This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Exile section, the article states that Justinian's daughter Eudoxia was betrothed to Tervel. But in the Family section, this daughter's name is given as Anastasia, with Eudoxia being her mother. Abou 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article reads as a moralizing history of Justinian II, which is wrong. Then by far the two most cited sources for the entire thing are JB Bury, and Norwich. JB Bury died around a century ago, so he's not to up on current research in the field, and Norwich wrote a narrative history about Byzantium 27 years ago, meant for the layman, that's not scholarly at all. I think the article needs some major revisions, or the allowing for debate in how his rule truly was. 165.123.208.59 ( talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be better if the sources were updated to reflect a bit more skepticism in the way that the Basileus was represented by contemporary sources like Theophanes? Constance Head’s reinterpretation of Ioustinianos seems to come to mind as we could insert a header about the controversy among modern scholars somewhere in there? — Viralworld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralworld ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with photo cropping skills use them on this picture of mosaic with Justinian II from here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Granting_of_privileges_mosaic_(detail)_-_Sant%27Apollinare_in_Classe_-_Ravenna_2016_(2).jpg and crop from it a version so that we have his figure's detail: the picture of the full mosaic is kind of unnecessarily large when his detail could be cropped: I would likewise suggest that similar treatment be given detail of his uncle Heraclius (to his right), uncle Tiberius and father Constantine IV. -- 82.181.143.171 ( talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This sentence in 'second reign' is a bit obscure to me at least. "The expedition was led to reinstate the Western Church's authority over Ravenna, which was taken as a sign of disobedience to the emperor, and revolutionary sentiment" -- 142.163.195.167 ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the last Roman emperor on Wikipedia to not be referred to as "Byzantine", but rather, "Roman". But why? The strangest thing is that this isn't even consistent, both Tiberius III and Leontius, previous emperors, are referred to as Byzantine.
What changed from the rule of Justinian II to Philippicus? To me, this is unneccesarily confusing to the reader, and is not encyclopedic.
I think there needs to be a consensus on when the 'Eastern Roman Empire' ended, and the 'Byzantine Empire' began. Some figures from the 5th century are referred to as Byzantine, some from the 9th century are still referred to as Roman. It's horribly inconsistent. PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Exile section, the article states that Justinian's daughter Eudoxia was betrothed to Tervel. But in the Family section, this daughter's name is given as Anastasia, with Eudoxia being her mother. Abou 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article reads as a moralizing history of Justinian II, which is wrong. Then by far the two most cited sources for the entire thing are JB Bury, and Norwich. JB Bury died around a century ago, so he's not to up on current research in the field, and Norwich wrote a narrative history about Byzantium 27 years ago, meant for the layman, that's not scholarly at all. I think the article needs some major revisions, or the allowing for debate in how his rule truly was. 165.123.208.59 ( talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be better if the sources were updated to reflect a bit more skepticism in the way that the Basileus was represented by contemporary sources like Theophanes? Constance Head’s reinterpretation of Ioustinianos seems to come to mind as we could insert a header about the controversy among modern scholars somewhere in there? — Viralworld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralworld ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with photo cropping skills use them on this picture of mosaic with Justinian II from here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Granting_of_privileges_mosaic_(detail)_-_Sant%27Apollinare_in_Classe_-_Ravenna_2016_(2).jpg and crop from it a version so that we have his figure's detail: the picture of the full mosaic is kind of unnecessarily large when his detail could be cropped: I would likewise suggest that similar treatment be given detail of his uncle Heraclius (to his right), uncle Tiberius and father Constantine IV. -- 82.181.143.171 ( talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This sentence in 'second reign' is a bit obscure to me at least. "The expedition was led to reinstate the Western Church's authority over Ravenna, which was taken as a sign of disobedience to the emperor, and revolutionary sentiment" -- 142.163.195.167 ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the last Roman emperor on Wikipedia to not be referred to as "Byzantine", but rather, "Roman". But why? The strangest thing is that this isn't even consistent, both Tiberius III and Leontius, previous emperors, are referred to as Byzantine.
What changed from the rule of Justinian II to Philippicus? To me, this is unneccesarily confusing to the reader, and is not encyclopedic.
I think there needs to be a consensus on when the 'Eastern Roman Empire' ended, and the 'Byzantine Empire' began. Some figures from the 5th century are referred to as Byzantine, some from the 9th century are still referred to as Roman. It's horribly inconsistent. PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)