Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constantine (son of Basil I)/archive1

Constantine (son of Basil I)

 * Nominator(s): Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a junior Byzantine emperor that managed to be at the center of an alleged and very complex political scheme, the son of Emperor Basil, who was allegedly cuckolded by his co-ruler, Michael, with either a woman that possibly doesn't exist or Michael's alleged lover. A seemingly well-trained heir that was much loved by his father, over the other children, he died early and therefore fell to the wayside of history, and has largely become an obscure figure nevertheless intricately tied to the aforementioned conspiracy. Article has passed GAN and recently a MILHIST A-class review. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass
No issues with licensing found (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't see that the licensing for either image covers the use of the original work. What am I missing? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the interest of not gaslighting Gog, making a note that I've now tagged the images with the license for the coins themselves. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I tend not to be super strict on the licensing when it comes to works that are hundreds of years old and obviously public domain. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Source review—pass
I don't see any issues with the sources. No checks done. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead
Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "His parentage is a matter of debate, but he is generally assumed to be the son of Byzantine Emperor Basil I..." Assumed by whom? Historians?
 * Done
 * Also, in that sentence, I don't think you need to say that Basil was the Byzantine Emperor, seeing that it was already made abundantly clear in the first sentence.
 * Done
 * "Constantine was made co-emperor by his father in c. January 868" The previous sentences have stated that Constantine's parentage is unknown, so this sentence is ambiguous. Maybe replace "his father" with one specific name.
 * Fixed
 * Is there an appropriate link for "Syria"?
 * Done
 * "As emperor, he served in several campaigns alongside his father... and accompanied him on military campaigns..." Repetition; please try to merge these sentences, seeing as they are about similar events.
 * Done
 * Add WP:ALT to File:Solidus-Basil I with Constantine and Eudoxia-sb1703 (reverse).jpg
 * Done
 * Link "Parakoimomenos".
 * Done
 * In the "Parentage" section, Emperor Michael is mentioned early on, but the hyperlink to his actual article appears further in the text, which is somewhat confusing to readers. Please link Michael III upon first mention.
 * Done
 * "Historian Cyril Mango states his belief..." Add "the" before historian (false title).
 * Done
 * "Judith Herrin, instead, argues a different date for the marriage of Basil and Eudokia..." Judith Herrin is introduced with little context, with the previous sentences implying that maybe she is also a historian. Maybe try "the British archaeologist" or "the British byzantinist", or something of that nature.
 * Done
 * "Historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work..." Watch out for false titles again.
 * Done
 * "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." -> "In his 1994 Ph.D. thesis, Tougher supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." would be a phrasing that is less confusing.
 * Done
 * "...a tool to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine, is said to be hated by Basil, as Basil would therefore consider Constantine his true son." The use of the word "is" implies that Leo is still alive, when clearly he is not.
 * Done.
 * "...and that Michael does not seem to have viewed Leo in any paternal way, stating that "this in itself is telling"." I'm questioning the usage of the quotation. It feels out of place and personally, I did not gain a new undertsanding of the subject matter from reading it. I would remove it, but that's up to you.
 * I personally find it useful; I'm not opposed to removing it but I don't see any real reason to
 * Link "born in the purple".
 * Done
 * Link "crowned" to Coronation of the Byzantine emperor
 * Done
 * "Constantine is thought to have received more direct education and attention from Basil, whereas his other brothers may have been accompanied by court eunuchs." Thought by whom?
 * Done
 * Also, link eunuchs.
 * Done
 * If you do add the aforementioned link to Coronation of the Byzantine emperor, remove the one currently at "Some historians date the coronation to 6 January 868...".
 * Done
 * "Historians Charles Previté-Orton and Werner Ohnsorge take the position..." False titles
 * Done
 * "Basil was severely effected by Constantine's death, and declared a period of mourning after this, possibly lasting up to six months." needs a citation.
 * This should be covered by Tougher, but I'll double check.
 * It is indeed covered by Tougher 1997 p.53; I've also added the ending date of the mourning from the source.
 * Is there a link that is appropriate for "saint"?
 * Done
 * All done or responded to. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * "and his first wife, Maria or second wife Eudokia Ingerina" - don't think that comma is needed there (or if it is then you need one after her name as well and also one before Eudokia's name to be consistent)
 * Done
 * "while others argue there is no concrete evidence" => "while others argue that there is no concrete evidence"
 * Done
 * "Constantine was the intended heir of Basil, and as such received much attention from him, and accompanied him on military campaigns" - think you can dispense with both those commas
 * Done
 * "another brother, Alexander (r. 912–913) was raised to co-emperor" - comma needed after the brackets to close the subordinate clause
 * Done
 * "which he did;" - I would change that semi-colon to a full stop. The sentence is very long and convoluted as it stands and the but after this can stand alone
 * Done.
 * "but admit either of the three are possible" => "but admit that either of the three are possible"
 * Done.
 * "many historians use an argument that Constantine is Maria's son" => "many historians use an argument that Constantine was Maria's son"
 * Done
 * "to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine," - comma before Leo's name is not needed
 * Done
 * "suggesting either Basil believed them both" => "suggesting that either Basil believed them both"
 * Done
 * "who he could not have known would be male" => "whom he could not have known would be male"
 * Done
 * "and is, therefore, the son of Maria" => "and was, therefore, the son of Maria"
 * Done
 * "Tougher argues that this engagement reflects that more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" => "Tougher argues that this engagement reflects more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" (I think)
 * Fixed.
 * "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius exclude" => "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius, exclude"
 * Done.
 * "Lean Basil and Eudokia" - is therefore a different way to phrase this? I thought at first glance that "Lean Basil" was a different person who was also called Basil and who was notable for being slim :-D
 * Not really sure what word would better work here; most of the other words are either also possible descriptors (slim, slight, etc.) or too extreme (moderately) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe "lean towards Basil and Eudokia".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me; Template has been updated. All should be done now. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "and after slaying Bardas with Michael's blessing, was crowned" => "and, after slaying Bardas with Michael's blessing, was crowned"
 * Done.
 * "the loss of an heir which Basil had trained well" => "the loss of an heir whom Basil had trained well"
 * Done.
 * Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done or responded to all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing - in the aforementioned template, why are some cells centred and others not? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for another historic personality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead
 * Do we need the same date twice for death and end of reign?
 * Simplified to just the year

Infobox
 * I'm not sure that the parameter predecessor makes much sense in this case.
 * Removed

I could follow the complex thoughts about his parentage, and am thankful for the table! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done all. Thanks! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Query

 * This nomination is moving rather fast and is pretty small size-wise; may I have permission to nominate another? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's too early. Try us again in 7-10 days. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has now been a week, and the review has largely wrapped up I think, may I now have permission for a second nom? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not wrapped up, but seems to be moving in the right direction, so yes you may. What further treat do you have for us? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments/spotcheck by Ian
I stopped by with a view to closing but looking over the Parentage section alone I have several concerns, so I'm recusing coord duties to review and spotcheck sources: I'll wait for your responses before I consider if it's necessary to ask you to re-check the whole article to ensure the rest of the referencing is spot-on, and then for me to do another spotcheck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was a bit dubious about the prose and felt I needed to check the sources to ensure I didn't misrepresent them if I copyedited. This immediately led me to a couple of roadblocks when investigating the citation for His parentage is heavily disputed, although Byzantine emperor Basil I (r. 867–886) is generally accepted as his father. Basil had been born into a peasant family (Vasiliev p. 301): firstly, the link to Vasiliev's History of the Byzantine Empire takes me to Volume II of the work, whereas the page I was looking for is in the first volume; secondly, when I did find Volume I, I could find no mention of Constantine nor, explicitly, of Basil's peasant origins -- thus the citation appears to support none of the statements it covers.
 * Rare double screw-up on my part; made a note to cite the "generally accepted" bit to a battery of citations and then forgot; the peasant origin part was the only one I pulled from another article Basil I, and apparently I decided against checking which of the two refs supported it; both now fixed. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In light of my OR revisions, I've changed "is generally accepted as his father to "was at least nominally his father". Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when I see that I ask myself to whom was Basil nominally the father? To contemporaries? Subjects? If by "nominally" we really mean "in name only" then I assume we're not talking about historians, who should be asking what are the facts (or at least the most likely assumptions). I'm not saying change it (not yet anyway), I just want to hear more of your take on it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just mean that (to contemporaries) he was seen as the father, and consequently to historians, he's the "nominal" father. He may not be the de facto father, but basically, everyone (historian and contemporary) agrees he was the de jure father; Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify "Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son"; there's a lot of discussion by Historians on if Basil truly saw others, such as Leo, as his son; opinions range from "yes, but they didn't really get along" to "no, and he hated him". Constantine was definitely loved by Basil and Basil seems to have been fond of Alexander, which seems to fit with a narrative that only those two were truly his sons (perhaps all too conveniently), whereas he seems to be more distant with Stephen, and perhaps outright disliked Leo. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael, while married to Basil (Garland & Tougher) -- my reading of the source suggests that Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Michael III, and to have remained so even after marrying Basil might be more accurate (you don't need "Basil's predecessor" as Michael was introduced as emperor in the previous sentence).
 * Fixed.
 * The historian Cyril Mango states his belief that Constantine was the child of Basil and Maria, along with Anastasia -- supported by source, no action required.
 * a view shared by George Ostrogorsky -- supported by source, no action required.
 * Leo Grammaticus, a 10th-century historian, on the other hand, suggests that Constantine was the son of Michael and Eudokia -- could do without "on the other hand" but supported by source, no serious action required.
 * done.
 * The historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work but admit that either of the three are possible while leaning toward Basil as the father -- per the source I'd agree with the first bit but not sure about them leaning toward Basil as the father, I might've missed something so could you point out how you feel this is supported?
 * "For one, Constantine is referred to directly as Basil's son often "In 879, Basil’s eldest son Constantine died unexpectedly", and such things as "This undermines the argument that the birth of Leo was particularly significant. Further, it seems rather odd that Leo would have been the first child of Michael and Eudocia if they had been having an affair since Michael was a teenager." I read this as clearly leaning toward Basil, if not directly saying it must be him; originally I had it as "all three possible", so I am comfortable changing it back if this seems too close to original research.
 * In light of rereading all three bits of the Tougher cites,(including Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher) I think I have read too much into various bits of the texts towards a "lean" Basil opinion; in light of a lack of explicit "this is what happened", I fear the current text brushes too close to original research; I will change them as appropriate. 1994 Tougher does note that he believes Eudokia was the mother, whereas 1997 Tougher only leans toward it (states that there is no reason not to believe it), but I now think lean Basil might constitute OR on my part, so I will change 1994 Tougher to Basil/Michael and Eudokia, 1997 Tougher to Basil/Michael and lean Eudokia, and 2007 to "all three possible". Apologies for making this so difficult, I think I was far too eager to make it simple. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Anti-Macedonian sources, such as Symeon Logothete, usually assume that Constantine was the son of Eudokia, and provide information regarding the alleged infidelity of Eudokia, and the arrangement between Michael and Basil -- I can only check Garland & Tougher here but they seem to support this statement.
 * BTW, among my prose concerns was the number of times the term "argues" (or variants) appears in the Parentage section: 14. No problem using "argues" occasionally but there are other terms one can use in such instances: "contends" or "opines", for instance, or simply say "According to".
 * Should be fixed.
 * Tks for such prompt responses/actions, Iazyges. I'll peruse these changes and the rest of the article, perhaps copyediting along the way, and let you know any further thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks for your responses above, I've copyedited Parentage based on that and also the remainder of the article, pls check that I haven't misinterpreted anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All look good to me, thanks! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, my last query is re. the Parentages of the children table: do the question marks mean the source doesn't mention the person or persons in question? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes; although some may have slipped through my fingers, but I think it should be complete. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I wonder if leaving it blank or just putting a dash would work better -- the question mark could be interpreted as "unknown", when it's really more like "not applicable"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done; I also cited Herrin and Mango directly, and adjusted Herrin in doing so (enough to state that either Basil or Michael was the father, and Eudokia the mother, for all four children).  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing! Glad issues could be caught now instead of down the road! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)