Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Can we fix the "Nomenclature" section?

The following section has been completely garbled for the last few months. Can this be cleaned up?

The City of Constantinople (previously "Byzantium") and some monastic communities as early as the 7th century were called Byzantine in Greek sources but never for the state in a political sense.[ref] It was used more broadly after the empire's collapse by German Hieronymus Wolf's Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a book published by Anton Fugger.[ref] Wolf was a humanist who wanted to differentiate medieval Greek authors from ancient Greek authors.[ref] According to Anthony Kaldellis Athenian historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles, an author included in Wolf's 1562 edition, in the mid-15th century advocated a neo-Hellenic identity of the Romans and was the first to use the term in this way.[ref] The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), and Du Cange's Historia Byzantina in 1680 further popularised the use of "Byzantine" among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[ref] However, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in America, England and elsewhere in Europe with George Finlay's 1857 book greatly advancing it as it was the first English modern narrative to use the term[ref] Kaldellis claims the politics of the Crimean War, which included Greece's Megali Idea, is what fanned the change from the 8th century's "Empire of the Greeks" with the modern convention of "Byzantine Empire"[ref]

Come on folks, this is a Featured Article, we really shouldn't have ungrammatical gibberish like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It needs shortening too. Apart from poor writing, whoever did that also tied themselves in knots trying to cover too much. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I ran this text via Grammarly, and the grammar and writing are pretty good. Not a human, of course, but I guess that's the point. What's the ungrammatical gibberish that irks you?

As for conciseness, it depends on what we want to emphasise, and we can move the rest to a note. This paragraph's two axes are how Hieronymus Wolf invented it but it's now proven it was Laonikos Chalkokondyles (as in, who invented the term to refer to it as a state), and George Finlay, who popularised it in English. The first sentence and Kaldellis's work are the most recent scholarship I've encountered. Biz (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Biz, watch you don't change URLs when you run a tool like that - I think the ones in your edit are okay with the caps but IME some sites are less forgiving. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I get the impression that Grammarly's mostly trained on business emails etc and that text of this complexity is a bit beyond it. Anyway, here are the aspects that feel ungrammatical or 'off' to me:

• "never for": doesn't relate to anything earlier in the sentence (it sounds like "but it was never used for" has dropped out).
• "by German Hieronymus Wolf's": can't use "German" with a personal name like this (probably easiest solution is to shift this to the next sentence "was a German humanist")
• "According to Anthony Kaldellis" needs to be followed by a comma
• "Athenian historian" better "the Athenian historian"
• "in the mid-15th century advocated" - word order is odd. "in the mid-15th century" should come after "Romans"; I'm not sure "advocated" is the right word, but it depends what is meant here
• "in 1648" - comes more naturally after "Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae)"
• "as it was" - better just "as", since "it" with two different referents in such a short space is confusing
• ", which included" - ambiguous whether this refers to the war or the politics (I'm not sure whether it is natural to say that either of them "included an idea").
• "is what" --> "are what" (because the subject is "politics")
• "with the modern" - "with" is wrong. One expects "change from ... to ..."

Structurally: Laonikos is prior to Wolf in using the term, so it is strange that he is mentioned second and as subordinate to Wolf. I'm not sure we care about Fugger. It's unclear what the exact connection of the Megali Idea is to the change in terminology. Furius (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestions. (Though most of these are style, no grammar.) Strike through means it's been implemented in the latest edit, otherwise with comments responding

• "never for": doesn't relate to anything earlier in the sentence (it sounds like "but it was never used for" has dropped out).
• "by German Hieronymus Wolf's": can't use "German" with a personal name like this (probably easiest solution is to shift this to the next sentence "was a German humanist")
• "According to Anthony Kaldellis" needs to be followed by a comma
• "Athenian historian" better "the Athenian historian"
• "in the mid-15th century advocated" - word order is odd. "in the mid-15th century" should come after "Romans"; I'm not sure "advocated" is the right word, but it depends what is meant here
• "in 1648" - comes more naturally after "Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae)"
• "as it was" - better just "as", since "it" with two different referents in such a short space is confusing
• ", which included" - ambiguous whether this refers to the war or the politics (I'm not sure whether it is natural to say that either of them "included an idea"). --> Changed it to "and Greece's Megali Idea"
• "is what" --> "are what" (because the subject is "politics")
• "with the modern" - "with" is wrong. One expects "change from ... to ...
• "Structurally: Laonikos is prior to Wolf in using the term, so it is strange that he is mentioned second and as subordinate to Wolf. --> It is but that's because relatively recent scholarly work that has challenged this. So it's a question of if we are ready to just accept the recent as well established and accepted or wait longer. If you read the note, it explain it. It is as follows: "Wolf has long been considered one of the founders of Byzantine studies in early modern Europe. However, Asaph Ben-Tov has recently argued that he likely did not come up with this title as he did not otherwise use it or discuss it in the preface. Anthony Kaldellis believes more research will confirm the term was already being used in Western medieval sources and Wolf only reluctantly used it on the orders of Anton Fugger."
• I'm not sure we care about Fugger. --> Refer to the above note
• It's unclear what the exact connection of the Megali Idea is to the change in terminology. --> The reference included a quote. If you read the full paper it is better explained. I did a lot of work on the Greece-Ottoman relations article so it's obvious to me but I appreciate it's not to others so open to other ideas of rewriting this. As for the note, it is as follows: "The Crimean War had a profound—and unrecognized—impact by forging a new distinction between "Byzantine/Byzantium" and "Greek/Greece," in a context in which the "Empire of the Greeks" had become a politically toxic concept to the Great Powers of Europe. In response, European intellectuals increasingly began to lean on the conceptually adjacent and neutral term Byzantium in order to create a semantic bulwark between the acceptable national aspirations of the new Greek state, on the one hand, and its dangerous imperial fantasies and its (perceived) Russian patrons, on the other."

Biz (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I expect you are right, but tldr for Sunday night. One thing I'm sure of is that the section, given its inordinate length, is far too high up the section order. It should be below the history, and probably other sections. Very few of our readers will bwe looking for this. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

TL;DR I believe historiography should come first for any article on history.

It's complex politics masquerading as convenience why we call this era of Roman history a different name. Which is why it belongs at the top. That said, I do agree we should make it more concise.

For a first time reader of this history, it's framing perception a certain way and there is responsibility in doing that appropriately. For someone with an understanding of the history, it's expected this is explained well and prominently as it's an open secret this is a rebranding done by historians for reasons no one really understands. For someone who deeply understands the subject, presenting the latest scholarly evidence puts us ahead of any other resource and boosts Wikipedia's credibility.

Burying it goes against all three of these points. Biz (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jonbod. It's tangential, almost a footnote, to the point of this article. Currently, it reads like a form of WP:FANCRUFT. It needs to be shortened to a few lines andcertainly put after the history section. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I read the first sentence of your re-write (tldr for the rest). "City" should not have a capital 'C'. "were called Byzantine" - no, it's an adjective. ("referred to as"/"described as" etc. Source uses "indicates a direct relation with"). Sentence is comma-less. DeCausa (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Some notes:

• The recent copyedit [1] didn't solve the grammatical reference problem – "it" still has no proper antecedent.
• The fact that the first sentence so easily loses sight of what its grammatical subject is, seems related to the fact that the whole section loses sight of what its topic is. A "nomenclature" section should answer the question "what names have been used for this empire". What the section does instead is discussing the question "where does name X come from". That's not the same thing. This distorted focus is clearly due to the fact that it's just this name that has attracted so much ideological obsession from certain Wikipedia editors, but it's out of proportion with the actual importance of the issue. The section needs to be not only shortened, but more generally be put into proper context.
• I agree about the points above regarding temporal ordering, the role of Fugger, etc. Fugger is irrelevant as long as we aren't actually making the point that some authors have suggested it was him who prompted the use of the term. But we aren't making that point, and won't be making it, because it's little more than speculation. That claim is now in a footnote, which is bad. I'm sure I've said this before: encyclopedia articles should never use explanative footnotes in the sense of "learned digressions" in the way some academic papers might do. In an encyclopedia, either something is important enough to be explained in the main text, or it isn't important at all and should be left out.
• The same thing about footnotes goes for the other "note" items splattered throughout the section, and for the statement about the "politics of the Crimean War" - the alleged relevance of the Crimean War remains completely opaque and unexplained within the main text and only becomes understood if you include the lengthy quote in the footnote.
• Going back to Wolf/Fugger etc., if the claim in the footnote is true that Wolf didn't "use or discuss" the term "B." in his Corpus, i.e. he used it only in its title, then the statement that it was "used more broadly" by him is patently false and needs to be reworded.
• Finally, the statement about "some monastic communities" in the first sentence makes no sense. This is a remarkably uninsightful summarizing of the source cited. What Kaldellis is actually explaining in that paper is that the term "Byzantine" might have been occasionally/rarely used in a cultural/political sense denoting an Eastern Roman as opposed to West Roman identity – the "monastic communities" are merely the example that happens to occur in the quotation he uses to illustrate this claim.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I made another revision. Responses below.

1. Ok. "It" is discussed again below.
2. That makes sense.
3. I've take Fugger out. And the footnote.
4. I've rewritten this sentence and removed this additional context. If the reader wants to read the reference, I've left the footnote which expands on it.
5. Agreed.
6. The paper by Theodoropoulos is not cited by Kaldellis as it was written after his paper initial claims in a different book and Theodoropoulos is responding specifically to Kaldellis's claim with evidence it was used long before in other contexts. The core argument of Kaldellis is that it was Western European's who were dealing with the Eastern question and the Great Game (my words not his). That said, I agree there is no need to give this so much airtime even though you mistake this as a summation of Kaldellis. I recommend reading Kaldellis's paper in full.

Biz (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't gone past the first sentence again. The erroneous capital C remains and "Although Byzantine was used for the City..., it would first be used for the state...". Come on! It's an adjective - talk about it as an adjective. That's just a horrible sentence. DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Biz (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The one thing – the one essential piece of encyclopedic information – a section headed "nomenclature" in this article absolutely must explicitly say is that the word "Byzantine" is derived from the original urban settlement of Byzantium/Byzantion. It doesn't say it. The absolute fundamental piece of information the general reader should be given is absent. Instead, we have WP:FANCRUFT. DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Biz (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What "peanut gallery"? Explain. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Add: “…when its capital city was Constantinople. ‘Prior to that, the city of Constantinople had been called Byzantium, after which the empire was named, heralding the Ancient Greek tradition of the city.’ It survived the fall…” Aniskyr (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lightning speed gif

the map gif is once again too fast, we gotta slow it down Jake the brain (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, each slide is now visible for 1.5 seconds, let me know if its still too fast. NeimWiki (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you it works Jake the brain (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Hello, I am reading the page on the Byzantine Empire and I have a suggestion: The page should be renamed as the Eastern Roman Empire and the first sentence should be reformated as ”The Eastern Roman Empire, also referred to as the Byzantine Empire, was the official continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.”

I believe this edit is necessary because the term ’Byzantine Empire’ was invented by western scholars over 100 years AFTER the Fall of Constantinople and, as such, was never once used to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire at any point during it’s rule. The so-called ’Byzantines’ consistently and near-exclusively called themselves Romans, both before and after they adopted Greek as the principal state language in the 7th century. Even the capital city of Constantinople was officialy designated as Nova Roma, which literally translates to ’New Rome’ in Latin, by Emperor Constantine the Great, the first emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire himself. During this time, the city was also called the 'Second Rome', 'Eastern Rome', and Roma Constantinopolitana (Latin for 'Constantinopolitan Rome').

The scholars who created the term ’Byzantine Empire’ did so with the deliberate intent to distinguish the Eastern Roman Empire from the Roman Empire itself, in order to either discredit or to provide more legitimacy to one of the many countries who each claimed themselves to be the successors of the Roman Empire (Such as the Tsardom of Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc).

They were largely unsuccessful in the latter part, but they were succesful in perpetrating a historical myth which persists today. And I believe that the offical Wikipedia page’s name, although not entirely incorrect, is only further enforcing that myth by using a term that was invented over a century after it’s fall to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire.

By using the term ’Byzantine Empire’ instead of the official name of the Eastern Roman Empire, it forces the reader to view the Eastern Roman Empire as completely separate from the entire history of the Roman Empire itself. I, and many others from what I’ve seen, believe that that is not just a blatant falsification of history, but also an uneducated myth which has embedded itself in the narrative of modern education, as well as being an insult to the legacy of the Roman Empire as a whole. Omnistar763 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can believe it, this is something editors have been fighting about for this page for twenty years: there are many pages of discussion on "Eastern Roman" versus "Byzantine" in the archives of this talk page. I would personally much prefer the former, to be clear, but I prefer peace and precision, especially with very mature articles like these that nonetheless presently need a lot of help. Remsense聊 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately on this, two wrongs make a right, even though in one example the citizens of Lemnos were still calling themselves Roman up to 1912, Anthony Kaldellis commented on it, saying "Thus was the most ancient national identity in all of history finally absorbed and ended", as it was the point when the Hellenic Navy had freed the island from the Turk occupation, and the people would now become Hellenic themselves.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice

As part of the ongoing FAR, I will be substantially reducing the rather bloated history section (currently around 10,000 words); per WP:Summary style, most of the intricate information/excessive detail is already at History of the Byzantine Empire and not required in this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Poor quality addition

@Biz:, this edit is too poor quality to be left in:

1. The first sentence: going back to the 6th century BC is utterly unnecessary and too remote for this article. Why italicise "Rome"? That's a breach of the MOS as well as being meaningless.
2. The second sentence: so what? What's it got to do with this article?
3. The third sentence is nonsense. There was no "fusion" of cultures and certainly not language - and the sources don't say that. There were loans and influence. not fusion.
4. The above irrelevancies replaced what was an explanation of how Rome came to rule the Byzantine core: "The Roman Republic established hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean between the third and first centuries BC; nevertheless, internal instabilities led to the institution of the Roman Empire." There was, in your version, no reference to Rome acquiring the East: you left behind an unexplained non-sequitur as a result: "It was greatly influenced by the Hellenistic states it had conquered in the east". No prior mention of conquer. So, Latin was "fused" with greek because of Magna Graecia - the Greek east and its conquest by Rome was utterly irrelevant to Byzantine history was it? Nonsense.

I've reverted. Obviously. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

1. The Byzantine Empire did not start on a specific date because it's a continuation and it's an invention by historians. This is an article, like all articles, that needs to be standalone given context to a subject. Not mentioning that it started as Rome, even if it's just a sentence, in background, is not exactly "utterly unnecessary". The italisation of Rome is because the term "Rome" refers to the state. Mary Beard in SPQR uses it like this (and yes, to refer to the Byzantine Empire)

2. The second sentence is based on the latest scholarship. Which it references. And which it appears you have not read in depth based on your summation. I put it in because of how the second paragraph talks about "It was greatly influenced by the Hellenistic states it had conquered in the east" -- there is now evidence that this happened even earlier before and to a bigger extent. I mentioned this in my edit summary but it comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Transition_from_Republic_to_Empire. I was trying to align the pages as there is no reason for them different in some areas.

3. "Fusion" is putting it into my words because that's what we are meant to do, right?. The sources talk about how Greek and Latin evolved together (not just words); how Greek culture started Latin literature; and how Magna Gracia greatly influenced Rome.

4. I accept there needs to be more explanation of the conquest. I was planning on doing more edits and adding more scholarship. But I was also trying to simplify it -- do we need a blow by blow explanation or can we just say it expanded across the mediterrean? Also the first sentence talks about expansion outside of the Italian peninsula.

I want to just improve the article, help keep its featured article status, and not waste time here in Talk. I tagged you on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 but you did not say anything. I find your practice of reverting my edits not helpful to this process.

cc: This is what makes me hesitate from working directly on this article @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense Biz (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rewriting tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

What you wrote, Biz, was irretrievable:

1. "The Byzantine Empire did not start on a specific date". A statement of the obvious which has zero bearing on starting with the 6th century BC. This just seems to be a rather crass way of repeating the whole Byzantine Empire = Roman empire obsession. This article absolutely does not need to be standalone. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is fundamental to the Wikipedia concept. Yes, obviously, there is a huge blurring of when Roman historiography becomes Byzantine historiography. But it's not in the 6th century BC.
2. So what? It's just irrelevant here.
3. No. You are not meant to make up words that are misleading. Look up the dictionary definition of "fusion" if you really have to. It's obviously not the right word. The central point is that you've been WP:UNDUE on the influence of Magna Graecia v the hellenistic east or even the Greek core.
4. You made no improvement. It wasn't very good in the first place but you made it worse. What can I say? If that section is to be improved thaen what was there before your edit is a better starting point.

I reverted you because your edit was irretrievable. That whole section is unnecessarily bloated. there's some succinct points that could be made, but none of them involve the 6th century BC, Magna Graecia or the fusion of Latin and Greek. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these points are unwarranted in some form: however, you do not need to make them in a tone which one would use to scold a misbehaving pet. We are presently attempting to save this article from being delisted, and it will be a learning experience that requires cooperation. If I'm not out of bounds, please be a bit more patient with issues you see. Remsense留 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've seen too many poor quality edits from this editor over the last couple of years to have that level of patience. Also, I don't accept that this article should be "saved" from de-listing. It's a country mile from being an FA and I see no reasonable prospect of it being a decent article - it's been a target of some rather crass internet-based POVs for many many years. It should be de-listed. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say a concerted FAR process is the best chance for it to be considerably improved, even if it ultimately fails? Remsense留 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase that's been in the political headlines here in the UK over the last few days: that would be a "a triumph of hope over experience". DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your perspective is well taken, you may be right. As you are likely aware, I lack the experience you do: as such, I will be trying to improve this article the best I can while it's got several other editors engaged. It would be cynical to characterize this as "learning the hard way"—I'm happy to attain experience either way, even if it's experience to induce pessimism. Remsense留 23:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your experience! It's a British(?) idiom meaning that some let optimism override realism. DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Aye—I wasn't taking your it as any slight on my optimism; I just wanted to make it clear that I see where you're coming from the best I can, having the comparatively little experience with big wikiprojects that I do. Anyway—back to trying to trim the History section. Remsense留 00:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. You can choose to make this a productive discussion @DeCausa or given your history, not. I hope you agree this article needs more than just reducing its word count to save it.

In this "early history" section:

1. There needs to be a sentence how it all started. It wasn't in a vacuum.

2. There needs to be an explanation how the Republic became an Empire. Having an emperor did not make it an empire, according to the sources.

3. There needs to be an explanation how Greek language took over this Latin-speaking Roman Empire, or rather at least an insight into the origin that gets expanded on later. It was in the DNA of the Roman Empire, according to the sources.

4. There needs to be an explanation of how Christianity took over the pagan Roman Empire. The sources suggest long before Constantine came about.

I believe those four components give the necessary background to what became the Byzantine Empire in the "history" section that does not resort to a blow-by-blow description and can explain things more thematically. Less words, higher quality. The loss of the western Roman Empire is important for the early history, as is the move of the capital, but not necessary for "background".

There also needs to be recent scholarship to give this section credibility. What I added that I believe deserves inclusion:

• Dickey: new research that talks about how Latin words were incorporated into Greek from the days of the Roman Kingdom and indisputably from the start of the Republic and not just the 3rd century CE which was the current understanding and opens up a whole new perception of how Greek was used
• Rochette: who talks about how Magna Gracia had a huge influence, how Greek was a main language of the Republic and early Empire
• Batstone: how the Romans "translated" the Greek culture and made it their own
• Beard (who along with Kaldellis that I am reading right now), give us the most recent academic scholarship and is the of the highest grade of sources per WP:HISTRS

I am open to how we write this. If we can start with the key points and useful sources, this can be a way that we can have a more productive FAR that we can collaborate on. If not, then we should accept the vote to FARC that occurred before they pulled me in. Biz (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can tell that you are reading Kaldellis, you seem to hint at his work and academic formula almost inherently in every discussion of this type. You omit previous observations of his work and are now formulating a specific narrative to rewrite the story again, introducing his very specific point of view as an example, guide even.

I hope you are aware that your continued insinuations to rewrite a history compatible with an implicitly biased narrative using the pretext of "recent historical sources" (being quite generous with their acceptance in the academic field) are not the concern of a limited group of editors. Pablo1355 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Now that you’ve got that off your chest, would you like to attempt to address what I’ve asked which is (a) key points needed for background and early history (b) sources that are recent, scholarly and/or that we should consider for a rewrite required for this FAR? Biz (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about your problematic handling of information conceived regarding Byzantinism in general. I do not share your reasons or concerns for said edition and I do not intend to collaborate where I consider there is a pattern of implicit intentions conveniently omitted, I only want to reaffirm a previously declared position in the face of a similar situation in the hope that it can finally cease. Pablo1355 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaffirming that you have nothing useful to contribute towards consensus. When you do, your constructive ideas on how to improve the article or sources to include will be most welcome. Until you do, I ask you to respectfully disengage. Biz (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Biz, yes that's your regular message: anyone who doesn't accept your narrow, WP:UNDUE agenda and poor writing should disengage. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's all calm down! Biz, I didn't think much of your changes, let's see what a new attempt looks like. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)