Talk:Constantine Doukas (co-emperor)

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

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


 * Oh, I take it that Oxford history of Byzantium (2002) and the ton of scholars in the Oxford handbook of Byzantine studies, published as recently as 2008, did not get your memo on this. This is disruption purely for the sake of personal taste. Stop it. Constantine  ✍  19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is dispelling a lie, which never was consensus here; it was the imposition of two cranks. All it will take is another crank on this side, and even the pretense of consensus should be done away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * And what is that supposed to demonstrate? You know full well that the ODB form is not limited to OUP publications... Constantine  ✍  20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not limited, in the strict sense; but I deny that it is used or useful much outside those precincts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you define these precincts? I have seen English, American, French and Greek authors use the ODB forms when writing in English, and certainly not only in Oxford publications. A little search in Google should convince you of that (provided you are prepared to be convinced, and I have come to believe that you are not). In fact, the use of ODB forms is either way part of a wider tendency in academia to use more "native" forms, be it for Slavic, Arab or Turkish names and terms, including various diacritics unknown to the ordinary English-speaker. The aesthetic result may be questionable, but there it is. If Stephen Urosh Dushan increasingly becomes Stefan Uroš Dušan, why should Palaeologus not become Palaiologos? Heck, major international projects like the PBW list the names not by John or Constantine, but Ioannes or Konstantinos. Constantine  ✍  23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The local consensus and the wider academic use of the terms are clearly on the ODB side. The old, divisive, onomatology debates clearly belong in the past. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what is non-neutral in having "Doukas" instead of "Ducas"? What sort of "dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope" can possibly be derived from a dispute in transcribing the same name in different ways? Does "Doukas" perhaps reflect some nationalistic conspiracy or fringe view that implies any specific POV for the subject matter? Calling this tagging an overreaction would be a euphemism... PMA, you are treading on thin ice the way you are acting about this issue. Constantine  ✍  00:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does "Doukas" perhaps reflect some nationalistic conspiracy or fringe view that implies any specific POV for the subject matter? Quite possibly; there has never been any other reason to adhere to this bastard (or as the politically correct are saying nowadays, hybrid or syncretic) formation out of the four or five contending systems for Byzantine names. This is half Greek, half English, and all nonsense; it represents kappa in two different ways, pointlessly. Konstantinos Doukas, although egregiously non-English, would be marginally better; best would be a return to the established and wide-spread standard, now emerging again as the scholarly usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And do you have any evidence that this is anything other than your opinion? Any evidence that the former system is "re-emerging"? Because all I can see in published material is quite the contrary. Constantine  ✍  18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * A "nationalistic conspiracy" resulting from the usage of the ODB onomatology. This is simply your own conspiracy theory and original research. The same goes for your analysis of the various ways to transliterate "C" or "K" which is is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As far as the old standard "emerging again", I don't see any evidence of that. In fact all evidence points to the ODB becoming even more widespread. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You will find the Greek in this article; it has two kappas. Your personal attack fits your revert-warring; to some people there is nothing to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of a personal attack without good reason is a personal attack in itself. Your edit warring and your over the top edit summaries mentioning "bastard titles" speak for themselves. I have nothing to add here other than to say that your comments against me are abusive and you should stop this. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that you do not know that "bastard formations" is the name for these linguistic inconsistencies, clearer and more specific than "hybrid". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)