Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming

The following is an archived discussion of a debate about a requested move that is no longer active. Please do not modify it. The result was no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

• Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors -- John VIII Palaiologos to John VIII Palaeologus
  • John VII Palaiologos to John VII Palaeologus
  • Manuel II Palaiologos to Manuel II Palaeologus
  • John V Palaiologos to John V Palaeologus
  • Andronikos IV Palaiologos to Andronicus IV Palaeologus
  • John VI Kantakouzenos to John VI Cantacuzenus
  • Andronikos III Palaiologos to Andronicus III Palaeologus
  • Andronikos II Palaiologos to Andronicus II Palaeologus
  • Michael VIII Palaiologos to Michael VIII Palaeologus
  • Thomas Palaiologos to Thomas Palaeologus
  • Andreas Palaiologos to Andreas Palaeologus
  • The current, new forms, are higly disputable, and the articles should be changed back to the old and established forms. See also Talk:Constantine XI for previous discussions. --Panairjdde 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per nomination.--Panairjdde 21:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Use English. (But I would prefer John VI Cantacuzene). The opposition has abandoned WP policy. Septentrionalis 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The recent academic standard has shifted to the ODB forms and the Latinized forms are nothing but debris from an old scholarly tradition. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support The tradional Anglo-Latin naming ensures consistency. Why "John" rather than Ioannes, but Palaiologos rather than Palaeologus? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Most widely used form should be norm for Wiki- Palaeologus is much more widely used than Palaiologos.Roydosan 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per nom.--Aldux 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Also, Panairjdde makes a fine point about Cantacuzene. Dahn 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I have never encountered Palaiologos in English... Always Palaeologus.

Charles 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Valentinian; we have a good policy, let's stick to it. I also think stirring all this up again, just a few weeks after a decision was made, was a waste of time. Let's write articles, not keep moving them! Andrew Dalby 09:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's stick with up-to-date scholarship. Haukur 10:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• weak support, although I'm not terribly happy about doing this piecemeal, as it means we could end up with all the articles at weird places. Why not just vote on moving all of them at once? john k 11:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Eh, change to Weak Oppose. I support this move in theory, but I think the negatives of doing this in a piecemeal faction are sufficient to make this a worse solution than just leaving it be. If we had a vote about moving all the articles back to the Latinized forms, I would strongly support it. john k 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support because it is international accepted. If you look russian, english, italian, french or even croatian you will find Palaeologus rjecina 14.03 CET 09.07.2006
  • French ? Surely not: fr:Constantin XI Paléologue. Russian ? Konstantin Paleolog, so no again. Croat ? Well, that's the redlinked hr:Uređujete Konstantin XI. Paleolog. Italian ? Costantino XI Dragases Paleologo. German ? Konstantinos XI. Palaiologos. I could go on, but you'll have got the drift I suppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, because "Palaeologus" would go back to obsolescent practice and does not correspond to the current usage in the literature, because such moves should consistently affect all Byzantine greek names, and because in former experience Panairjdde has not been able to carry out such changes consistently, accurately, or without loss of pertinent information. Imladjov 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, if we decide to move to Latinized forms, I'll let you do the work, since you were so prompt and efficient in doing the Latinized->Greek conversion.--Panairjdde 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My work is done. I am certainly not going to let you waste my time again, least of all if it involves damaging Wikipedia contents which is what you are wholeheartedly set on with the best of intentions and the least of qualifications. By the way, interesting methods, sending messages regarding to the proposed page move to only some of the participants of the relevant surveys and yet temporarily posting one on the talk page for the classicist Pauly (did you expect the article on a Latinizing reference work to come and vote?). Imladjov 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If your work is done, you can't complain for anything. And all the matter of "damaging Wikipedia" is clearly your POV, I think the same for your edits.
        Also, I received enough personal attacks from you. I made the request on Wikipedia:Requested moves, put a note on all the talk page involved, as well on this one. This is what I was obliged to do. I used my time to notify this request to several of those interested in the matter (including some of those who voted against my position), thing I was not obliged to do; I used my time to notify to Talk:Constantine XI, thing I was not obliged to do; I also used my time — I'd rather say I wasted my time — to notify the request to someone like you, who is not able to accept other's POV and discuss with civility, thing I was not obliged to do.
        And remember that this move request was made because you did everything you could to find a compromise.--Panairjdde 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • So just because my systematic editing and expanding of articles is largely done I do not have the right to be concerned with the viability of Wikipedia as a reference on this subject? And I do not have a right to voice my concern on your shady approach in contacting everyone who supported you and only some who opposed you? (The record is public, anyone can verify it.) I have put up with your POV and have played according to the set terms. And it was not me who went back on his word. Given the circumstances I have been far more civil than appropriate. Imladjov 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Even if I wrote to none of those opposing my view (but I did not) I would have done my job, by putting warnings wherever I was required to. As regards your other remarks, I have enough of your dumb play. I won't answer (just like you did to me)--Panairjdde 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose for the same reasons that everyone else has. Obi-Jon 01:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose so this doesn't turn into the inevitable move-war. Adam Bishop 01:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per previously-made comments, especially Imladjov at #Retort for NPOV. Ardric47 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why we have to reopen this debate especially since this has been debated before and very recently so. These points have been debated sufficiently and even mediated fairly at: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23_Names_of_Byzantine_rulers#Mediator_response, they also were polled repeatedly and revisiting them is highly counterproductive and a waste of resources. As it is also mentioned in the mediation the difference between the ODB and latinized versions is not much, anyone able to read can attest to that. The difference between the two forms cannot be a hindrance even for the most handicapped of the English readers. With this argument out of the way there is not much left in supporting the Latin version if one carefully considers the points raised in the previous debates that I loathe to reopen here. I also agree with the pragmatic approach of Adam Bishop. Thanks again to Panairjdde for inviting me in this debate, that I thought was closed. Dr.K. 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  To describe that mediation as "fair" is a travesty. The mediator took sides. A mediator's job is not to make a binding settlement (that is what an arbitrator does). A mediator is supposed to propose a compromise that both sides would accept. This mediator, in fact, said that one side won, eliminating one of the three options and leaving behind two options which had been supported by pretty much all of exactly the same people. I agree that reopening the issue in this way does not seem terribly productive to me, but I think the way it was dealt with before made stuff like this pretty inevitable. john k 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it yet again, I took another look at what exactly constitutes the Third Opinion which Panairjdde requested at the time and which resulted in the much disputed mediation and the second survey. The description of the procedure is quite vague and does not seem to prevent the mediator from making a recommendation. Perhaps some of these policies need to be made more explicit. Perhaps an arbitration would be necessary to settle the matter after all. Imladjov 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an arbitration against Digital_me for bungling an informal proceedure would be helpful; but Iml;adjov is welcome to start one. Septentrionalis 15:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not quite follow. I have no reason to believe that Digital_me was acting in bad faith or expressly against policy in making a recommendation (in fact this was what both users in involved in the mediation expected)--see below under comments to the moratorium proposal. Moreover in this mediator we had a wholly uninvested observer evaluating the arguments of both sides. That is perhaps the only real chance of this mess being settled. Whether that particular venue was the appropriate one is another matter. But please remember that I did not call for this procedure and just went on from it. Imladjov 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with with Imladjov. However I don't understand what the fuss is about. For it is not about the English name version. The English name version can be served very well using the ODB and phonetically is not very far from the Latin version. It is not about scholarship because the ODB is the current scholarship standard. Why would an anachronistic tendency, as Valentinian mentions, be the subject of so much debate? Maybe it has to do with the usage of Latin in the English language in general. I suspect people may crave the instant credibility upon a given name if Latin is used to describe it. This is a conditioned response of our Western culture. We should get over it. If the Byzantine Emperors did not call themselves in Latin and if modern English language scholarship uses ODB the only justification for using Latin in this case is the fear that a) Latin will lose ground and b) The name will not sound as serious in the new version. If we get over these insecurities we may see things a bit clearer. The use of Latin and its importance in Western culture is not disputed. Only its usage to describe the names of Byzantine Emperors is. The whole image of the Byzantine Empire as a natural Greek based outgrowth of the Latin based Roman Imperium is based on exactly this distinction. If the Byzantines got over the usage of Latin in their society reflecting it in our articles will help clarify and sharpen the image of Byzantium instead of trying to Latinize it based on 19th century ideas of scholarship, something that the Byzantines I'm sure would not appreciate if they had the chance to voice their opinion. Dr.K. 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody has yet demonstrated that the ODB is "the current scholarship standard" or that use of the latinized forms is an "anachronistic tendency." That is precisely what the argument is about. Your whole argument here amounts to begging the question. You are saying that the ODB names should be used because we should follow the usage of the ODB. john k 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, except maybe for your conclusion. Rather than try to use statistics I would just say that using the ODB simplifies and modernizes the process of transliterating foreign surnames in English, instead of using Latin as an artificial surrogate. Using Latin as a transliteration agent in the English language might have been a mark of high scholarship in the 19th century but the language and its processes have matured since that time. I'm sure modern scholars don't need this artifact any longer, in a mature language with evolved name assimilation processes. That's what ODB, in essence, recognizes and applies. Dr.K. 02:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I hope we can keep these names systematically in accordance with ODB. Marrtel 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Mexicansky 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support While this is a new area of interest for me on Wikipedia, it is one I'd like to learn more about. Be that as it may, this debate seems rather split down the middle. Quite frankly, it seems like minor semantics. As for the Latin, I'm a big fan of it after taking it for a couple years. However, if push comes to shove I'd have to agree with Tasoskessaris. When talking about the German city Munich, most native English speakers will refer to it as 'Munich'. Even those of us who speak German wouldn't call it by its official German spelling 'München'. Back to the current debate. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Byzantium, do as the Byzantines do. Please forgive me if this entry isn't exactly that scholarly, my apologies in advance for my general ignorance on the subject matter.--Saintlink 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, doesn't that mean you oppose, since the Byzantines wouldn't have written their names in Latin? (Nor in transliterated Greek, for that matter.) Adam Bishop 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I think Wikipedia should always point to the most widely recognized spelling - and in this case it is Palaeologus, not Palaiologos. And as said above: "Why 'John' rather than 'Ioannes,' but 'Palaiologos' rather than 'Palaeologus'?" If you look in a standard reference work or book on the Byzantine Empire, say Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium, it is Palaeologus. Just make sure the articles say: "John VII Palaeologus or Palaiologos (Greek: Ιωάννης Ζ' Παλαιολόγος, Iōannēs VII Palaiologos) (1370-1408) was Byzantine Emperor for five months in 1390." Et cetera. (and Com John VIII Palaiologos to John VIII

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuckerresearch (talk • contribs) .

John instead of Ioannes is acceptable since in English there is an equivalent for Ioannes and that is John. However in English last names are normally not translated but rather transliterated, so Palaiologos in Byzantium is Palaiologos in English, except if a scholar back in the 19th century wanted to alter to Paleologus for reasons known only to him. That's what ODB now corrects. We should also make a distinction between place names and people names. Place names can in any language be different from the original language. So Kerkyra in Greek is Corfu in English, Athina is Athens etc. But people last names are almost always transliterated, so Palaiologos does not become Oldword in English but should remain Palaiologos. Latin in modern English should not be the middleman, if you will, any longer. Byzantium's civilization was a natural evolution from a Latin civilization into a Greek civilization. By Latinizing Byzantine names we obscure this very fact that forms the quintessence of Byzantium. People not familiar with Byzantium might tend to think that Marcus Aurelius and Comnenus were both Roman emperors, even though the latter clearly never used Latin to write his name and he definitely was not a Roman Emperor. Thus instead of informing people we make them more confused. Wikipedia should not stand for confusion. Dr.K. 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The matter is what is the commonest form under which a random reader will look for these Byzantine emperors.--Panairjdde 01:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We covered these points before. Nothing that a few well placed redirects cannot cure and in the process we advance the people's understanding of real Byzantine onomatology free from the distortion of artificial Latinization. Dr.K. 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, for two reasons:

1) The point is that Wikipedia mandates the use of the form most used; if the Hellenized forms are not the most used, they should not be used, even if a redirect from Latinized forms is provided;

2) Either you use the Greek forms (Iohannes Palaiologos) in the whole article, or you are introducing a distortion, and this is true both for Anglo-Latin forms and for Anglo-Greek ones.

As regards the advancement the people's understanding of real Byzantine onomatology, this is helped by the introduction of the "Byzantine" name of the Byzantine Emperors in the beginning of the article, and yet it should never hinder the readability of the article.--217.26.87.7 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Iohannes is not a Greek form (it is, however, Latin). An easy clue would be the h in the middle of the word (which Greek cannot contain). What is the most commonly used form in current practice is obviously moot, since otherwise we would not be having this discussion in the first place. It is true that Anglo-Latin and Anglo-Greek forms are both distortions, but I think the point here was that "John Palaiologos" is by no means less English or more artificial than "John Palaeologus." Imladjov 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Imladjov (is that a surprise?) The purpose here is not to Hellenize the whole name. The last name in English using the ODB spelling is an exact transliteration of the Greek form. The last name therefore carries the information that the Emperor was Greek. If we anglicize the first name it's no problem. This happens many times in English, example: George Papadopoulos. Would anybody mistake this guy for English because his name is George and not Georgios? Now if we called him Georgius Papadopoulus, presto! We converted him into a Latin Caesar! Same with the Byzantine Emperor last names. If we latinize them lay people will think they were Caesars. Why would we want to do that? The Latin Roman Empire had its moment. Let's now wake up to the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire became Greek. I mean I don't have anything against Caesars, my last name is actually a Greek translation of Caesar but that doesn't mean I want to convert everybody into one ;-) Dr.K. 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally ODB is consistent. Example:

Παπαδόπουλος---> Papadopoulos

Παλαιολόγος---> Palaiologos

Two Greek last names. Same transliteration rules. Consistency through the ages. Dr.K. 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And now for the clincher: Παλαιολόγος (Palaiologos) is a last name still in use in Greece.Greek phone list search for Palaiologos. How can you call the modern Greek guy Palaiologos and his Byzantine Grandad Paleologus, all in one language: English? Dr.K. 11:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If the link doesn't work here's a sample of the search from the Greek phone list: (Names shown. Other results obscured)

ΟΝΟΜΑΤΕΠΩΝΥΜΟ (Name), (ΔΙΕΥΘΥΝΣΗ)(Address) ΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΟ (Phone Number)

1.ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ Α *υπ ************* 21 0******

2.ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ Α **ήλ ************* 21 0******

3.ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ Α *υξ ********* 21 ********

4.ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ Α**γ ********* 21 ********* Dr.K. 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please advise if you need the phone list results for Κομνηνός (Komnenos) or female version thereof. Dr.K. 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All this is absolutely true and surely the reason why most Byzantinists and others "in the know" now prefer ODB-type forms. However, in fairness to the opposition, I do not think this kind of evaluation trumps the basic WP common name policy by itself. My point is that in current usage (and especially specialist current usage which in this case can in no way be subordinated to the alternative) such forms have gained (and continue to gain) prevalent currency. Even if the two types of forms were more or less equal in current practice (something not suggested by my statistical sample), I do not see how WP policy can be used as an excuse to go against current English usage, which is at worst moot and at best follows the ODB. If the latter is true, the choice is obvious. If the former, we should still logically end up with the more accurate and standardized current practice. By the way, I feel that this discussion is already far too long to keep among the votes. Shouldn't we be posting somewhere further down? Best, Imladjov 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest Imladjov. Relocate as necessary. Take care. Dr.K. 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose not only because Latinisations are misleading when applied to Greeks, but also because following the ODB appears like the best route for questions of nomenclature. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, keep previously reached solution stable. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support with comment. The Latin forms were superior to the Greek forms on the basis of recognisability (and why is older usage worse?). I can see nothing better or worse about the Latin or the Greek in and of themselves. This move would please me, but doing it piecemeal would not, nor would reverting the vast changes performed so recently in moving the pages where they currently are and fixing all redirects. The ODB is a standard (and only a standard) in a certain scholarly field, but that scholarly field does not control usage in an encyclopaedia and Byzantine history is not solely the redoubt of such scholars as studied it in school: it ought to be accessible to anybody and it has bearing on topics well outside itself. Srnec 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons provided by Valentinian, I could not possibly sum them up any better. Besides, Wikipedia should not be used as an instrument to reverse the deprecation of the "Latin" forms. Contributor175 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Valentinian's comment above (with his "oppose" vote) called Latinised forms nothing but "debris from an old scholarly tradition". Why is an old scholarly tradition bad? I prefer it because its old, scholarly, and traditional. Why shift from old, scholarly, and traditional to new, faddish, and untested? Srnec 15:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there is a wave of onomatologically correct transliterations that started decades ago and ODB is the latest manifestation of it. Example:

Peking--->Beijing

Bombay--->Mumbai

Calcutta --->Kolkatta (also recent featured article in Wikipedia)

Let's surf the wave instead of getting at the backwash. Dr.K. 11:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure if you Google Calcutta will get more hits temporarily than Kolkatta because it is a much older form. Wikipedia, apparently, doesn't care about this in this case. But how long will this last now that Wikipedia is leading the way? I myself did not know that Calcutta is now called Kolkatta. I didn't even know the word! Wikipedia not only taught me, it led the way. Let's do it for the Byzantines too! Let's surf!Dr.K. 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Google results: Calcutta over twenty four million hits! Kolkatta three hundred and eighty thousand Yet Kolkatta was the title of the featured article! Wikipedia taught me a new word and is onomatologically correct! Wikipedia led the way! That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do! Dr.K. 11:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction The featured article title was Kolkata.

Google results for Kolkata: !9,500,000. 4.5 million hits less than the traditional Calcutta. Dr.K. 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional correction: Calcutta was twenty point four million hits, (20.4) not twenty four. So the actual difference is 900,000 hits still in favour of the older form. Dr.K. 12:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec, you call the current English Byzantinist standard "new, faddish, and untested." In fact it is none of the above. It is not new, since it has been used (though not predominantly) since the early 20th century (if not earlier). It is not faddish because it is not a passing fad. If anything, it is increasingly in use, especially in the specialist literature, but also in the derivative non-specialist literature as well. It is not untested for reasons that should be obvious from the preceding. It represents an actual English standard established by the specialists in the field; something that the old Latinizing practice never really was (though it was used most frequently). Neither practice was ever fully universal, so we have to deal with trends. The overall trend has been to move away from Latin forms: looking at some general works we have, for example, "Joannes IV Lascaris" (Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1880), "John IV Lascaris" (The Cambridge Medieval History vol. 4: The Byzantine Empire, 1966, "John IV Laskaris" (The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1991). There is such a thing as progress and improvement, and it can be discerned in all sorts of fields. In addition to the examples provided by Dr.K. above, consider again forms like Mohomet and Leghorn. Moreover, the WP policy for commonness appears to affect primarily personal names. English personal names (e.g., John, Michael, Theodore, even Basil) remain intact in the ODB system. Family names are typically unchanged (e.g., Bourbon, Habsburg, Hohenstaufen, Hohenzollern, Romanov, Valois, Wettin, Wittelsbach). There is no reason to depart from the new standard in the field in order to maintain artificial Latin forms. If it comes down to commonness of the form, in current usage the Latinizing forms are no longer predominant; even if we assume that the two alternatives are about even, we should certainly go with the increasingly common current standard of the field. Imladjov 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why must Wikipedia follow trends? I don't get it. If I assume that the two alternatives are about even, I still wouldn't go with the increasingly common current standard of the field. I am an enemy of the cult of the expert and do not wish to allow any "field" to pronounce its new standard against accepted practices that work just fine (as the above assumption would admit). Why the Latin is more artificial than Greek transcriptions I can't understand: at least its written in its own alphabet. Srnec 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is no passing trend. If Wikipedia is a work of reference, it should be up to date and reflect a high level of accuracy. The spelling of names may be a minor matter in terms of substance but it reflects the place and time of a composition. That the 1911 version of Encyclopedia Britannica should have used Latinized forms is not at all surprising; but the same is true of its uneven coverage and moralizing style. The gradual trend towards more accurate (where possible) rendering of names and terms is common to all fields and entirely natural whether we like it or not. I may be used to the name Burma instead of Myanmar, but that does not mean that I would insist on this reference work keeping it because it is traditional in the face of current official practice. It is impossible to oppose the creation of standards by fields and their gradual application outside them; ultimately "popular" literature is merely derivative and it catches up. Byzantine history would be a perfect example, if it were not in fact almost entirely affected by the publications of its own scholars. Why are the "new" forms an improvement? You would have to ask the mass of English speaking scholars who came up with that consensus. If the Latinizing forms worked just fine, I do not see why they would have been so decisively abandoned in the first English work of reference specific to the field. Among other reasons the following were probably a factor: (1) Byzantine scholarship used to be an extension of Classical studies which used to be dominated by people who were Latinists first and Hellenists second; (2) Byzantine studies are now very much separated from Classical studies and the latter are increasingly split between scholars who are either Latinists or Hellenists but no longer prevalently the former more than the latter; (3) The Latinizing forms were never fully universal and the alternative provides a more direct correspondence to the original Greek; (4) The Latin forms are historically artificial because in many cases they did not exist in the past, in effect using them is tantamount to calling a lion "Panthera leo"; (5) We do not use Latin forms for the names (first or last) of monarchs anywhere else in the Medieval World. The result was producing a compromise between a conservative anglicizing form (e.g., John instead of Iōannēs) and simplified (for non-academic usage) transcription of the Greek (e.g., Komnenos instead of Komnēnos). The argument that forms like Cantacuzenus and Cantcuzene are English is inaccurate; the former is Latin and the second French. The days when a general liberal education would have included these names are unfortunately over. There is thus little to support the continued usage of older forms, especially now that a truly English standard does exist. If they have been abandoned elsewhere (e.g., Lewis, Mahomet, Leghorn, Burma), archaic forms have to be abandoned here too. Time does make a difference, but it always flows forward. Imladjov 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The current Greek transcriptions do not reflect "a high[er] level of accuracy" than the Latinisations. The following sentence illustrates our philosophical differences: "The gradual trend towards more accurate (where possible) rendering of names and terms is common to all fields and entirely natural whether we like it or not." I disagree, there is no progress to anything but a new set of biases and presuppositions, which the Greek forms represent. Why is an amoral encyclopaedia better than a moralising one? Oh well, let's not open up this debate. I still object to the unecessary use of less familiar Greek forms just because the experts use them in their own field. Srnec 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I hate to repeat this again, but if you check the previous discourse you will see that Latinizing a Greek name by definition distorts it. The name Palaiologos is Greek. If you transliterate it to Latin ai becomes ae and the ending os becomes us. This artificially Latinizes their names after the fact. The Byzantines were not Latins. If you Latinize their names you make them Latin, and you mislead the public you try to inform. Would you do that to George W Bush? Would you call him George W Bushus? So why do it to the Byzantines? Finally the main one of the crucial differences between Eastern and Western Roman Empires was the use of Latin. The Byzantines spoke Greek not Latin. Using Latin to describe the Byzantines is tantamount to sending them into cultural oblivion. It was a historical wrong to Lartinize their names. That's what ODB corrects at this time. A Historical wrong. No more, no less. Dr.K. 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So you must object to the use of John to refer to the king who issued the Magna Carta? John's a modern English name, not the name of any medieval king anywhere in any language. You also must object to the use of Frederick for that emperor, second his dynasty, who led the first army of the Third Crusade? Proper names from the era before standardised spellings in vernacular languages and before the official or scholarly use of those languages and before the common use of surnames are traditionally translated. Thus with the Byzantines. Transcribing their Greek names into English is no different from transcribing them into Latin. Besides, they claimed their empire was Roman, they ought to have known what the language of the Romans was. Srnec 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec, you seem to confuse the meaning of the terms Latin and Roman. The Roman Empire was not a nation state and defining Roman identity through language and ancestry is at best an anachronism. The "Byzantines" (a term coined by people sharing your biases, who discounted them as Romans) did not claim to be Latin. They claimed to be Romans, in terms of cultural identity and political continuity. The Romans did not share a common native tongue. Both Latin and Greek were spoken as native tongues by the Romans centuries before the division into Eastern and Western "halves". Greek even dominated Latin as a lingua franca. When Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free men of the Empire in 212 it marked the completion of the process of the formation of a common Roman identity, rather than the start. Of course such a sense of identity was never based on race. I am stopping here because adding more would be detracting from the main subject but I feel that this was warranted. Contributor175 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the official language of the empire and what was the language of the original Romans, the inhabitants of that seven-hilled town on the Tiber founded ca 753 BC? The answer is Latin. I am not confused, but you missed my point. Their claim to be Roman (culturally, linguistically, politically) was, frankly, a joke, but that, in response, we assigned Latin names to them is even funnier. I guess the Latinists are just comics at heart. Srnec 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent thought, Srnec!

Not wishing to introduce more seriousness to this topic than it has acquired already: in 753 or so BC, if legends are true, the men spoke Latin (though not a kind of Latin that you or I would recognise) while the women spoke Sabine. Therefore, the mother tongue of the next generation was ... you guessed it. Best wishes Andrew Dalby 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Why those ones, and not the Comneni and anyone else affected by the moves? Adam Bishop 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Each dynasty can be a separate case; the plain reader of English may find these even more confusing than Komnenos. Septentrionalis 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

___Because I was too lazy to request move for all of the Byzantine Emperors. If this move gets approved, it will be easy to request also for the others, if it gets rejected, I saved a little time. Everyone is free to ask other dynasties to be moved.--Panairjdde 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

___As regards Cantacuzenus / Cantacuzene, I meant this as a group move. Of course we can discuss single article exceptions, but I want to set a rule for this.--Panairjdde 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to do this, it should be "Andrew Palaeologus." At any rate, I'm not sure about the process issue here. I'd kind of rather just stick with the ODB version than go through an effort to repeal it piecemeal. with individual page moves. And I'm not sure this page is the best place to discuss it (although it's obviously a much better place than Talk:Constantine XI. Panairjdde - have you notified Imladjov, et al, of this effort? john k 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on WP:RM; but I'll leave a note on WT:NC (names and titles), which they're participating in. Septentrionalis 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

___You are free to vote against. My will is to settle the matter, since we got to a stalemate, in my opinion. This move request should be decisive, I hope. I notified the move request to those who partecipated to the discussion on Talk:Constanine XI.--Panairjdde 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This moving back and forth business is a waste of time. Anyway, my vote goes for the most recent academic standards which is the ODB forms. An encyclopedia should show current updated information, not antiquated information / spellings etc. The latinized forms had their day, but it is very rapidly coming to an end. The "use English" argument is pretty ackward as well as the old standard was / is not based on English but on Latin. The new Oxford standard is gloser to Greek, but neither standard is based on the English language. The Oxford standard is approved by Oxford University and used by Dumbarton Oaks, the world's leading authority on the Byzantine Empire, so it is used in the most important publications of recent research. Second, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium is the world's leading authoritative work on all material relating to the Byzantine Empire, a position which has lasted since 1991 and which seems extremely unlikely to change in the (near) future, given the very small scope of this market. Third, the Oxford forms are no less "English" than the Latinized forms, both have been approved by native speakers of English. I for one don't believe that 100 leading international scholars all developed a brain damage at the same time. If these people and two of the world's most prominent academic institutions can agree on a common standard, that's good enough for me. Times change and we change with the times. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

___The point is not if the scholars use one form or the other, but if Wikipedia should use Greek or Latinized form. Wikipedia has the policy to use commonest form, and the commonest from, for the time being, is Latinized. Noone complained of the moving effort, when Imladjov unilaterally started to change to his preferred form, I do not see why you are complaining now.--Panairjdde 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My "complaining" can basically be boilt down to that you've split up the discussion to the individual families. It makes no sense to use one standard for the Palaiologi and one standard for the Komneni. And discussing each and every family in turn is just a waste of everybody's time. Since you seek a general use of Latin, why not simply suggest this? Btw, WP:NC says If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, whilst also publicising the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below. Shouldn't this proposal be listed there instead? Valentinian ^(talk) 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

___Yes, I agree, it does not make sense to have different standards for different families. Have you read my "22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)" answer to Adam Bishop, third post in this same section?

___As regards "Naming conventions", this is not a new naming convention, it is a revert of moves done after a survey in Talk:Constantine XI.--Panairjdde 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a new naming convention; this is the application of the existing naming convention; WP:UE. As for the Comneni, we'll get to them; some people may feel differently about C/K, as I do about Cantacuzene. Septentrionalis 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Valentinian has just identified a problem with the stylization he wishes to adopt: by his principles, shouldn't that be "Komnenoi"?) Septentrionalis 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked the Oxford form for the plurals, but we should use that form. Nomatter the convention, I never use the plural forms myself, since I prefer the forms "House of ..." or "... dynasty". Second matter; WP:NC not WP:UE is the primary policy. The examples in paragraph 2.29 of WP:NC: all relate to spelling conventions of historical monarchs, so that is the most specific policy. Valentinian ^(talk) 01:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the form of a monarch's actual name (as opposed to how to treat their title), there is nothing in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) (which is surely the operative policy page),to indicate that do should not use the most common English forms. The only thing special about monarchs is disambiguating by country. john k 11:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just on a matter of fact, rjecina's statement above: "If you look russian, english, italian, french or even croatian you will find Palaeologus" is not true. The Russian and Croatian are Paleolog, the Italian is Paleologo, the French is Paléologue. To continue, the Spanish is Paleólogo. The German is Palaiologos, which is as close as you can get to the Greek (all examples found by checking Interwiki). If there is any argument to be derived from this (which I doubt!) it is that the Germans, by adopting a Greek form (as German writers did with classical Greek names more than a century ago), are pointing a possible way forward ... Andrew Dalby 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a way forward, that is a dead end - unless you are proposing to move Aeschylus. All of thes are the standard form of Latin ae in the language in question; none of them correspond to ai, which is all Rjecina meant - and all that matters. Septentrionalis 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Russian form is based on Latin? I would have thought the Russian e corresponds to Greek ai, just as (in the new Russian article on ru:Никита Хониат) the second Russian i corresponds to Greek 'eta'. But cultural history always brings new surprises! Andrew Dalby 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the eta in Παλαιολογος? Septentrionalis 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere. He was talking about Νικητας. For the ae/ai in Palaiologos, Russian just has 'e', since it is phonetic. So in point of fact Cyrillic languages cannot be brought in support of "Palaeologus," as they would obscure the original orthography, be it Greek or Latin (actually all the examples in Andrew Dalby's list above show the 'e' because of phonetics and not because of orthography). Since this is about English usage Rjecina's appeal to forms in foreign languages is misplaced. Moreover, in some of them, including French, there is now a clearly discernible move towards ODB-type forms. If successful, this move request will result in countless little inaccuracies and will continue to be challenged and eventually overturned by anyone informed enough to notice the increasing discrepancy between this site and the relevant literature. Imladjov 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

With this edit[1] the opposition expressly abandons Wikipedia policy and the interest of the reader, whom we are here to serve. The assumption that it is still more recognizable to English readers should be decisive for us, as for Nicol - and we do not have a book, or even a name-list, to explain lesser characters. Wikipedia is intended for general English readers, not Byzantine scholars.

The example of Mahomet is instructive; in 1926, Fowler complained exactly that scholarly fashion was displacing Mahomet by Mohammed, and if unchecked it would proceed onward to Muḥammad, with a dotted h, to the confusion of the plain reader. Since that time, Mohammed has indeed prevailed; but the dotted h has not. So here; scholarly fashion may have changed, although this has not been proven. English usage has not; as this poll demonstrates: If we take away the large minority that says that English usage doesn't matter, we should compel the reader to be instructed in the ODB faith, the remainder is clear consensus is that Palaeologus is English usage. Septentrionalis 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The current standard usage is Muhammad with a dotted h; the h is left undotted only for reasons of convenience by mostly general publications. To distinguish between Muhammad with and without a diacritic is perhaps going too far. The point is that here there is a clear evolution from Mahomet to Mohammed to Muhammad on the basis of the requirements for accuracy of the relevant academic field over time. Presently the last two forms are both used, depending on whether one wishes to stress vernacular phonology or classical orthography (similarly Nur ad-Din and Nur al-Din, etc). Where current English usage is concerned, you can see for yourself that since the mid-1990s Cantacuzene is increasingly less often used than Kantakouzenos in the sample stats. Imladjov 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not standard usage; that is how (some) scholars write for other scholars. This demonstrates the difference quite clearly; and that Imladjov does not perceive it. Septentrionalis 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are still incapable of perceiving what standard usage actually is, at least do not presume to correct me. It is preposterous to seek standard usage in the explicitly non-standardized and often uninformed and inconsistent usage produced by mostly non-scholars, or to argue that works written by scholars are intended almost exclusively for other scholars. Forms like Muhammad and Kantakouzenos are actually explicitly prescribed in attempts to establish an actual standard. Whether relatively common or not, the alternatives generally aren't. Since "non-scholarly" usage eventually follows scholarly standards it would be futile to imagine a "non-scholarly" standard and make a stand for it now. All it would do is make Wikipedia seem dated or unprofessional and invite new attempts for general revision. Imladjov 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retort for NPOV

• • The old, obsolescent forms, are equally disputable and no more English; the articles should be kept in harmony with the currently established practice in the relevant literature and the single standard reference work on the subject. See also Talk:Constantine XI for previous discussions.[[User:Imladjov|

• Not the ODB again... Roydosan 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Should I say not Gibbon again...? Imladjov 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Obsolescent? That's not even true for the scholarly literature. See the following uses of Cantacuzene and Palaeologus. But use of the word may be another flaw in Imladjov's English; as is the declaration that there is only one standard reference in the field. Septentrionalis 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do not know what obsolescent means, consult Talk:Constantine XI, where john k and I had a little discussion of the word. When a usage becomes abandoned by a field and replaced with another, it becomes obsolescent and eventually obsolete. The only difference between the obsolescence of (e.g.) Cantacuzene and (e.g.) Mahomet are a few decades. If you can point to another standard English reference work on Byzantium, please name it. If you simply do not know, do not allege that you do (and you get to call me on that when I start substantively editing articles about Nuclear Physics and the like). Speaking of English, please worry about your own (see again Talk:Constantine XI). Imladjov 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: Cantacuzene in Nicol's book The Reluctant Emperor is used in stark contrast with Palaiologos, Komnenos, Angelos, Kydones, Eirene, Nikephoros, Kalekas, Kabasilas, etc within the same text. That Nicol chose the form Cantacuzene precisely because of the assumption that it is still more recognizable to English readers is clear. But he did not do that in every book that he wrote and at any rate the rest of his usage here conforms with the ODB system. So if a standard is to be derived from this work alone, it would have to conform with the ODB as well. Imladjov 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But Palaeologus and Comnenus are not obsolescent - far less is it obsolete. That is where your argument comes undone. These books [2] and [3] use the Comnenus/Palaeologus spellings and they were published after 1991. Roydosan 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are pointing to the same book and Angold is actually inconsistent (see below). Obsolescent means coming out of usage. If authors are increasingly abandoning these forms, then they are obsolescent. This is difficult to demonstrate with the limitations of a google book search unless you were to go manually through each instance and verify original dates of publication and create a statistical model. Imladjov 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" from 1997 uses the Latin spellings. I don't know is this a "standard reference work", but it is for me anyway. I suppose someone will say 1997 is out-of-date, though. Adam Bishop 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Angold and Treadgold use the older practice, and emphatically so. That some scholars should do so is not at all surprising (but why Angold should actually be inconsistent after expressly declaring that he will follow a "Latin transliteration of Byzantine proper names," ix, I do not know). The point is that we should follow the general usage of current literature and of the standard reference work in the field. Although Treadgold is fact-based enough to be employed as a reference (at least the full version), it is actually a survey. While I personally like it, it has been met with some indifference in the field. As far as surveys go, the most recent is Cyril Mango's Oxford History of Byzantium (2002), which is in harmony with the ODB and current usage. Imladjov 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford History of Byzantium uses the same format as the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium?? That's a total shocker! At any rate, I don't think a term which is less used than it used to be is obsolescent. It's just less used than it used to be. If the term were genuinely archaic or obsolescent, I think you'd find that, for instance, new editions of old books would change the name format and that it would be very hard to find scholarly books using the old usage. Have we reached that point yet? It doesn't seem as though we have - reprintings of old books still use the Latinized spelling, and scholars are still writing books using the Latinized spelling. There has, as yet, been no real evidence presented to suggest that the ODB usage is now the standard English usage. john k 17:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is used a whole lot less than it used to be and the alternative is used in almost all new works. This is rather different from what you wrote. As for new editions of books changing usage, this generally does not happen, and the usage of the author is kept for several reasons including bibliographic historicity and cost-effectiveness. Reprinting is just that, reprinting, not re-formatting or re-writing; I am really surprised you thought otherwise. If the Latinizing usage was ever standard, the ODB usage is just as standard now: when Latinized forms were used prevalently, there were authors writing their books in what has become the ODB and current usage (e.g., Miller's Trebizond: The Last Greek Empire of the Byzantine Era written in 1929 -- to just name something that happens to be on my desk). So if you are willing to say that the occasional Latinizing book published now proves that the ODB system is not a standard, you would have to admit that the Latinizing forms were never really standard in the first place. In actual terms for something to be standard you cannot expect complete absence of alternatives, and for something to be obsolescent (or for that matter obsolete) you cannot expect its complete absence in the present. Imladjov 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has done a quantitative analysis which demonstrates that usage of the latinized forms is rare post-1991. If this were to be done, you might convince me. As it is, all we have is "a fair number of sources use the ODB forms" and "a fair number of other sources use the Latinized forms." What evidence do you have to back up your contentions? john k 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's good enough for the NCMH and the ODB, it's good enough for me. Given the choice between original research (analysis of usage in a arbitrarily selected set of books) and authoritative (rather than "reliable" as broadly interpreted) sources, which would you prefer ? I know what prescriptive policies (rather than woolly pseudo-policies) say about original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Angus, the ban on OR is about presenting original theories in articles. It is not about doing original research on the talk page to determine how to apply another wikipedia policy (specifically: use common names). There is pretty much no way to determine what the common name is, except by doing some kind of original research. How would we ever determine naming issues without going and looking at how sources actually use terms? john k 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The title appears in large letters at the top of the article; it can't be separated from the content. I have difficulty seeing how an arbitrary list of usages is any better than reliance on an authoritative source. If you don't agree that the ODB and the NCMH are, in general, to be relied upon then there isn't much point in debating the question. As for finding if there is a trend in nomenclature, that needs quite narrow definitions. We have to be sure that we are actually seeing the author's choice rather than editorial or house-style ones, and we certainly have to distinguish the author's work from that of an indexer. It's certainly not something we can do by counting raw Google Books or JSTOR hits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In spite of some attempts to approach that, this is actually very difficult to do. Google Booksearch is convenient but not fully comprehensive (it excludes much of the academic literature), nor does it allow the automatic elimination of reprints of old books (so a book from 1878 can appear as if written and published in 2000) or the distinction of usage in the text as opposed to in quoting the titles of older books or articles in bibliographical references. Doing this manually is very time consuming; if you wish to carry it out comprehensively, be my guest. I did a quick test with imperial names from the last six dynasties and a random author for literature published during the period 1991-2006, manually removing duplicate entries, old reprints, and mere bibliographic citations (all of which takes a lot of time), but I did not attempt to limit the scope of inquiry to specifically Byzantinist scholarship. If I had done that, the results would be far more one-sided, even if the database does not include basic Byzantinist works like the Dumbarton Oaks Papers and other serials, most translations, or even the ODB itself. In spite of the inclusion of a lot of non-Byzantinist work (which often tends to rely on older publications), you can see a pattern in current usage. I divided the period into three portions for comparison: (a) 1991-1995, (b) 1996-2000, (c) 2001-2006. The numbers represent the number of books employing the respective usage in the given period. So we get for example:

• Constantine X Doukas:Constantine X Ducas = (a) 2:1, (b) 6:6, (c) 13:4
• Andronikos I Komnenos:Andronicus I Comnenus = (a) 4:1, (b) 9:7, (c) 14:11
• Alexios III Angelos:Alexius III Angelus = (a) 4:6, (b) 7:4, (c) 18:10
• Theodore II Laskaris:Theodore II Lascaris = (a) 4:3, (b) 9:4, (c) 9:6
• George Akropolites:George Acropolites = (a) 2:0, (b) 5:4, (c) 9:5
• Andronikos II Palaiologos:Andronicus II Palaeologus = (a) 3:5, (b) 7:8, (c) 16:10
• John VI Kantakouzenos:John VI Cantacuzene = (a) 4:6, (b) 7:3, (c) 15:9

Again, I emphasize that this quick attempt at a calibrated comparison is not restricted to the literature of the field and in that sense is more favorable to the Latinist argument than it would have been otherwise. While I continue to insist that the current practice of the field should be considered as most important, the phasing out of Latinizing forms can be discerned even here. Best, Imladjov 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There really is absolutely no reason that we should restrict ourselves to works by Byzantinists. Works by Medievalists, or scholars of Islam, are perfectly acceptable for determining what "common usage" is by normal wikipedia standards, as are general textbooks, encyclopedias, and so forth. The numbers certainly do not suggest any phasing out of Latin forms. They do suggest that the ODB forms are somewhat more common in whatever database it was you were searching. (What database was it you were searching? JSTOR? Something else?) If it's a scholary database, this pretty clearly shows that there is no obvious scholarly consensus about the forms to use. In such an instance, I should think that bringing in non-academic usage would be appropriate (e.g. general encyclopedias, popular histories, and so forth), and that is weighted towards the latinized forms, I think. At any rate, you've rather signally failed to prove obsolescence. john k 17:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was using Google Booksearch, since it keeps being utilized in our discussions; sorry if that was still unclear. As I noted above, it actually does not include a great number of Byzantinist works and resources, and I did not attempt to restrict the statistics to works within that field. So the results actually represent something like a best-case scenario for Latinizing usage. If we look at Byzantinist usage alone (whether within Google Booksearch or in toto), the pattern would be even clearer. Using JSTOR also poses its own problems: JSTOR contains a relatively limited number of journals (though it is expanding, and recently included the Dumbarton Oaks Papers) and most of the coverage does not yet go past (I think) 2000 or so. When I began looking for a statistic I actually attempted to determine how many (and which books) use what forms for dynastic names and so forth. But the process of sorting the evidence was becoming impossibly long (you would be surprised how many early modern and modern Greeks seem to have the same names) and I just ended up picking 7 names from a page from my manuscript and looked them up in Google Booksearch under both forms for the respective periods. Imladjov 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, JSTOR only goes up to 1999 or 2000. In terms of historical journals of relevance, it does have many major generalist historical journals - AHR, EHR, Historical Journal, and such. And as you note, it does have Dumbarton Oaks Papers. A JSTOR search would of course not be comprehensive, but would give a good sense of usage in the 1990s. Personally, as much work as it would be, I think the best way to get a sense of usage would be to try to compile a list, perhaps of sources written in the last 15 years, and see what it comes to. Once we had that under our belts (as limited and flawed as such a list might end up being), we would all have the same basic knowledge base, which might make it easier to come to a consensus. As I said before, it seems like the search you've done so far suggests that the ODB forms are somewhat more common in works over the last 10 years or so, but not definitively so - both forms are in very common usage. But I'd like to investigate further. john k 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, be my guest. I did only a small sample because of time constrictions to see if the pattern were discernible even across a broad spectrum of literature (meaning not just Byzantinist publications). Since JSTOR does not have the last 5-6 years and only included something as basic as the DOP as recently as last year, I am not sure we should be trying to base an investigation on it. For all its drawbacks Google Booksearch may serve the purpose (if the data contamination is manually cleared up), and perhaps some information can be extracted from Amazon (which, unfortunately, dismantled some of its more helpful search engines years ago). I would have to look at the latter again, not sure if it is actually able to locate any word in any text. Imladjov 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional note on usage of works outside the Byzantinist literature. While in principle this should be fully acceptable, it should be realized that when dealing with Byzantine topics such works tend to (a) rely on older scholarship and (b) can be extremely careless in usage. For example, I was just perusing John France's The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom 1000–1714, published last year. Here we find ODB-type forms (Doukas), Latinizing forms (Comnenus), and irrational hybrids (Bulgarktonus, Mourtzouphlus). I have already made reference to the amalgam Andronicos Comnenos (sic!) in Edbury's crusader translations (The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade 1996, 1998). Such works can be very worthwhile in many ways (I would not have bought them if they were not), but certainly not in trying to discern proper usage for Byzantine names. Restricting the field of inquiry to Byzantinist works would almost completely eliminate such problems, and would still involve a consideration of both kinds of forms (e.g., Comnenus and Komnenos) presented accurately and systematically (though not always consistently, as in Michael Angold's book cited previously, which contains both kinds of forms though no hybrids). Moreover, even if often dependent on older publications, the non-Byzantinist literature is by default ultimately derivative in this respect. As the Byzantinist output following the current practice continues, that practice will be increasingly reflected outside the field (as suggested by the limited statistical sample that includes the spike in crusader-related literature since 2001).Imladjov 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)