greek when the Byzantines understood them as Roman.

Stouraitis 2014 pp. 176, 177

The premise that “Byzantium around the year 1000 had become a medieval Greek Empire”⁵ has been refuted with the plausible argument that the Byzantine élite did not identify itself as Greek, whereas Arabs, Armenians, Bulgars, Slavs and other ethno-cultural collectivities resided within the borders of the Empire in this period, the members of which were regarded as Roman subjects.⁶ This plausible thesis has been complemented by a comprehensive statement on the self-identification of the Byzantines, according to which “the average Byzantine understood him/herself beyond any doubt as Roman, their language and literature was Roman (i. e. Greek), their cultural and religious centre was also beyond doubt New Rome, namely Constantinople”.⁷
This preponderant view on Byzantine society as a multi-ethnic society in which Roman self-identification was, nevertheless, predominant, raises some questions.

Here's an updated suggestion. Sourcing has also been updated:

Historians usually consider the empire multi-ethnic, where provincial identification served as ethnicities, while Kaldellis argues there was a Roman ethnicity. Greek-speaking Orthodox was the dominant culture in the empire. In the medieval period, the empire became more Greek-speaking and Orthodox as its territory declined.

References
References

Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili You never substantiated additional issues with my revision of proposal 3 of the sources and after I explained why I chose the words I used. You also are using Stouraitis but older scholarship than the one I used and that Pohl referenced.

Related to this, and parallel to the NPOV issues you are raising now of the entire Byzantine Greeks article we should be congruent and not mention the word ethnicities despite what specific sources say due to broader modernity debate I’ve explained with a recent 65 page source on this topic. Kaldellis is also not the only person to say the Rhōmaîoi are an ethnicity (ie, Stouraitis says they are and no later than the 12th century) and it’s consensus they are (the debate is when). I’ve repeatedly raised the phrase “multi-ethnic” as problematic and will not support any proposal that includes it. I’ve explained that identity is the only word I will support in its place. Biz (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: This is basically the same as your previous proposal (with one minor change), which failed to get traction. I agree with Biz that there is overemphasis on ethnicity, which is itself a loaded word and one with different meanings at different times. "Greek-speaking Orthodox" is not a culture. The culture of the Empire, particularly in the later stages, was Greek (e.g. Routledge Handbook, p. 3: From this perspective, the Byzantines of the sixth century appear to have a mixed imperial identity-Greek (broadly philosophical, cultural) and Roman (narrowly administrative, legalistic)-at the same time.. Khirurg (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Biz, I did not use Stouraitis in the proposed text. Check the sources.

Multi-ethnic is in overview sources. The quotes were given before, but I'm repeating them given the lengthy discussion: The Oxford History of Byzantium Introduction Chapter

... Today we are more likely to praise Byzantium, not for smiting Asiatics, but rather for having been multi-ethnic and multicultural. Multiethnic it certainly was, as we have seen; as for being multicultural, that was more from necessity than design ...

The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies Language chapter p.777, first sentence in chapter:

THE Byzantine Empire, for most of its existence, was a multi-ethnic and multilingual entity

It's in 2022 The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium p.10, summarizing current scholarship

In most modern scholarship, provincial labels (Macedonian, Paphlagonian, Cappadocian, etc.) are seen to have functioned as ethnicities in Byzantium

If provincial labels functioned as ethnicities, that means multi-ethnic. This is where the scholarship is at per 2022 Handbook on Identity source.

Romans as ethnicity is not consensus: 2022 The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium p.2, summarizing current scholarship

As Walter Pohl has recently discussed, in comparison to other groups like the Goths, the notion of Romanness as an ethnic identity remains controversial and needs much further elucidation.

The other source you cited before, Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities is discussing Roman ethnicity, and doesn't invalidate Byzantine Empire being multiethnic even if we accept there was a Roman ethnicity. And even that book say, p. 26

Romans have not usually been regarded as an ethnic group by scholars

If we are getting stuck, maybe we should proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Bogazicili (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Bogazicili My primary goal is to complete this FAR. You raised the issue of identity in January, and I have attempted to address it through multiple perspectives and a broad reading of the scholarship. However, I believe this topic remains too contentious to include in the article until a broader consensus is reached. If you believe its inclusion is necessary for FA completeness and wish to use a dispute resolution mechanism to determine if and how to incorporate it, that’s where we disagree.

That said, the broader dispute extends beyond this article to related topics. If you want to pursue arbitration, I am open to that, as these issues affect multiple articles. However, I believe we need to clearly define the key points of contention first to avoid spinning more wheels. Based on our discussion, I see the following main disputes:

1. Pre-Modern Ethnicity – You argue that ethnic identities existed in Anatolia before and during the early Byzantine period, whereas I maintain that such classifications are problematic given the broader historiographical consensus on the modernity of ethnicity. That said, I acknowledge that terms like "Greek" have historically been used interchangeably for language, culture, and identity, so this is me also saying nuanced terminology is important.
2. Terminology for Identity – You are implicitly rejecting my proposal that "identity" is the most neutral term and instead describe the empire as initially "multi-ethnic" and later "homogeneous." I disagree with this characterisation, arguing instead that the empire was composed of multiple overlapping identities (Pohl) at different times.
3. The Status of the Rhōmaîoi – While this issue is more relevant to the Byzantine Greeks article, it is indirectly included in your proposals, as it relates to the broader discussion of Anatolian ethnicities. My working definition from the Talk arguments is that the Rhōmaîoi were Greek-speaking, Chalcedonian-Orthodox subjects who identified as Roman. You suggest that Kaldellis is the only scholar who argues that this composite identity became an ethnicity. However, I argue that there is broader consensus that they eventually did (eg, Stouraitis acknowledges this by the late-era, and I personally believe he does so because the modern Greek nation had to emerge from somewhere). The ongoing debate hinges on definitions—specifically, whether the Byzantine Empire became a nation, as Kaldellis suggests (while Stouraitis rejects this view).

I recognise my perspective challenges the direct quotes used in scholarship especially aged scholarship, but I believe we should prioritise neutrality and avoid contested classifications, especially when they extend beyond this article. The Kaldellis-Stouraitis debate is now being used in the modernism debate, challenging the current consensus that modern nations emerged in a vacuum. Your statement quoting recent scholarship—"If provincial labels functioned as ethnicities, that means multi-ethnic"—actually supports my point: functioning as is not the same as being, much like how de jure and de facto may appear similar but remain distinct. If you wish to get arbitration because of my insistence that neutrality over-rules specific scholarship language as informed by broader scholarship, then so be it.

Perhaps confirming your view in light of the above issues I've raised can get us to consensus. A potential resolution is to accept the following or a similar sentence, that I originally proposed: "Scholars associate the Roman, Hellenic, and Christian imperial identities with the general population, but there is ongoing debate about how these and other regional identities blended together."

This would allow us to give the article a mention on the important topic of identity and allow us to continue the discussion of Rhōmaîoi in the Byzantine Greeks article with the topic of Anatolian ethnicities elsewhere. However, I understand that this may not fully address your concerns, just as your proposals go beyond what I find acceptable. Let me know how you’d like to proceed. Biz (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, your approach is the most neutral and accurate way to present this. Your de jure vs. de facto example is a great way to explain the difference. Even Kaldellis himself describes provincial identities as "pseudo-ethnicities," meaning they were like modern regional identities (Cretan, Macedonian, Thessalian), all part of the same overarching Greek ethnicity, not separate ethnic groups.

Also, all empires are multiethnic, but that doesn’t mean the ruling culture itself was multiethnic, just like how the Persian Empire ruled over many ethnic groups but the Persians were not multiethnic, not everyone was Persian. The Byzantine Romans were clearly a distinct ethnic group separate from the other imperial subjects according to Kaldellis. Just because the empire governed many different peoples doesn’t mean Romanness was an umbrella identity for all of them. Itisme3248 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

A one sentence "Scholars associate the Roman, Hellenic, and Christian imperial identities with the general population, but there is ongoing debate about how these and other regional identities blended together" works for me. I have always been in favour of a "less is more" approach, and with the aim of bringing this lengthy debate to an end, I suggest we add that sentence and move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiethnic is in The Oxford History of Byzantium Introduction Chapter, in addition to other sources provided. Not including it seems like a major omission. Bogazicili (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Biz:

1. I did not specifically argue that ethnic identities existed in Anatolia before and during the early Byzantine period. I just gave the quote from the source about provincial labels. But before linguistic Hellenization, there were different peoples in Anatolia. They were not Greek.

2. You will need to show how an overview source talks about it, such as The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies.

3. You did not show a source that says this became a "broader consensus". On the contrary, I gave conflicting quotes.

Another issue is that you need to wait until WP:Primary research papers such as [3] make their way into overview WP:Secondary sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies or even 2022 The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Ignoring secondary sources and jumping to latest research articles like that is WP:UNDUE.

The way sources such as The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium may change in the future depending on the debate between scholars, but you need to wait before sources like that change before you can bring that to a high level article such as this. Bogazicili (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Bogazicili, two things: 1) research papers are secondary sources, 2) what do you think of the above proposal to add "Scholars associate the Roman, Hellenic, and Christian imperial identities with the general population, but there is ongoing debate about how these and other regional identities blended together" and move on? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:

1) Review articles are WP:Secondary.

WP:PSTS For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.

The literature review in a research paper may be WP:Secondary. The part where the author is giving their original contribution in a non-review research paper is not secondary.

2) I would add "Historians usually consider the empire multi-ethnic." in front of it. Then I can live with it. Bogazicili (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Piccco, Khirurg, and John: as the other participants in this discussion, can you support the proposed one sentence, and if so with or without Bogazicili's addition? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I support your proposed wording, I find it NPOV, succinct, and encyclopedic. But without Bogazicili's addition however. Khirurg (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili I don’t want to sidestep the process now that we are closer to consensus on this complicated topic. But you raised an important point, and I’d like to understand your reasoning better. When you previously insisted on a review article giving an opinion on Byzantine science (which led to an unresolved discussion), how was that different?

Both articles were published in peer-reviewed journals—Oxford's Past and Present (H-index 47) and UChicago's ISIS (H-index 50), according to SJR, which you referenced earlier. While the topics and depth of analysis differ, both journals have comparable academic standing. Given that you considered the 2016 ISIS article necessary (arguing that omitting it was UNDUE), I’d like to understand why this 2025 article—directly addressing key debates in Byzantine scholarship but with an alternative analysis of evidence—is viewed differently and which you've conversely explained is UNDUE to include it.

I'd appreciate it if you could distinguish your reasoning. Biz (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I too support your proposed wording. Per Khirurg, I prefer it without the additional wording. John (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's clear I'm outnumbered here but I still think multi-ethnic should be in the article.

I'll proceed with WP:Dispute resolution such as an RfC later, after the FAR process is done, to get some fresh eyes and more input. For now it shouldn't derail the FAR process. Bogazicili (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Biz: The "review" in "review article" and "peer-reviewed journal" are not the same thing.

We can look at Nature (journal) as an example. It's a very prestigious peer-reviewed journal.

• This is a review article. See "review articles" on top.
• This is not a review article. Just says "articles" on top.

Both articles went through peer-review [4][5]. You can find more information about research vs review articles here [6]

In the specific examples you gave above, UChicago's ISIS article I found [7] was a review article. I had found it in Google Scholar, using "Review articles" filter. The article type on top is "Viewpoint: Overview". The article you found [8] is not a review article. The parts where the author says I argue that, whether one is analysing ethnonational phenomena in Antiquity, today, or at any point are WP:Primary. The literature review part may be considered WP:Secondary as I explained above.

For Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

I gave another quote above: WP:PSTS For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.

When you ignore overview sources such as The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium (which summarizes the current scholarshp with sentences like In most modern scholarship...), or review articles, but go straight to WP:Primary, this is WP:UNDUE.

Does that clarify my reasoning? Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You should also realize that latest journal articles might change the consensus among scholarship later. Maybe the next The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies in 2030 or something will adopt Kaldellis' viewpoint. Then you can change this Wikipedia article accordingly. Wikipedia articles are not set in stone. Bogazicili (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Epistemology matters and these decisions have real consequences. But this raises a fundamental question: who granted Oxford the authority to arbitrate on this topic as the final adjudicator? Certainly not me. The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium, which you first introduced, serves as a useful case study—one I wouldn't have read had you not insisted. My concern is not with The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies per se, apart from its age. Rather, it is with the selective use of sources to support an argument when newer scholarship—now that I am familiar with it—clearly renders parts of it outdated. That is precisely what has happened throughout this discussion, and I want to probe this further for the sake of more efficient future discussions.

To extend your explanation, let’s reconsider the use case of the Past and Present article by Nicholas S M Matheou. The author’s acknowledgments reference John Haldon, Yannis Stouraitis, Anthony Kaldellis, and Mirela Ivanova—scholars already cited in the current Byzantine Empire article. This indicates that the article has undergone appropriate peer review. However, as I now understand your argument, the issue is that this is not a study reviewing other studies, so its conclusions should not be relied upon.

A parallel example might be we can't trust Kaldellis, Anthony, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade unless it's mentioned by Warren Treadhold in his review? Yet, when Kaldellis makes claims that do not support his broader argument about the rise and fall of Byzantium, does that make his work a reliable source? Or we should only use this book for its facts, but when its an contested opinion (even if it's not his) that could be considered epistemological in nature (like if the empire was multi-ethnic), we need to defer to Oxford or summaries of introductions like Routledge only? This inconsistency in source usage is what I am questioning.

Secondly, Matheou's article core argument is that political and economic structures—rather than a simplistic pre-modern/modern binary—are necessary to understand history. This is evident in its approach to the existing scholarly debate. The full quote you referenced states: I argue that, whether one is analysing ethnonational phenomena in Antiquity, today, or at any point in between, political economy is an essential mode of analysis for understanding both their origins in nationcraft and their practical force in everyday life. Matheou’s claim is that the conventional historical framework for the origins of nations is flawed. His analysis of nationhood, ethnicity, and related topics offers an alternative perspective within a long-standing debate. In his conclusion, he writes:

Yet, as per Stouraitis’s arguments, this conception carries latent within itself the idea that the ‘inhabited-world’ could, or even should, expand to formally subsume more and more of the ‘world-beyond’. Stouraitis is therefore right to emphasize the imperial system’s ‘centripetal and hierarchical’ nature, and, through an especially acute core-periphery dialectic, its characterization as the ‘imperial city-state of Constantinople’.166 But he underplays the intensive relative territorial production that this empire rested upon between the eighth and thirteenth centuries, a process which resulted in a specific country fetish, Romanía.167 On the other hand, this country fetish is a far more specific geospatial imaginary than Kaldellis has accounted for, obscuring the internal delineations of the state-delimited oikoumene between regions long reified as ‘lands of the Romans’, and provinces newly conquered and differentially ethnicized.

To me, this demonstrates a review of scholarship that should be considered, not ignored. My initial suggestion was not to rely on this source uncritically but to acknowledge it as evidence of ongoing scholarly discussions. If we were to use it to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of Kaldellis’s and Stouraitis’s arguments, it would be appropriate. If we were to use it to state that the modern consensus is that there were no ethnicities or nations before modernity, it would also be appropriate. However, if we were to claim that political economy—through a Marxist approach—is the definitive way to analyse history and determine pre-modern state structures, then yes, this source would not be appropriate.

The issue here is not with this historian, this publication, or even the source material itself. The issue is how we use the source. This source is reliable, and in line with the correct application of Wikipedia's policies, we should acknowledge its role in the scholarly conversation rather than dismiss it outright. To end on a point: this article, reflecting the consensus as of February 2025 in the scholarship, is a reliable source to have us confidently assert we should avoid the word ethnicity as well as it's cousin "multi-ethnicity", in this article. If my reasoning is flawed, I'd appreciate if you can point out where. Biz (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Biz: I explained my understanding of Wikipedia policies.

I think the best places to ask above questions would be:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria
• Wikipedia talk:No original research

You can copy paste above and ask it in WP:NPOVN. Clarifying if this article renders The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies or The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium outdated would be a good question. Given that this article is going through FAR, Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria could be a good place as well.

I also think this discussion is useful. It may speed up other discussions such as the one over science.

Also, to clarify, books are usually WP:Secondary. WP:PSTS: A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

This is why I said When you ignore overview sources such as The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium (which summarizes the current scholarshp with sentences like In most modern scholarship...), or review articles, but go straight to WP:Primary, this is WP:UNDUE.

For more information:

Oxford sample Reference List: Separating Primary and Secondary Sources
A Primary Source is an original work or document, i.e. the raw material or first-hand information used in research. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, archival material, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, diaries, letters, photographs, novels, poems, plays, films, newsreels, statistical data and original research published in a journal article or book, or produced as a thesis.
A Secondary Source is something written about a primary source. Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, evaluations or discussions about the original material. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or scholarly journals, documentaries, or books or chapters written about events or about original research.

[9]

The introduction chapter in The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium is already going through other peoples work, similar to the Language chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. They are secondary sources. They are high quality secondary sources, because they are academic presses. It is also true that the age of the source matters. Bogazicili (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I've posted it in WP:NPOVN as you suggested.

I agree that primary sources can be problematic when quoted directly. The key issue to me is whether opinions on the state of scholarship in the modernism debate—within the historiography of nationhood and nationalism—can override older, sometimes ambiguous uses of creative expression in politically sensitive Byzantine scholarship. Additionally, does neutrality precede reliable sources's creative expression? Biz (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. But if you look at the sources in that debate (sources 3 and 4 in the article you linked.), they are from 2013 and 1980s. This doesn't seem like something very new. Once again though, it's good to ask this now in case we encounter a similar situation during the FAR process. Bogazicili (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Bogazicili, I believe the policies you're applying are incorrect.

• The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is a WP:TERTIARY source, appropriate for evaluating due weight on topics and resolving conflicts in secondary sources. Similarly, the introduction to The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium could also be considered tertiary.
• Historians' opinions are WP:SECONDARY sources because they provide "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims" when published by reliable sources.
• A source is primary only when a historian is directly involved in the event as an eyewitness— for example, Niketas Choniates during the Fourth Crusade. Anthony Kaldellis writing about the Fourth Crusade, however, is secondary.
• The review article you cited, Science and Orthodox Christianity: An Overview (2016), is tertiary in its survey but secondary in its conclusions. Matheou (2025) is a secondary source because it provides analysis rather than original research.

In our specific case, there is scholarly confusion regarding whether "multi-ethnic" is an appropriate descriptor in secondary sources. Page 81 of Routledge states:

"Much has been written around Roman identity in relation to the Byzantine state, whether as 'collective identity,' pre-modern 'Nation-state,' or deconstructed 'multi-ethnic Roman Empire'."

This demonstrates that past scholarship considered the Byzantine Empire multi-ethnic. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies and Stouraitis (2014) confirm this was previously the prevailing view. However, Routledge—across multiple chapters—demonstrates that it is no longer the dominant perspective. Mentioning what was the prevailing view, when it is no longer preponderant, constitutes undue weight.

That said, we still need to resolve this question: Should "multi-ethnic" be excluded for neutrality, given that some scholars argue ethnicity, as a concept, did not exist before the modern age? Pohl and Stouraitis suggest the 12th century as a turning point, while Kaldellis emphasises regional identities. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is outdated. If we do not agree that Routledge makes a definitive case, what recourse do we have to reach a consensus?

Regardless, I believe it’s important we first agree on the correct application of policies. Biz (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-expressed and knowledgeable views. If this is a controversial area, and one which is inherently unknowable, and if the historiography swings back and forth on it, we need only note very briefly the wide range of views on it, perhaps how views vary across different national groups, perhaps how they have varied over time. On an overview article like this, I think it would even be acceptable not to mention it at all, or if anything very briefly. This talk discussion shows the degree to which people's passionate views about how the ethnicity ought to have been can suck up an enormous amount of time and energy. I do not want the article to look like this. John (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed... Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I heartily agree with what John said. Khirurg (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Biz: I would say that The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is not a WP:Tertiary source. An example of a tertiary source would be an encyclopedia.[10] Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Another example would be The Oxford Classical Dictionary.[11]

@John: we moved on from the ethnicity debate as you can see above, but the issue is about sourcing which is relevant to the entire article. Would you consider The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies a WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary source? Bogazicili (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)