Jump to content

Talk:Komnenos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move request

[edit]

All other Byzantine dynasties are under their "surname", without the word "dynasty". A redirect here is barring the move. Maed 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done...but that's because you moved it here in the first place. But you can fix all the other redirects now...Adam Bishop 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be Komneni, that is plural?--Aldux 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The plural of Komnenos is Komnenoi. If you Latinise it as Comnenus the plural is Comneni. Alan 19:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comnenus is NOT a Greek name. It originates from the Latin word Comminus wich is a small military sword. My ancestors are NOT greeks because the Pope in Rome could not stand that the Eastern Romans were losing the war against Islamic nations. This is MY last name and it has been OUR last name since the 11th century onward as my coat of arms with the real coats of arms of the Commini testifies. GeorgiosArisDoukasComnenus (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comne near Edirne

[edit]

n. 11 on p. 36 of the Penguin Classics (paperback 1979) version of E.R.A. Sewter's translation of "The Alexiad of Anna Comnena" has "The family came originally from Comne, near Hadrianople". This footnote was clarifying a reference to Alexius's grandfather's city which it has as Kastamouni, and additionally drops in this other bit of info. After searching I am clear that Hadrianople is Edirne, which puts Comne in the European part of Modern Turkey ? John5Russell3Finley (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the modern Comnenus? I'm sure i've read on the internet somewhere that they live in Venezuela. English Bobby (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the Comneni. Officially according to the bureau heraldry with a coat of arms from the 11th century whereupon all my direct male ancestors to Emperor Isaac Comnenus are written. Officially recognised by the Greek church and the bureau of heraldry. You are using my family name incorrect. Greeks took our name but I testify you my ancestors are NOT Greek so modify the name to its origin: Comnenus. GeorgiosArisDoukasComnenus (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Komnenoi. There was overwhelming support for a move, but as participants failed to express a preference, I just removed the disagreeing redundancy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Komnenoi dynasty → Komnenian dynasty or Komnenos dynasty — The Greek plural looks awkward and is very rarely used [1]. Either stick to the singular form of the surname, or use the adjectival form, both of which are far more commonly used [2] & [3] Constantine ✍ 13:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why is that always Wikipedia go for the most common naming but not the correct naming? It's the same situation with Tsarevitch and Tsesarevich. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the proposed form incorrect? Quite the contrary, I'd say. And the situation is nothing like the Tsarevich example: the almost universal way to refer to a dynasty is either the plural of their family name, or the singular form + dynasty/family. That is why we have the "Wittelsbach/Romanov/Windsor/etc dynasty" and the "Wittelsbachs/Romanovs/Windsors/etc". This is a similar case. It is either "the Komnenoi" or the "dynasty of the Komnenoi/Komnenian dynasty" or "Komnenos dynasty". The form "Komnenoi dynasty" is decidedly the odd one. Constantine ✍ 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Komnenoi?!

[edit]

What?! What is the name used in sources? Is either Komnenos or Comnenos. It should have been Dynasty of Comnenos not "Komnenoi". What reader would search the dynasty trhough that name? And Komnenoi was not even the proposed name when the request was made. --Lecen (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This unilateral decision by the closing admin is most unorthodox... The fact that the Greek plural is awkward to most English-speaking users was one of the factors for my move proposal. Please move again to "Komnenian dynasty", which gathered the more explicit support. Constantine ✍ 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's true, you should also take it up at Byzantium under the Komnenoi. Anyways, read the closure statement, which explains. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, thank you. However a) most family surnames however are in the singular in encyclopedias/dictionaries etc, not the plural, b) WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason. If we settle things here, Byzantium under the Komnenoi can be moved later. If you want to leave "dynasty" out, at least revert back to "Komnenos" as in the ODB and let's leave it there. Constantine ✍ 21:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Same as Palaiologos. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this link: [4] It should be "Dynast of Comnenos" or "Dynast of Komnenos".--Lecen (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please move this back to "Komnenos", like the rest of the Byzantine family names? Constantine ✍ 03:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kostas. It seems this is the move request that time forgot. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If necessary I'll start another move request. Constantine ✍ 05:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the Hellenized version of the name instead (Komnenos) of the official version (Comnenus) used by the Oxford encyclopedia https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001.0001/acref-9780227679319-e-663 and the encyclopedia Brittanica https://www.britannica.com/topic/Comnenus-family is not only incorrect, it is also not just and a falsification of history. It is well known that after the black death killed most of the Greek inhabitants of the Peloponnesos, the Albanians sheep herders who migrated there took Hellenized versions of Byzantine aristocratic names to honor them. Hence why nowadays you can find alot of people with the name Komninos in Greece. However, this does not imply that this is a Greek family. On the contrary, they were closely related to the Ducas family, a family whose name originates from the Latin word Dux, Duke or military commander. This should ring a bell as regards their origin. Furthermore Com and minus is a latin prefix and word. Their combination makes Comminus, a type of long dagger used in short range combat in Rome (https://www.pinterest.es/pin/272960427386079397/). The Roman name was modified over the ages. Komninos however, has no meaning in the Greek language, because it is not a Greek name - it is the Hellenized version of a Latin name. Facts speak for themselves. That there is a village which has some linguistic resemblance to this name, does not imply that this family originates from this village. Of course Greek authors such as Varzos will claim that this family is of Greek descent and authors whose research was financed by the Greek government (Kazhdan) will claim it too. However, in origin this name is highly unlikely to be of Greek descent. You might not know, espeacially in the early ages of the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople the Latin elite did not mix with the Greeks, which they considered inferior and plebes. There was even a degree of hate between them - at some point the Greeks massacred most Latin inhabitants of the city - which resulted in a call for a Holy War against Byzantium by the pope --> read about the fall of Constantinople in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople. Byzantium was founded by a Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great and it was defeated from a Greek Emperor, Constantine Paleologos. Nobody referred to it as Byzantium, it was known as the Eastern Roman Emperor. Under pressure from the Greek population, the Latin aristocracy had to change the empire into a Greek setting. And the Pope, who wanted to claim sovereignty gladly agreed that the Eastern Roman Empire had nothing to do with Rome - hence it became known by the name Byzantium, from king Byzas - who lived the ages before Emperor Constantine the Great created the Eastern Roman Empire. Remember this truth when you wish to falsify history and continue to dishonor the origin of this noble name.

Propose move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moving to Komnenos, since that clearly seems to be preferred to the current title, without prejudice to any further proposals regarding the title of this or the "Byzantium under..." article. Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Komnenoi → Komnenian dynasty — Relisted Jafeluv (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Per previous request ignored by the closing admin who imposed his own solution: Greek plural is awkward and hardly ever used. Constantine ✍ 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Will people be happy if we move it back to Komnenos dynasty instead. No one had a problem with it for a while until I changed it. I know Komnenoi sounds ackward, but I was just trying to keep the title unisexual. I would Oppose Komnenian or Comnenian or anything with a C.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem to move it to "Komnenos dynasty" or simply "Komnenos" in accordance with the other Byzantine family/dynasty names. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Komnenos" or "Komnenos dynasty" are ok by me as well. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not acceptable. The most common English spelling of the plural (one Comnenus, several Comneni ) is Comneni, which has 7000 hits; as compared to Komnenoi, with less than 2000 (it is, by the way, a specifically masculine plural; Anna Comnena would only have used it of herself if she were including the rest of her family); or the mangled Komneni with 200; these figures are since 1990. The singular, likewise, is Comnenus in English. We need not move everything; but we may well begin here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I was surprised by the results of Septentrionalis' strictly post-1990 Google Books search. Without checking myself, I would not have expected it to have been so lopsided, or necessarily even in that direction. I think that this is good evidence of the preponderant and normal usage, so I will endorse the suggestion Comneni. Wareh (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It suprised me too; it depends, I think, on whether a subject is well-known outside the community of Byzantinists; they used to use the traditional Anglo-Latin forms, so other scholars still do. The Byzantinists are now divided about evenly among several systems, but here the traditionalists and the Latinizers agree on Comneni, the demoticists (Komninos, I think) differ from the classicizers (the people who would use Aiskhulos for Aeschylus), and the outsiders tip the beam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is surprising. It is also to a large extent misleading. If you look at the results a bit more closely, it is noticeable that "Komnenos"/"Komnenoi" etc is almost exclusively used by publications that are indeed new and relevant to the field of Byzantine studies. Many of the "Comnenus"/"Comneni" results include books that are scarcely new (reprints of Gibbon, anyone?), tourist or otherwise tangentially related books, or simply citations of older specialist literature that used the latinate forms. Now, the issue of usage has certainly not been settled in any conclusive manner, but it is simply not true that the non-latinate forms are not used or have been falling out of use, as Pmanderson argued before on a similar issue. They are both equally valid, and, in Byzantinist literature, about equally used. For consistency with the dozens of related articles alone (and in keeping with the de facto usage of the ODB forms in almost all Byzantine-related articles), it would make sense to use "Komnenos". However, in addition to that, it is a form that is increasingly being used by the standard reference works like the ODB, the Cambridge Medieval History, prosopographic studies, etc. Constantine ✍ 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my surprise was that the results didn't seem to be explained as simply as you suggest. Prominent results such as Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261 and Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy C.300-1450 seem to be "new and relevant to the field of Byzantine studies." Some are reprints, etc., but I think they can only bear so much of the burden of explaining a 7:2 ratio. And reprints of more popular titles such as the 1969 Penguin Alexiad do still show prevalence of a kind also worth considering. Wareh (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check better: Hendy's book (Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy) was first published in 1985. From the first couple of dozen or so pages for "Comneni" I checked, about three to five results in each page (out of 10) actually fall under the topics I mentioned above, and the further one gets, the less relevant the results become compared to "Komnenoi". That's a lot. The point is, prior to 1990, the latinate forms were the overwhelming majority, after that the "ODB" forms have gradually but inexorably risen to occupy about half the literature. The trend is unmistakeable. For instance, Paul Magdalino, who is one of the foremost authorities on the Komnenoi/Comneni, used the latinate forms in the early 1990s, but his seminal work on Manuel I in 2002 was written in ODB forms. The same applies to many if not most of the big names in Byzantine studies. Constantine ✍ 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm getting old enough that, if the issue is really, "there was an 'overwhelming majority' norm in English all the way up to the early 1990s, but it has since shifted noticeably," then to me that constitutes a positive reason to choose the pre-early-1990s form. It seems appropriate, when the options are equally correct as here, not to chase recent shifts of style, and this seems recent to me, especially when you consider the length of time over which the Comneni/Komnenoi have been the topic of discussion in English. I realize that this carries some risk of being left behind by eventually authoritative & not faddish shifts; and that it's a matter of perspective to some degree, which is why I want to contribute mine. Wareh (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komnenos has 19,200 hits, many more than "Comneni" under the same criteria. It has also the advantage of being standard ODB onomatology. Therefore it is a preferable form to "Comneni". Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where I come down on Comnenus/Komnenos dynasty as opposed to Comneni/Komnenoi, but Comnenus/Comneni seems to be the historically-correct English form. It's the only form I've regularly encountered. Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, I agree that the English/Latinate spellings should be preferred, except to the extent that alternative spellings are necessary to make the article complete. P Aculeius (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium is an English publication and its spelling is widely accepted as the standard. It uses the "Komnenos" form. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonably useful reference work; it is intended for use by those to whom all these forms are translucent, with the Greek showing through. But we are not intended for that audience, who already have reference works; and its forms are not standard, even for its own publisher. The Oxford Classical Dictionary was reprinted and updated in 2006, and uses the traditional spellings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And is it any surprise that a "Classical" dictionary would favour the usual latinate forms? "Andronikos" would look odd next to "Stratonice" for instance. But the usage is not confined to the ODB, which is indeed obscure. Most general histories seem to have adopted "ODB" forms as well. Byzantine history being either way a relatively obscure field, I have grave doubts whether the average English-speaking reader even has heard the name "Comnenus" so that he/she would be confused if Wikipedia used "Komnenos" instead. Constantine ✍ 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But both ODB and the traditional forms are classicizing; and we have the testimony of an expert, backed up by search engine results and by Penguin Books sales judgment) that Comnenus/Comnena/Comneni are the most familiar forms. Indeed, the only justification for "Komnenos" with an e is the pronounciation which had ceased to exist a millennium before the family is attested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, contemporary writers who were fluent in both Latin and Greek are the best judges of how to transliterate Greek into the Latin alphabet, which is the one used to write English, and nearly all other languages of western Europe. I think that the opinions of contemporary writers who were fluent in both languages and English are also entitled to some consideration, insofar as the forms used until quite recently by the majority of English language sources were the product of a similar transliteration.
The new spellings seem to be essentially unhistorical, and the fact that they conflict with centuries of written scholarship is not inconsequential, however much importance people tend to place on new and novel interpretations. One might even say that revising established transcriptions of Greek names into Latin and English is best described as the current fashion. It could reasonably be argued that this system is little short of pedantic, insofar as it seems to require that kappa be transliterated as "k" instead of "c", amongst other conventions, and this would be difficult to reconcile with Wikipedia's policy calling for a neutral point of view.
What this debate boils down to is that Wikipedia is meant for a general readership. However detailed articles eventually become, I believe it would be a mistake to adopt new forms and spellings merely because it has recently become fashionable in specialist publications. The traditional Latin and English spellings are still quite common, to the near exclusion of any others in all but the most recent publications. For this reason, I believe they should be preferred to the new transliterations, which could still be noted quite properly in the introductory paragraphs of affected articles. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five systems

[edit]

Warren Treadgold listed four forms of transliteration in the introduction to A History of the Byzantine State and Society (1997), as being mainly in use (the quotations and examples are his, the labels mine):

  1. Demoticizing: Dhioklitianos, Constandinos XI. "closest approximation to how the Byzantines pronounced Greek."
  2. Classicizing: Dioklētianos, Kōnstantinos XI. "Closest equivalent to the ancient Greek pronunciation, which no-one used in Byzantine times"
  3. Latinizing: Diocletianus, Constantinus. "What the Byzantines themselves used in writing Latin".
  4. Traditional: Diocletian, Constantine. "Anglicize where possible, and Latinize elsewhere"; "the most familiar". Treadgold also notes that it is appropriate for subjects known both in Greek and Latin, like John Italus, Syracuse, Scholae.

Although writing some years after ODB, he does not mention it as a main, much less "standard", system.

5. ODB a mixture of (4) and (2); it anglicizes a limited number of proper names (including Diocletian and Constantine, but not Diokles, Diokleia, or Diokletianoupolis), but uses (2) for the rest - dropping the macrons which show whether the Greek is omega or omicron, epsilon or eta. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good summary. However, no one claimed that the ODB form was an undisputed "standard" system, merely that its use by what is arguably the standard reference work for Byzantinists has led to its widespread and apparently increasing adoption. Treadgold is one of the few major historians who still adhere to the "traditional" system, some others like Angold use some idiosyncratic mixed forms, alternating between ODB and latinizinations. "Indeed, the only justification for "Komnenos" with an e is the pronounciation which had ceased to exist a millennium before the family is attested." No, the ODB system relies, as it says in the introduction, on a strict transliteration, the phonetic values are irrelevant. How can you argue that "Komnenos" is "inaccurate" because it is actually pronounced "Komninos", and then go on to support "Comnenus"? Every transliteration system is problematic, neither is more correct than the other except for purely aesthetic reasons. And the fact is, the ODB system is used. It is not our role to put it on trial here. Constantine ✍ 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All five systems are used. I think, from Treadgold's summary of the facts and my own experience, that ODB is used least frequently; less frequently than either (2) or (4) by themselves - and in the whole corpus of English writing, (2) is used less frequently than (4). (The evidence above shows, in any event, that this is true for the Comneni.)
How can I support Comnenus? Just as I support Aeschylus; once one decides to represent the Greek alphabet by appealling to the Attic pronunciation (as (2), (4), and (5) all do), there is a standard (most common, most familiar, most widely understood) way of presenting it in English. It is not transparent; it will not provide the Greek to a Greekless reader; but none of the five methods do that; only (2) even gives the eta in Κομνηνός - and ODB doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to decide on the efficacy of the various transliteration methods and how they render the Greek alphabet. Any such analysis is not relevant and is purely subjective. The trend may be soft but it is clear. As a system, the latinate form for Byzantine onomatology may still be in use but the evidence points toward a growing acceptance of the ODB-based transliterations. As it stands now these are roughly equivalent with the ODB having the larger growth potential. There is no valid reason why its use should be abandoned in favour of a form which is on its way out. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treadgold's analysis is a red herring, because I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for his choices 1-3. Why not? Because they are not practical choices for an English-speaking reference work. Unless I'm much mistaken he put them in his book simply in order to justify his preference for 4, and I think, Septentrionalis, that you've put them here for the same reason!
In the past we would have had to choose "traditional": encyclopedias, unless intended purely for specialists, always should make that choice, as long as "traditional" retains widespread approval. In this case it doesn't retain such widespread approval today. By western Europeans and Americans Greek (even Byzantine Greek) was nearly always accessed through Latin in the past: hence Migne's PG and the Bonn series offered Latin translations; hence "English traditional, extended by Latinate" was the obvious choice. We're writing now for all readers of English, and even in the traditional heartland of classical scholarship it's no longer the case that medieval Greek is accessed through Latin. Hence the trend in academic writing is changing; we decided to reflact that change, and we were right. It is more accessible, and will be even more accessible year by year, to use a spelling that is closer to the Greek spelling: call it "English traditional, extended by transliteration". We are lucky that another encyclopedia has gone ahead of us and set us an example. Personal note: I now work more on Vicipaedia, which uses the Latinate system: it is not only "What the Byzantines themselves used in writing Latin" (Treadgold) but also "what Latin writers use in writing Greek names". But I don't see either of those considerations as significant for the English Wikipedia. In any case, older discussion of this issue bore on what spelling Wikipedia should adopt for the post-Heraclius Byzantine Empire. After Heraclius the Byzantines rarely used Latin; scarcely at all by the time of the Komnenoi. Andrew Dalby 10:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This last is a half-truth: the Byzantines did not use Latin among themselves; but Treadgold is speaking of Byzantines writing to Westerners, which did happen not infrquently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've seen (1) used myself, although entirely by Byzantinists whose modern language is Demotic; and (3) is attested by several hits here (it may be chiefly by numismatists), I find it difficult to believe that Treadgold simply made them up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Constantine Pladikas argues that we should use ODB, because, although it is not the most common forms in English, it represents Greek most accurately; Dr. K and Andrew Dalby argue that it doesn't matter how accurate it is, it is most common. Gnetlemen, you refute each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. I didn't claim that Treadgold made those systems up; I haven't argued that it doesn't matter how accurate our system is; and I haven't said it's the most common. Andrew Dalby 15:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then Treadgold's analysis is a red herring, because I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for his choices 1-3 is an extremely limited claim. It may be that nobody has written a paper making the case for 1-3 - although I doubt it; but they have certainly been used in reliable sources on more or less the grounds he asserts - which is what I cite him for.
And if (5) is neither most accurate nor most common (and it is certainly much less common than Comneni), why should we use it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be in an endless loop.
Incidentally, the pages of Google Books hits that you cite above "(here)" don't seem very apposite; except the egregious Treadgold all the authors cited in the initial swathes have been dead for many years or are quoting a text in Latin. I would argue (and I think some others would too) that usage is shifting now, and we are right to have shifted with it.
Anyway, that's me done. Good luck to all :) Andrew Dalby 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Constantine Pladikas argues that we should use ODB, because, although it is not the most common forms in English, it represents Greek most accurately;" Really? Where did I write that? I merely support remaining at ODB which is both de facto the system used in most Byzantine-related Wikipedia articles and widely and ever-increasingly used by the Byzantinists themselves. I never said it was more accurate or more appropriate, indeed, I have repeatedly made the point that no system is perfect in rendering Greek into Latin alphabets. The ODB system however is widely used, and if people like Magdalino, Haldon, Mango and dozens of others have no problem with it, I don't see why we should. Constantine ✍ 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To recap: so far we have four support (QE's Little Spy, mine, Dr.K's, and Srnec's) for reverting to Komnenos, and one oppose (by Pmanderson), coupled with a proposal to amend to Comnenus or Comnenian etc. Constantine ✍ 11:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to amend from Komnenos/Komnenoi/Komnenian to Comnenus/Comneni/Comnenian seems to have significant support, although I'm not certain whether it currently represents the majority view in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is used, but so is "Komnenos" and the derivative forms. However, if we go for "Comnenus", we would have to go around moving every "Komnenos" article. And then someone would come and say well, we "corrected" Comnenus, why not Palaeologus, or Ducas? This won't end here. Pmanderson's argument relies less on usage and more on the fact that the ODB form is somehow flawed, incorrect or "bastardized" (see Talk:Constantine Doukas for more). This is his opinion, and he's welcome to it. However, it does not negate the fact that the ODB method is widely used by some (in my experience, most) of the best-known Byzantinists, as well as the de facto standard here at Wikipedia, and there is no reason to open a can of worms if we don't absolutely have to. Constantine ✍ 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We opened the can of worms years ago, when these articles were moved to their present titles. It's time to get a bigger can. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow All the alternative are better than the present name. I'll leave it to the specialists to battle it out. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add my support for Komnenos, agreeing with Srnec that it makes sense for our title here to agree with those other Byzantine family names. Also, in English texts the plural seems less familiar than the singular (cf. the very first discussion on this page). Andrew Dalby 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this

[edit]

Just seen this on the backlog at WP:RMB and note that there's been only one comment in the last month. Given that discussion has died, and the one title no-one seems to want is the current title, is there any objection to moving it to the apparently most popular alternative Komnenos? If anyone wants to propose further change, they could then start a new move request.--Kotniski (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, no response, so I'm going to mark this as closed with a move to Komnenos, without prejudice to further proposals.--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference tag

[edit]

There was an old no reference tag on the page but there is in fact one reference. I removed that tag and replaced it with a dated "One source" tag. Otr500 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

This article should be protected from the edits of anonymous users.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of Wikipedia code of conduct - request for immediate redirect

[edit]

The misspelled name Komnenos is factually incorrect. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines this must be Comnenus to avoid a discrepancy with reputable sources which use the right name, Comnenus: see the Oxford dictionary at https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001.0001/acref-9780227679319-e-663, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica https://www.britannica.com/topic/Comnenus-family. No historical sources ever used the name Komnenos: see the book from Niketas Acominatus Choniates (a Byzantine!): the LXXXVI annorum historia, graece latineque editum, or the Compendium historiarum in tres tomes distinctum from Johannes Zonaras from the year 1557, the Chronicka von C. Julio Cesare dem ersten, biss auff Carolum quintum by Johan Cuspinianus from 1541, the Christianae religionis, institutionisque Domini Nostri Jesu Christi et apostolicae traditionis, adversus misoliturgorum blasphemias, ac novorum hujus temporis sectariorum imposturas, praecipuè Joannis Calvini & suorum contra sacram Missam, catholica et historica propugnatio by Antonio Monchiaceno Demochare Ressonaeo from 1562 page 60 and Historia Imperatorum Romanorum A Constantino Magno usque ad Constantinum postremum, & Constantinopolim à Turcis occupatam from 1578 by Nicéphore Grégoras (a Byzantine), page 35. Go to page 646 from the De iure status siue De iure diuino et naturali ecclesiasticae libertatis et potestatis auctore Thoma Bozio Eugubino from the year 1600. Finally in compendium: the Corpus Historiae Byzantinae from MDLXVII! Should I continue? I will move the page back to Comnenus tomorrow and report anyone who continues to run against Wikipedia code of conduct for a permanent ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:6428:DFB6:85A8:41F0 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP: not sure if this hissy fit even deserves recognition, but to state it once more, clearly: current consensus is for the title "Komnenos" - see above: Talk:Komnenos#Requested move. You are advised to talk this over with the people who were involved with that decision - most of them are still active, and look, I'll even ping them for you: @Srnec, P Aculeius, Andrew Dalby, Cplakidas, The Emperor's New Spy, and Pmanderson. - I can assure you that if you attempt to report anyone at the current juncture, or continue to force this in against objections and prior to discussion, the only one who will get stuck with a block is you, for edit-warring and disruptive editing. So do yourself a favour and shelve this issue of apocalyptic importance for a few days until there's been some input. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: thanks for taking care of this. There's a history of IPs and weird new accounts moving this page around to "Comnenus" or changing the content accordingly, but the last one was almost exactly five years ago. We were probably overdue... @2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:6428:DFB6:85A8:41F0: on the off chance you are not trolling or associated with those previous attempts, you do realize that you are basing your argument in favour of the Latinized form on Latin translations of Byzantine works, by Latin-writing Western European scholars writing over a century after the Byzantine Empire fell, and almost five centuries before the present time? Which means that "Comnenus" is neither a) the native form of the name, nor b) the form most used in modern, late 20th/early 21st-century scholarship? Constantine ✍ 20:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I personally prefer Comnenus, it's up to the editors to establish a consensus, and the last time this was hashed out people preferred a strict transliteration of the Greek. If you don't think that's right, it's up to you to convince enough editors that Comnenus is the better title, and establish consensus for moving it there. Threatening to report editors for breaching policies if they revert a unilateral move on your part that they disagree with, and warning them that they'll be permanently banned (thereby bypassing all standard Wikipedia conventions for dispute resolutions) is itself disruptive and likely to result in at least a warning. This isn't how to achieve consensus. Since you're obviously a new editor and unfamiliar with Wikipedia conventions, I think we can overlook the matter if you want to start over with a more civil discussion—I suggest a new section. You might want to review Wikipedia policy for article titles and establishing consensus. I would recommend looking over the sanctions for disruptive editing, but obviously sanctions won't be necessary unless the people participating in the discussion are unable to behave civilly and act according to whatever the current consensus is. P Aculeius (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, to avoid discrepancy with modern encyclopedias such as Oxford and Brittanica, the page should be Comnenus as it was originally. Source: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001.0001/acref-9780227679319-e-663 and https://www.britannica.com/topic/Comnenus-family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:6428:DFB6:85A8:41F0 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editors in this case are of Greek descent and surely it seems logical that they want the name to be Greek, but this runs against the Oxford Encyclopedia and the Brittanica Encyclopedia plus books written by Byzantine sources in Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:6428:DFB6:85A8:41F0 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect and without the wish to warn - simply to explain this situation in legal terms, per the Wikipedia Terms of Reference, through the use of the name Komnenos through a redirect of the right name Comnenus (which in all reputable sources is the correct name, Oxford, Brittanica and even sources dating back hundreds of years), the current editor intentionally or knowingly posts content with the intent to deceive by posting content that is false or inaccurate. Because this creates the false impression that the Comnenus dynasty was of Greek descent - there is no evidence for this whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:6428:DFB6:85A8:41F0 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to that these sources are written in Latin, you are mistaken. Read this source written in German, written in 1520, third sentence from top (Comnenus): https://books.google.nl/books/content?id=G6lRAAAAcAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PP599&img=1&zoom=3&sig=ACfU3U2huuYAAGj38nyWKlU2GapoVJ1Jig&w=1025 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:6428:DFB6:85A8:41F0 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the name Comnenus should be no matter for consensus. The editor should give what belongs to this name - as is attested by all reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:495:BF55:D8F5:C138 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, you really should spend some time learning Wikipedia conventions before engaging in this kind of discussion. There are no "legal" issues involved—the law doesn't require Wikipedia or its editors to arrive at any particular decision, or even have this article. The article doesn't have "a current editor". All editors are welcome to contribute to most articles, including this one—even people who don't have an account, and aren't familiar with talk page conventions such as indenting replies, starting new sections, and signing your contributions. But controversial changes require establishing a consensus, and clearly the best title for this article is controversial. Accusing other editors of falsifying the contents of an article or intentionally deceiving readers is not collaborative editing, and could be grounds for sanctions if the accusation is determined to be without merit.
What we have here is a difference of opinion about how to spell a name that has both Latin and Greek forms. Preferring one over the other is neither false nor deceptive. It reflects ongoing scholarly disagreement as to whether to prefer traditional Latinized forms of names that occur in Greek writing, or to re-transliterate them according to modern sensibilities. Scholarly preferences have changed—often multiple times—since 1520, as have standards in the various languages concerned. Since this article is written in English for an English-speaking audience, there is no requirement to use whatever forms were most typical in English sources written in 1820, 1920, or 2020, much less in German sources from 1520. All of these can be relevant, but none of them are determinative. Whether the Comneni were of Greek, Latin, or other descent is likewise of limited importance. They ruled a mostly Greek-speaking city and the remnants of a mostly Greek-speaking empire with Roman roots. Consequently contemporary sources from that culture are mostly written in Greek. There are multiple conventions for transliterating Greek names, and currently the fashion is for a more literal transliteration than that used in the past. You may prefer the traditional spelling, I may prefer it. But it's still basically a matter of preference, not proof that one is right and the other is wrong.
I suggest spending some time learning how to edit Wikipedia articles collaboratively, learning Wikipedia editing policies, and considering the possibility that most of these policies are themselves the product of discussion and consensus—because just like the issue here, they're largely matters of opinion, not absolute and provable fact. When you've done that, perhaps you can martial your arguments clearly and present them persuasively. You still might not be able to achieve a consensus for what you want to do, but that's the way to go about trying. P Aculeius (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of disputes between editors, we must follow the standardized form which is used in contemporary, reputable sources: Oxford Encyclopedia or Brittanica Encyclopedia. Now respond to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:495:BF55:D8F5:C138 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the legal issue, you are mistaken, this is a legal issue which can be brought up for adjudication in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California to be precise. I advise you to learn more about the terms of use of Wikipedia.

Look it up: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Comnenus-family and https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001.0001/acref-9780227679319-e-663. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:495:BF55:D8F5:C138 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you are getting into insta-block territory. Do read Wikipedia:No legal threats. The next time you try to intimidate other editors with the threat of legal action, I will report you, and let me assure you that this is one of the quickest ways to get booted off the project. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not make a threat and secondly I certainly did not make a threat against an editor. On the contrary, you made a threat here - which runs against Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Ask an Administrator who made the threat here. I explained that this is a legal issue. You should read the Wikipedia Terms of Use and learn to understand what a legal issue is and what a threat is. With a PhD in Law, i can tell you that a threat needs a conditio sine qua non - point it out if you are confident about your assertion. Let me quote the Wikipedia Terms of Use on legal issues for you to understand it better:

" 13. Disputes and Jurisdiction Highlighted for emphasis

We hope that no serious disagreements arise involving you, but, in the event there is a dispute, we encourage you to seek resolution through the dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms provided by the Projects or Project editions and the Wikimedia Foundation. If you seek to file a legal claim against us, you agree to file and resolve it exclusively in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California. You also agree that the laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America will govern these Terms of Use, as well as any legal claim that might arise between you and us (without reference to conflict of laws principles). You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use.

To ensure that disputes are dealt with soon after they arise, you agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action you might have arising out of or related to use of our services or these Terms of Use must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations or, if earlier, one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying such claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (or be forever barred)."

Now that this matter is settled, respond to a very simple and clear fact: Oxford Encyclopedia and Brittanica Encyclopedia use the name Comnenus. The onus probandi is on the modifiers of the original page Comnenus (which was changed into Komnenos years ago) to prove that the modification is not running against Wikipedia's Terms of Use. The original page - in line with other encyclopedias, was modified through consensus between Greek editors. Since there is disagreement between editors right now, the terms of use of Wikipedia requires us to resort to reputable, contemporary sources, which in this case are https://www.britannica.com/topic/Comnenus-family and https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001.0001/acref-9780227679319-e-663. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:495:BF55:D8F5:C138 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute that has f*ck-all to do with Wikipedia's terms of service. You are waffling. No one here is interested in Legalese. The only and basic rule that applies here is that we follow consensus derived from discussion. What is probably going to happen instead is that everyone will just ignore you because of this hyper-combative attitude, which means that nothing will get changed. Start playing nice or go away. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your faul language is not appropriate for an editor and you are discrediting yourself this way. This a public domain. Behave yourself. There is no consensus between the editors. Hence, follow the standardized format in other Encyclopedias, which is Comnenus: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Comnenus-family and https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001.0001/acref-9780227679319-e-663. Respond to that or edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:495:BF55:D8F5:C138 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This grave barbaric behavior of threats to block and use of faul language by an editor is highly inappropriate. You are urged to promptly behave in a civilised manner and to show due respect. Wikipedia is neither a forum to rant out your random insults nor tolerates this type of behavior.

Now with you keeping aforesaid closely in mind, in accordance with the sources stated above and in the light of the Greek editors' inability to counteract logica, namely that an assymetry between Brittanica Encyclopedia and Oxford Encyclopedia on the one hand and personal adjustments thriugh consensus between Greek editirs of a prior perfectly construed contribution of "Comnenus" years ago into "Komnenos" elsehand, the aforesaid personal adjustments ought to be reversed with immediate effect and it is your duty as a credible editor to undo this discrepancy caused by the personal actions of consensus between Greek editors without any further ado and as soon as possible. For this, you have 24 hours counting from the time of submission of this response. And no, that is not a threat. No barbarism here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:9491:E1C5:634E:3F8A (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop it. You're not familiar with Wikipedia policy or the Manual of Style, you seem to be completely unfamiliar with talk page procedures and unwilling to engage in collaborative editing, and you're just trying to intimidate your way into getting what you want. You've convinced nobody and your argument has become purely disruptive. If this continues you can expect to be permanently blocked from editing, and if you try to get around that you'll just be blocked repeatedly and without debate. You really could have found some editors who agreed with your preferred outcome, if you'd just focused on presenting a logical argument, instead of trying to bully your way to that result. Maybe you should take this as a lesson in how not to achieve anything on Wikipedia. If you really want to contribute to the encyclopedia, please spend some time learning how to work collaboratively with others, and making edits that aren't likely to be controversial. There are plenty of tutorials available through the tabs on the left margin. Once you've been contributing productively for a while, then you can come back to this and perhaps state a better case than you have today. P Aculeius (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was, as promised above, pinged. I don't see that any good reason has been given in this discussion for revisiting the pagename choice.
Any one who wants to contribute to an article under the title "Comneni" or "familia Comnenorum" is welcome to do so in Latin at Vicipaedia: the page awaits creation. Andrew Dalby 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument, there has neither been a good reason to change the original page name Comnenus to Komnenos, unless wikipedia is a marketplace to express nationalistic sentiment. There is a legitimate reason to undo the page name revision into Komnenos, namely that both the Brittanica Encyclopedia and the Oxford Encyclopedia use the page name Comnenus. The middle ground solution could be to create two similar page names, one with Komnenos and one with Comnenus, just like there exists a wikipage with Comnene in French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5D18:8C00:50BE:DC82:F03E:57D2 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Komnenos&oldid=1208018483"