Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-16 Simeon of Moscow

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Simeon of Moscow, 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Peter, Duke of the Romans, Guelphs and Ghibellines
Status	closed
Request date	23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Hiberniantears (talk)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Simeon of Moscow, 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Peter, Duke of the Romans, Guelphs and Ghibellines]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Simeon of Moscow, 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Peter, Duke of the Romans, Guelphs and Ghibellines]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

• User Hiberniantears
• User Certh

What's going on?

User Hiberniantears, administrator reverts all my edits wherever they are, in a number of articles (Simeon of Moscow, 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Peter, Duke of the Romans, Guelphs and Ghibellines, the last has been put to consensus by another user though), mostly without any explanation. He also treatened me with a block because of content disagreement: [1]. From some articles, he removes sourced material without explanation: [2]. I ask to protect me from this administrator who pursues me. I feel that Hibernian is reverting all my edits without explaining to me why.

Regarding one of the disputed articles Hiberniantears also explained an opinion that since most readers would think Roman consul to be a magistrate in Ancient Rome, articles on medieval Roman consuls should not mention the fact that they were proclaimed Roman consuls even if well sourced, otherwise it can confuse a reader. My position is that Roman consul can have different meaning: such magistrature existed both in Ancient Rome and in Medieval Rome, and the fact that readers are more familiar with ancient Roman consuls, is not a reson to remove such information from articles on medieval topics.

Regarding Simeon of Moscow he removed a sourced fact from the article with the corresponding link without any explanation.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to understand why Hibernian reverts many of my edits, which he did not explain. I also want to be protected from his pursuing and treats to block me because of allegedly POV edits. I also want to settle the disputes in the mentioned articles.

Discussion

• I move this to be closed given that it is concurrently running at WP:ANI#I am pursued by an administrator, or that it remain open and the ANI case be closed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Well... I'll say this. A quick look at Certh's talk page will show that I have attempted to explain this. I'm also moderately convinced that this editor is more than one person. In any event, I stand by my reverts. Certh has something to add to Wikipedia, and I have tried to encourage him to edit in that direction. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  You attempted to explain the case over only one article. But you failed to explain why do you delete sourced material. Also no explanation for other cases.--Certh (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  Simeon of Moscow's ceremonial title from Constantinople is irrelevant to the article, and translating it as simply "waiter" without any context adds little value to the article, and certainly detracts from the lead. The bombing of Yugoslavia article was just that, military action taken against Yogoslavia, not just against one political party. Were it not for the fact that your edits (in particular page moves regarding President of Russia) seem to indicate a language barrier, I would consider you a vandal at this point. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree that Simion of Moscow's title at Byzantine court is irrelevant to the article about Simeon of Moscow. About Yugoslavia, I did not say it was against a party but against the government.--Certh (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was pretty easy to "put to consensus" the Guelphs and Ghibbelines page, I don't think Certh is being purposely disruptive, but is it possible that English is not his first language? As for the Roman consuls, was it Certh who asked for a translation of something referring to Charlemagne on the Language Reference Desk recently? I can't find it but it was the same sort of thing. This is easy to solve. Sure they called themselves Roman consuls, and it's fine to mention that, with the qualification that they weren't consuls in the Republican Roman sense. It's the same idea with the Byzantine Empire and emperors and all related articles; they considered themselves Roman emperors, and we do mention that, noting at the same time that it was actually something different. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is essentially the track that I got Certh to go down over the summer after an earlier round of reverts on similar/some of the same articles. We came up with "Medieval Roman Consul" as a category. The other alternative term is Hypatos which is the actual title that some 10th-12th century local rulers received from the Byzantine empire for various reasons. Granted, it is the Greek word for the Roman title, but it has an entirely different context. I began reverting this round of edits, and pointing it out on Certh's talk page because Certh started adding the titles as they were used in the ancient sense again. In the process of doing this I noticed some pointy edits to the Russian and Serbian related pages listed above. Just to be clear, this was a topic that came up and was addressed back in July, and then returned this week as an issue. As for the Guelphs and Ghibbelines page, Adam Bishop recently came up with a quick solution that should solve the issue. I also don't think Certh was being purposely disruptive, but he is being factually inaccurate, and is unwilling to listen to others (not just me). Hiberniantears (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're incorrect. The people in the category Category:Medieval Roman consuls never were designated "hypati". This is completely different thing. Hypati were Byzantine officials, but the category explicitely says it is for those who were proclaimed consuls after Byzantine authority vanished. No one of them was proclaimed "hypatos" in Greek manner. Please explain also your reversions i Simeon of Moscow. If you wish I can provide a translation of the source.--Certh (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If they were not given the title of Hypatos by Byzantine authority, then they definitely were not a Consul in the historical sense of either word. End of story. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They were declared consuls by the Roman senate. This is well sourced. Yes, there was such office in medieval Rome.--Certh (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See for example [3]--Certh (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Certh, all we are suggesting is to note that the consuls and the Senate are not the same as the republican/imperial offices of the classical era. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. I would agree with that. But still need explanation for Simeon of Moscow and other articles.--Certh (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You have it, above. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I disagree that Simion of Moscow's title at Byzantine court is irrelevant to the article about Simeon of Moscow. About Yugoslavia, I did not say it was against a party but against the government.--Certh (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're using a non-English source to backup your claim that Simeon of Moscow was a waiter in the Byzantine empire. I'm sure there is more to the honorific than that, and I'd be happy to work with you in finding the correct English term. Mentioning the accurate description of the title in context elsewhere in the article is entirely appropriate. However, at this point it has no place in the article lead. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What about leaving that without translation (i.e. without "waiter")? Simply put in the Greek title. By the way, the Russian source uses words "стольник" and "официант", both direct equivalents of English "waiter" [4].--Certh (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it is probably more accurately translated to something like Chamberlain (office). Hiberniantears (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greek original is directly related to meal. Something like "meal official" or "meal adminiatrator".--Certh (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are words for that in English too; seneschal or dapifer (well, dapifer is Latin), or perhaps butler. No one ever uses "waiter" for a medieval title. A waiter is someone who serves you in a modern restaurant. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the Yugoslavia article, here is that dif which I believe speaks entirely for itself. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you need source that the government was ex-Communist?--Certh (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No one doubt's the fact. But the war was against the state. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The objective of the war was to remove the government from power. I agree, the war was against the state, so how about the war was against Yugoslavia with objective to remove ex-Communist government from power?--Certh (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The objective of the war was: NATO's objectives in the conflict in Kosovo were set out in the statement issued at the Extraordinary Meeting of the North Atlantic Council held at NATO HQ on 12 April 1999 and were reaffirmed by Heads of State and Government in Washington on 23 April 1999:

• a verifiable stop to all military action and the immediate end of violence and repression;
• the withdrawal from Kosovo of the military, police and paramilitary forces;
• the stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence;
• the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organizations;
• the establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo on the basis of the Rambouillet Accords, in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

The Yugoslav Government claimed that it was protecting the minority Serbian population of Kosovo against attacks by the Kosovo Liberation Army.

Got it? Because that is from the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The objective of the war was a military intervention in Kosovo... not to overthrow the government of Yugoslavia. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see that Hiberniantears removed info about consular titles from a number of Byzantine consuls [5]. These people were in fact appointed Roman consuls by the Emperor, for which fact there is a number of sources such as Catholic Encyclopedia. I also want the explanation.--Certh (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  My changes simply reflect reality. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  Do you have sources for your version of reality? By the way, we can also create a category for "Byzantine consuls" but then we would in trouble whom of them put in this category and whom - in "Roman consuls". I vote for consistency and having one category for both Byzantine and Roman consuls. --Certh (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  That page already exists, with Roman and Byzantine correctly combined to demonstrate the continuity of the Roman state. What you are suggesting is the addition of any local leader in medieval Italy who used the term, or was granted an honorific title by what amounted to a foreign power (the Byzantine empire). This would be no different than the current political leader of some random Italian city claiming the title of Consul, and us lending credence to the claim and updating his Wikipedia page to reflect his rank as a Roman Consul. That's simply laughable. Your edits are inaccurately presenting a continuity of the Western Roman Empire that simply did not exist. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  I see no reason why people who were appointed imperial (not local!) consuls by the Byzantine emperor, and for which we have sources, should not in a category for consuls. That can be either category of Roman consuls or category of Byzantine consuls. But in the letter case we would be ion trouble whom to place in which category. You're also wrong implying that "true" consuls existed in the Western Roman Enmipe. Consuls in the Eastern Enpire were nothing less "true consuls".--Certh (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  That isn't even what I said, and I am concerned that your strength with the English language is causing the problem here. 1) These were local leaders given an honorific title. 2) Western and Eastern consuls are listed in at List of Roman Consuls accurately reflecting continuity of the Roman state between the two halves. The individuals who you have tried to add to this list fall outside the continuity of the Ancient Roman title. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  No, you're wrong. For example, Venetian doges (from which did you removed the title) were not local consuls, but imperial consuls (as says Catholic Encyclopedia). There is no source that they fall outside the continuity of the title. Note also that the consuls were of two types: ordinary and honorary (both of which included in the list you cited). While Venetian duxes probably were not appointed ordinary consuls, they were certainly honorary consuls. Ordinary consuls discontinued in IXth century, but honorary still existed. Honorary consuls is a continuation of suffect consuls of the early empire.--Certh (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  And it was called Hypatos or Ipati at that time, and carried with it distinctly different authority than the Ancient term. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  Authority of the honorary consuls was all the way not so high. Authority of ordinary consuls also changed. But the continuity existed as I showed (or have you other sources?). Belisarius was also hypatos. And even Cicero was hypatos in Greek. Anyway I think category removal inappropriate. It should be restored or a new category created. The former solution is better I think.--Certh (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned at what seems to be Hiberniantears' rubbishing of self-appointed and papally-appointed medieval Roman consuls. Several hundred years after the end of both the Western Empire and Byzantine control of Rome, the use of the title should not be suppressed. On the "waiter" - majordomo probably gives the best approximation of the sense in the current state of the articles. There are similar issues dealt with by having patrician for the Ancients and patricianship for the medieval guys. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely rubbishing self-appointed and papally-appointed medieval Roman consuls. Esspecially when the consuls in question don't even have political control over Rome. I have no problem with stating that any of these individuals used Roman titles, but it has to be stated correctly, and framed in the correct historical context. However, attempting to present these characters as representatives of a long vanished state is intellectually dishonest, and undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. It would be as if the Mayor or New York began styling himself "King of England". New York was once part of Britain, and the Mayor or New York would be free to call himself whatever he wanted, but he would not be a King of England. He would just be a guy calling himself the King of England. In fact, this is really no different than Idi Amin calling himself King of Scotland. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Theophylact did not control Rome?!! What are you saying! Theophylact and his family not only controlled Rome, but also appointed and disposed popes at their own wish! And also nobody says Theophylact was a consul of Roman or Byzanrine empire, but he definitely was a Roman consul (in fact, he was formally in service of the Holy Roman Emperor).

Please also clarify your position about late Byzantine consuls (such as Ursus). Do you support creating a new category for them, or restore them in the category of Roman consuls?--Certh (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how just removing the information ensures it is "stated correctly". Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Had that been what I did, then I would agree. However, I left him and others in Category:Medieval Roman consuls. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorization should be based on the article's content.--Certh (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how this was a useful edit. The links may have needed adjustment, but the text should have been explained by amplification rather than just removed (and by the way, why do we use the Greek version of his name?). Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The usefulness was in removing false information. As a result of my edit, the article was no longer misleading and factually incorrect. That there may still be information missing from the article is not the result of what I removed. Do you seriously agree that categorization should be based on false information? He should be in Category:Medieval Roman consuls, which is where I left him. The article Consul even has a section that discusses medieval Italian feudal lords who used the title. The article Roman Consul does not. I removed the Roman links because they are incorrectly used. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You claim that the information was false, but if you follow the link, you'll find the proof. Should we restore the text but without links, would that suffice? (by the way, I fail to see how dux is restricted only to Roman use - this title has been used much after Roman empire because it is generic Latin term for leader). --Certh (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the article did eventually get round to saying that, but there was nothing about post-Roman use in the lead until I made an obvious addition just now. There is a bit of a closed garden feel to some of these Ancient Roman articles. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Are you talking about this Ursus? That would explain a lot. Yes, Theophylact and his heirs controlled the city of Rome. Yes, some of them used the title Consul, but it is not the same title in substance as that in which it was used by the ancient Roman state. Further, the majority of the people I have made changes to were not ruling Rome. Regardless, the title as it is used in this context is distinct from the ancient form and does not belong in the article. At best, it belongs on a disambiguation page. In fact, it already can be found on one. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That Orsos. Well, I'll just quote the article: "He was eventually recognised by the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, who gave him the title hypatos. His descendants surnamed themselves Ipato on the basis of this imperial honorific." This is precisely in line with everything I have said above. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You've removed category from that article. I see that inappropriate. We should restore the categorization or made a new category for Byzatine consuls (in that case we would be in trouble which of them put in "Byzantine consuls" and which - into "Roman consuls"). This is regarding Ursus aand the others from which you've removed categorization. The case of Theophylactus is different. First, nobody said that he was consul in the ancient Roman state. So I cannot understand your criticism of that idea. And secondly, while I am neutral in regard of the statement that his office was different in substance from that of earlier ages, this statement needs some proof nevertheless, it's not evident (in both cases the consul was the highest official of the city of Rome).--Certh (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• I still request you to express your opinion on two things:

1. Should there be special category for late Byzantine consuls or should they be categorized as Roman consuls.
2. Can I restore the sourced information deleted from Theophylactus and others in category of Medieval Roman consuls becase I think categorization should be based on the article's content. So I suggest to restore this info to prevent removal of the categories by other users (who would not find proof in the article's body).--Certh (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the first time this has come up

In any event, I'm not even the first person who has tried to negotiate with Certh on his definition of the Roman Empire as seen here on his talk page and here at the Charlemagne article earlier this year (in addition to my first encounter with him in July). I would submit that Certh has a demonstrated record of pushing a fairly fringe POV interpretation of history. Does that mean I think the content he is pushing should be banned? Absolutely not; it has value, is of historical interest, and I'd be happy to dedicate some time to fleshing it out. However, it is distinct from the Roman Empire (while still having important links to a Roman legacy), and for the sake of our credibility must be viewed as such. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please clarify where do you see "special definition" of the Roman Empire? Please clarify your accusations. What statement exactly do you consider "fringe POV" or disagree?--Certh (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see previous comments. Including those indicating that I am willing to work with Certh to bring his ideas into an NPOV presentation of facts. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my questions in the previous section. It seems you are trying to avoid clarification of your position and simply willing to revert any of my edits.--Certh (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You and I are done. I have explained this issue ad nauseam, and yet you continued to accuse me of bad faith. You have made more edits to this page than you have to Wikipedia. You are clearly picking a fight over an absurd POV view of history. I have come here in good faith and you have not only continued to lob accusations at me, but you have also been reverting the pages under discussion here. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're in good faith, please clarify your position here. Removal of categories from the articles about Byzantine consuls is inappropriate. We should restore them or made new categories. What would you prefere?

You also accuse me in absurd POV but do not say which statement do you consider absurd POV--Certh (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any objection to a new Category:Byzantine Roman consuls, with a suitable note & definition? Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  That would be fine. I hesitated on this at first, since the Roman consul has continuity with the Byzantine form. However, since we do treat Byzantine as distinct from Roman, I think this will work. This would at least allow us to deal with the medieval context of this title. Category:Medieval Byzantine Roman consuls may be a better (though wordier) phrasing. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems better. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think, it's too long. Category:Byzantine consuls would be enough, but where would you draw a line? Which consuls would you consider 'Byzantine'? For example would you consider Cassiodorus or Boethius Byzantine consuls or Roman ones? Note also that I do not insist Byzantine is distinct from Roman, we also can have one category for all of them (but then it should include all Byzantine consuls). Or you better prefere categorization by period (i.e. medieval opposed to classsical)? There is also one more option: ordinary consuls vs. honorary ones. --Certh (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Roman Consuls, as listed under of Roman consuls. Byzantine consuls, in the true imperial sense, are covered under this list as well. The medieval Italian lords that were given the honorific of consul are something else entirely. More accurate than the categories above, we should probably have Category:Medieval Consuls in Italy, although Category:Medieval Nobility of Italian City States Who Called Themselves Consul is most accurate (though clearly not workable. The List of Roman Consuls constitutes the list of "ordinary" consuls. The "honorary" group would be a rather diverse list of people who just called themselves by an ancient title without any of the actual ancient legitimacy. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You again mix different things. There were:

1. Officials in various city-states (such as Gaeta) named 'consul'. These officials were limited only to internal affairs of the city. They were not Roman consuls in any sence. You can freely add a category such as "officials who called themselves consul" or "consuls of Italian cities other than Rome" but note that such offices existed not only in the middle ages, but also in classical period.
2. People who were appointed honorary imperial consuls by the Byzantine Emperor (such as Ursus and some duces of Venice, and various other Byzantine commanders and officials). They were imperial consuls, but honorary.
3. People who were appointed consuls in Rome after Byzantine authority vanished (Theophylactus and others after him including Otto, Holy Roman Emperor)

It seems you mix all the three categories.--Certh (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not mixing anything. I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem appears to be that your English is not strong enough to comprehend what I am saying. Your first point is valid. Your second point is not, because these honorary consuls are not "imperial" (or classical, or Republican). Giving you some leeway on this, you could refer to them as Category:Honorary Byzantine consuls. I would have no problem with that. Your third point simply falls under Category:Medieval Roman consuls. People who used the title consul, in Rome, during the medieval period, but were not legitimately attached the historical line of Roman consuls. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you don't trust me, look at the source: [6]. Ursus was an imperial consul as the source says. Did you look through this source before deleting it from the article?--Certh (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said I don't trust you? I said you are failing to comprehend nuance, as your citation of Orso as an imperial consul demonstrates. Your source in no way indicates that Orso was a consul in the classical sense of Imperial Rome. You could call him "Doge of Venice, and Imperial consul in Venice", which would simply highlight that he received an honorific to symbolize his pro-Byzantine policies. This is not the same as being a Roman consul. Not even close. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source to support your claim that 'Imperial consul' is not 'Imperial consul' in 'classical sence'? Or do you just feel it? He was Imperial consul in classical sense of Byzantine Empire. And he also was magister militum per Venetiae.--Certh (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Honorary consuls

Here is a quote about Clovis, who also was a honorary consul ([7]):

At the end of his account of the Visigothic War and Clovis's arrival at the city of Tours, Gregory goes on to say: Igitur ab Anastasio imperatore codicillos de consolato accepit........et ab die tanquam consul aut augustus est vocitatus. That is: the Emperor Anastasius conferred the consulship on Clovis and henceforward he was styled tanquam consul. This statement has been rejected by some critics as a fable because the name of Clovis does not appear in the consular lists. This criticism misapprehends the meaning. Clovis is not made a consul ordinarius, one of the ordinary consuls of the year. He received an honorary or titular consulship, an honour that was often conferred. The technical title of such an honorary consul was ex consule, and this is what is meant by Gregory's expression tanquam consul. The word codicilli for the deed by which the Emperor conferred the titular consulship is technical. There is therefore no reason to question the truth of Gregory's statement

--Certh (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this source backs up exactly what I'm saying. That these gentlemen are not among those individuals listed as consul ordinarius. Slam. Dunk. Case. Closed. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. Do you consider only ordinary consuls as true consuls? This would change much. For example we then would have to remove all suffect consuls from the consuls category and from the list of consuls. Note also that there is only one difference between ordinary consuls and suffect consuls: suffect consuls exercise consular power for a short term (usually several days), after that they had just the same honour as former ordinary consuls, who exersised the power for a longer term. Suffect consuls became members of the senate just as ordinary consuls. This means that Clovis exersised the consular power formally, say, one day and then became ex-consul (in Greek, apo-hypaton), actually he probably never exersised consular power, but on the paper he did. In short, honorary consul is a person who in a short time was formally promoted into consular dignity and demoted to become ex-consul.

--Certh (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm late in coming to this discussion (full disclosure: I was invited by Hiberniantears), but I have to object to the term "Byzantine Roman" under any circumstances. It just looks bad; like we can't make up our minds: are these guys Byzantine or Roman? Or both? But then, aren't all Byzantines both, so why use both words in this instance? Also, I think both Certh and Hiberniantears have some worthy points with respect to these Latin (not Roman) titles. The King of Spain is the King of Jerusalem, but put that in his lead is to mislead the reader. It needs to be explained; so it is with certain titles. But I also like Johnbod's comment about a "closed garden" in some ancient Roman articles. That's because most of these titles are simply not specifically Roman. They are Latin, and Latin was the administrative language of medieval Europe. Consul was often used synonymously with comes by counts seeking to borrow some Roman glory. I just finished reading B. S. Bachrach's Fulk Nerra: Neo-Roman Consul. Further, let me just stress that Rome the city did not cease to be Rome when the Middle Ages began. It continued to have have a government, that government was Roman, even if it was not imperial. The local Roman rulers (i.e. Giordano Pierleoni) cannot be denied their Roman-ness. Srnec (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec. This is very helpful, as I was getting off track with the Roman bit. This is a better presentation of what I was trying to communicate, and emphasizing the Latin origin of the terms does that perfectly. This entire debate originates with me trying to remove the links to the actual Roman titles. Simply because someone used a Latin title does not mean we afford them the "Glory of Rome", even if that is the reason any given ruler was using the term. That said, the title remains valid as the word these rulers used to describe themselves is simply a Latin term. Thusly, someone might be a consul of Rome, but they would not be one of the consuls of Rome that we most commonly think of in history. To that end, the term describing Fulk-Neo-Roman consul-might not be a bad compromise to describe these medieval rulers of Rome through a modern POV, and I would certainly support this. As for the other Italian city states, perhaps a category specific to that city would be fine. For example, Doges of Venice who used the term could be classified as Consul of Venice. I think these are important distinctions, since it has never been uncommon for European rulers to attach themselves to a Roman legacy, and any nobility in Italy during the medieval ages who used such Latin terms would be using them as separate creations from those used by the Roman Republic and its immediate successor. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Srnec. Category:Byzantine consuls of Rome, or similar, would perhaps be better. I doubt a new category is needed for the Doges, though some additions to the articles could be made. I'm not too sure about "Neo-Roman" - is this a common term in the literature?. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Doges of Venice who used the term could be classified as Consul of Venice. - No, they cannot. Venice had no such office. According the sources those doges were imperial consuls. You're again mixing those who were consuls of their cities with those who were imperial consuls.--Certh (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're again mixing me up with someone who takes your views seriously. Perhaps "Byzantine Consuls in Venice"? The fact of the matter is, listing them as consuls of the Roman and/or Byzantine empire is wrong. Thus, we must classify correctly what they were. "Byzantine vassals afforded the honorific title of consul" is what the Venetian variety was.Hiberniantears (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the source, stop inventing things here. You saw a source that says Ursus was imperial consul. There is no source that he was "consul of Venice". The title may be honorary, but the same is about 1/2 of all people in our Roman consuls category.--Certh (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it from your comments that you are either unwilling to, or incapable of discussing the substance of the ideas proposed by Srnec, Johnbod, and myself. If the list of consuls needs to be cleaned up, then that is what we will need to do with an eye to details and context. The context of the Venetian consuls is that they were vassals of the the Byzantines, and received an honorific title as a sign of respect. As such, they do not belong on a list of consuls other than a list of local nobility granted honorific Byzantine titles in medieval times. According to the article on Roman consuls, the rank was totally abolished by Leo the Wise, but it had lapsed in 541 after Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius. After this point, "honorary consulship still was widely granted, although was mostly known under the Greek name of the title hypatos". This clearly demonstrates that anyone named consul after this period is not really a consul, and does not belong on the list. Thus, we need to classify these fellas. They are neither suffect, or ordinary, and belong in their own unique category.

It seems you consider consules suffecti such as Titus Statilius Taurus and Lucius Cornelius Merula not to be "true" consuls because they were not ordinary consuls. Am I right? Should we remove consular categories from their articles? (By the way, Leo the Isaurian who granted consulship to Ursus was before Leo the Wise) --Certh (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're citing examples from the 6th Century BC. Oh wait a second... Edit Conflict because you were changing your examples. Are you confusing AD and BC? I'm not sure how you made that leap, but it gave me vertigo. As for Ursus, he definitely does not belong on the list, because the office had lapsed. He would be a Venetian Doge with an honorific title of consul/hypatos. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the examples because these have articles in Wikipedia. There are numerous such examples can be given. "Office has lapsed" - what do you mean? We do not know whether his office lapsed or not because we do not know most of honorary consuls and consuls suffecti. --Certh (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of a consul that belongs on the list. This is an example of someone who does not belong on the list. Lapsed, in this case, means that it was merged with the crown and no longer used for anything other than an honorific. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On which criteria is based you opinion? It it simply your feeling that Titus Statilius Taurus should belong to the list, but Theodatus Ursus should not?--Certh (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You say that one person who was consul, but not ordinary should belong and another person who also was consul but not ordinary - should not belong. Why? Should Marcus Cornelius Fronto belong since he was consul suffectus in 142 or Marcus Annius Libo? Note that their articles even do not mention that fact.--Certh (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiberniantears please refrain from editing until the dispute is over. It seems that you freely edit the articles, while reverting all my edits.--Certh (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The fall of Rome

Well, I have a tremendous headache just reading this, but I think I'm beginning to understand the root of the problem. As I understand it, we have several types of consuls:

• People appointed consuls of cities (other than Rome). Minor local officials.
• People appointed "consul ordinarius".
• People appointed "consul suffectus", which could be a solely honorary title.

This is interesting, but it doesn't really speak to what I think people are objecting to, which is that consuls of classical Rome such as Fronto and Libo, notwithstanding their being consules suffecti, operated with different powers and in a very different milieu from a doge of Venice. In other words, Rome fell. Get over it. It's not appropriate to speak of consuls appointed after the Byzantine reconquest of Italy as if they were indistinguishable from, say, Varro. I'll leave it to the trained historians in this thread to decide where to place the dividing line, but it seems reasonable to me to distinguish between those two areas of history when creating categories. Choess (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. This is exactly what I have been trying to say.Hiberniantears (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Choess your categorization is correct. It can be added that consul suffect sometimes came to be a purely honorary title in the early Empire. For example, this honour frequently was used by emperors to fill up the senate (because any consuls became senators after their term, whether or not they waere suffecti). So the title of suffect consuls became an instrument to fill senatorial positions. Regarding consuls after Byzantine reconquest - do you mean Belisarius was less consul than say, Aetius? Note also that there was a number of consuls under ostrogoths, even Theoidoric himself and his son-in-law became consuls.--Certh (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I called for an assist from the historians commenting here. I think we need to draw a line somewhere between Varro and Belisarius, and it's going to look arbitrary when we look at individuals very closely on either side, because the decline of the Empire was gradual. Having to make distinctions like that is just a fact of life when you're trying to pack fuzzy things like history into nice sharply-edged categories. Choess (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So you dont think Belisarius was a true consul? --Certh (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this. Which is the break between the last official consul in the 500's, from which point the title is assumed by the emperor. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Emperors after that point became consuls (and used consular robes and titles on money and in papers, for example) and also Heraclius became consul in 611 before he became emperor. But anyway that only related to ordinary consuls. Honorary consuls did not discontinue at that point.--Certh (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, we already have a line between Varro and Belisarius: some consuls we categorized as republican consuls, and some - as imperial.--Certh (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest to split our consular categories so to have separate categories for ordinary and non-ordinary consuls. This would be easy because it is known certainly who was ordinary consul (because ordinary consuls were included in the fasti), so we would not face original research or disputes on how to categorise them. Many of suffect consuls, (including Marcus Cornelius Fronto and Marcus Annius Libo for example) even not categorized now, so we would do a good job in categorizing them. So we would have the following categories:

• Ordinary consuls of the Roman Republic
• Suffect consuls of the Roman Republic
• Ordinary consuls of the Roman Empire
• Suffect and honorary consuls of the Roman Empire
• Medieval Roman consuls (this one already exists)

The list of the consuls though I think should include all the above categories in chronological order (with notes who was ordinary consul and who was not).--Certh (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There might be a better solution:

• Roman Consul (encompassing everything to 541 AD with an explanation of the title being wrapped up with the throne after that)
• Medieval Roman Consul (dealing with consuls of the city of Rome after the Empire) (unsigned by HT)

I don't have strong views on the Ancient ones, except they should be distinguished from the later ones. If a whole load of Byzantine courtiers who never set foot in Rome are to be included, I think they should be separated somehow from the actual Western European figures. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As I already said, Heraclius became ordimary consul before he became emperor (first time under Phocas) and became consul twice (here are money of his second consulate:[8], [9], [10]) So it was not completely unified with the emperial duties. Do you suggest to remove consular categories from article about Heraclius and other emperors? Also do you mean we sholud leave honorary and suffect consuls completely without categorization? Note that it was only ordinary comsulship that was after 541 mostly assumed by the emperors, but honorary consulship did not change much in this or later centuries.--Certh (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me give this some thought. Heraclius is a bit of a special case, wherein the title is not exactly the same as before. I just want to give it some thought as to what specifically the significance of his title was. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well probably some significance changed, but Wikipedia should not judge these things. I think all people who were ordinary consuls should be categorized as such and all honorary consuls - as honorary ones if we have sources. We know that ordinary consulship (and consular dating, eponymous years and fasti) continued until Leo the Wise. So I think all people who beared this title until Leo the Wise should be categorized as such without any doubt. We know that most of these people were emperors (with exception of Heraclius), but the date of assuming consular title usually was different from the date of assuming emperorship (ordinary consulship was binded to the beginning of the year, so a new emperor should wait until new year to become consul, and also some emperors who reigned less than year were not consuls at all). This is what to say about ordinary consulship. Honorary consulship din not change much even after Leo the Wise.--Certh (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not personally interested in categorisation issues at Wikipedia. I gave up hope before I even registered. That said, I think perhaps what we need is: "Roman consuls" for all consuls before 476, "Byzantine consuls" for all imperial consuls thereafter, and separate categories (if needed) for other consulates (i.e. those of the Italian city-republics, "feudal" counts). This solution cuts off the use of the Roman term with the disappearance of an emperor (not fall of an empire) in the West (which can be dated to 476/80 with confidence). We use "Byzantine" as a synonym of Roman for the eastern Empire after this point (an established custom), and we reserve the right to call as "consuls" anybody else who bore that title, specifying that it was not a Roman consulate they held. Anybody see any problems in this? Srnec (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As you know, in early empire there were two consuls in Rome. Constantine I assigned one consul to Rome and one to Constantinople. Neither 476, nor 480 changed anything: still one consul was assigned to Rome and one to Constantinople (dispite the fact that from that point there was only one emperor). This lasted until Justinian when western consuls diappeared, but eastern continued. So the existance of two emperors was not required for two consuls. Also I doubt that it would be correct to call, say, Boetius or Cassiodorus "Byzantine consuls". They never travelled to Byzantium and I doubt they were appointed by the emperor. In fact they were elected by the Roman senate. This [11] is a consular dyptich of Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes, a consul of 530. As you can see, there is no portrait of emperor or any other Byzantine symbols. So I doubt we can call him "Byzantine". --Certh (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, I am 100% in agreement with you. My original reversions were along this line. I've shown a willingness to compromise with Certh for months now (including this thread). It strikes me that this debate is complete. Certh, I would ask you to review this, and notice that you are the only dissenting opinion. Everyone agrees there are gray areas, but we all agree that lines need to be drawn for the sake of a well ordered encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I already said I think the line should be drawn between ordinary consuls and honorary ones to avoid original research. Why do you disagree with my proposal? I already expressed why I disagree with yours. Again, please answer, should Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes or say, Boethius, Cassiodorus be categorized as "Byzantine consuls" in your opinion? Just asking to avoid further removal of Byzantine consular categories from their articles by other users who would find it's strange to put them in such categories--Certh (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Certh, I don't follow you when you say that a "line should be drawn between ordinary consuls and honorary ones to avoid original research." What original research? Also, I have no problem with moving the date I proposed back to 534/5. Perhaps we need two categories on top of the "Roman consuls" category: "Consuls of the Western Roman Empire" and "Consuls of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Then "Byzantine consuls" after 534? The problem is that the Roman/Byzantine distinction is not contemporary, so any dividing line is arbitrary. Calling Boethius Byzantine sounds weird, calling Constantine XI Eastern Roman sounds even weirder. But why should we have two categories for "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine" consuls that stop/start at AD 534? Is it unnecessary to distinguish ordinary/honorary/suffect consuls or eastern/western consuls or Roman/Byzantine consuls at the category level. Here is one possible solution I see: have two categories ("Ordinary Roman consuls" and "Honorary Roman consuls") and use the former to classify all consuls ordinary and the latter to classify all others (perhaps a separate category for suffect consuls is necessary). There should be no problem putting a Venetian doge in an honorary category. There are many possible solutions, each with its pros and cons. I think the best solution depends on how weird people would find it to either call Boethius Byzantine or create an arbitrary line between Easter Roman and Byzantine. Srnec (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I also think the distinguishing at category level is unnecessary at all. But other people disagree. Regarding categorization by ordinary/honorary consuls I think Hiberniantears would oppose, but I am still waiting response, why?--Certh (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Guys, why don't you just expand the text beyond its sorry stub status? There's quite a lot of sources on the topic (although conflicting ones) for a GA. One line with a Greek title is indeed misleading in a quarter-page stub but (if properly referenced) will be at home in a detailed bio. NVO (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. if this page needs anything urgent, it is a clear attribution of the portrait as fiction/fantasy/pickabetterword, or omission of the portrait altogether. It may leave an imression of a true life portrait (some folks take too many things for granted, not realizing it's fourteenth century). NVO (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the ultimate goal here. We just need to stop linking to the ancient titles and categories for these medieval nobility. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute around Simeon of Moscow is over. We are now dicussing the Roman consuls and their categorization.--Certh (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me if this has already been suggested (this page is kind of hard to follow), but we could have a "medieval consuls" article, just like we have medieval tournament or medieval commune to distinguish those concepts from different eras. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections for that. We already have Category:Medieval Roman consuls. Now we discuss should it be a special category for Byzantine consuls or should they be categorized as Roman consuls. I personally think it is not necessary.--Certh (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)