Talk:Constantine Doukas (co-emperor)

Constantine Doukas (co-emperor) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 5, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Not Constantine Doukas, for heaven's sake!

This obscure, confusing, and bastardized form, based solely on a half-forgotten reference work, is not common English usage; it is not defensible as a representation of the Greek. To represent the two kappas differently is neither idiom nor system.

The claim that this irrational method is consensus would be a lie; the only basis for it to be so is a long-past discussion on one of the other late Constantines, which was evenly split before an incompetent "mediator" reached a "decision" on his own whim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I take it that Oxford history of Byzantium (2002) and the ton of scholars in the Oxford handbook of Byzantine studies, published as recently as 2008, did not get your memo on this. This is disruption purely for the sake of personal taste. Stop it. Constantine ✍ 19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is dispelling a lie, which never was consensus here; it was the imposition of two cranks. All it will take is another crank on this side, and even the pretense of consensus should be done away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try coming up with a source for this anomaly not from OUP, which, having hired a wift, stuck with him - as they have stuck with the Oxford comma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that supposed to demonstrate? You know full well that the ODB form is not limited to OUP publications... Constantine ✍ 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not limited, in the strict sense; but I deny that it is used or useful much outside those precincts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define these precincts? I have seen English, American, French and Greek authors use the ODB forms when writing in English, and certainly not only in Oxford publications. A little search in Google should convince you of that (provided you are prepared to be convinced, and I have come to believe that you are not). In fact, the use of ODB forms is either way part of a wider tendency in academia to use more "native" forms, be it for Slavic, Arab or Turkish names and terms, including various diacritics unknown to the ordinary English-speaker. The aesthetic result may be questionable, but there it is. If Stephen Urosh Dushan increasingly becomes Stefan Uroš Dušan, why should Palaeologus not become Palaiologos? Heck, major international projects like the PBW list the names not by John or Constantine, but Ioannes or Konstantinos. Constantine ✍ 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The local consensus and the wider academic use of the terms are clearly on the ODB side. The old, divisive, onomatology debates clearly belong in the past. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what is non-neutral in having "Doukas" instead of "Ducas"? What sort of "dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope" can possibly be derived from a dispute in transcribing the same name in different ways? Does "Doukas" perhaps reflect some nationalistic conspiracy or fringe view that implies any specific POV for the subject matter? Calling this tagging an overreaction would be a euphemism... PMA, you are treading on thin ice the way you are acting about this issue. Constantine ✍ 00:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Doukas" perhaps reflect some nationalistic conspiracy or fringe view that implies any specific POV for the subject matter? Quite possibly; there has never been any other reason to adhere to this bastard (or as the politically correct are saying nowadays, hybrid or syncretic) formation out of the four or five contending systems for Byzantine names. This is half Greek, half English, and all nonsense; it represents kappa in two different ways, pointlessly. Konstantinos Doukas, although egregiously non-English, would be marginally better; best would be a return to the established and wide-spread standard, now emerging again as the scholarly usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have any evidence that this is anything other than your opinion? Any evidence that the former system is "re-emerging"? Because all I can see in published material is quite the contrary. Constantine ✍ 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that it is half-Greek, half English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I deny that this constitutes an argument against using a system that is becoming more and more established. Transliteration systems are almost always inconsistent or weird-looking. This discussion is not about whether the system is perfect, but about usage. You know the ground rules for WP as well as I do. Come up with evidence on a decline in usage and then we can talk. Constantine ✍ 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A "nationalistic conspiracy" resulting from the usage of the ODB onomatology. This is simply your own conspiracy theory and original research. The same goes for your analysis of the various ways to transliterate "C" or "K" which is is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As far as the old standard "emerging again", I don't see any evidence of that. In fact all evidence points to the ODB becoming even more widespread. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the Greek in this article; it has two kappas. Your personal attack fits your revert-warring; to some people there is nothing to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of a personal attack without good reason is a personal attack in itself. Your edit warring and your over the top edit summaries mentioning "bastard titles" speak for themselves. I have nothing to add here other than to say that your comments against me are abusive and you should stop this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that you do not know that "bastard formations" is the name for these linguistic inconsistencies, clearer and more specific than "hybrid". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine Doukas (co-emperor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KAVEBEAR (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
There is a dispute in the talk page but that seems to be old news.KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It seems Konstantios Doukas, Andronikos Doukas (co-emperor) and Constantine Doukas (co-emperor) are all related and their co-reigns crossed paths with each other. Can you mention the other two in each of these respective articles? -KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a way of directly mentioning either; but I've added both to the infobox. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"at the urging of Michael's uncle John Doukas," and "John Doukas, a relative of Alexios, conspired against Nikephoros" --- John Doukas (Caesar) is linked twice and introduced in relations to other figure in different ways. Without clicking on it, I had no idea they were the same person. Can you delink the second link to John Doukas and make an explicit connection between the John Doukas mentioned in the first paragraph to the one in the second paragraph.
Done
"After Alexios ascended the throne in 1081, he elevated Constantine to Junior Emperor" - change to junior emperor.
Done
"Constantine was betrothed to Olympias, the daughter of Robert Guiscard." --- Can you introduce who Robert Guiscard was to those not familiar with this period of history and will not make the connection between him and the Normans of Sicily.
Done
"large force to repel the Normans" - This is hard to follow. I am assumimg you mean the forces led by Guiscard. Can you make this more explicit.
Done
Please link Byzantine–Norman wars somewhere. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"Engraving of Constantine Doukas from the Holy Crown of Hungary" - Can you explain this in the body of the article? It is probably worth mentioning.
Done
Finally, is this all the sources of history knows about Constantine Doukas? Any details about what he was doing during Nikephoros's reign, or details about his death or actions he co-signed or ceremonies he officiated with his senior emperors or was he just a historical footnote?KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like a lot of the co-emperors, he was pretty much a footnote, if that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: Believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: One final thing. Holy Crown of Hungary indicate the picture may have been either of two porphyrogennetoi: Konstantios Doukas or Constantine a Doukas. You should mention that here and Konstantios‘ article.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]