Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theodosius III/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 February 2023 [1].

Theodosius III[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC); Unlimitedlead[reply]

This article is about a Byzantine Emperor who had an above-average fate: an erstwhile tax collector who was unwillingly thrust into imperial power as a puppet of the Opsikion theme, he was deposed after just two years of rule but was spared and he and his son were sent into a monastery to live out the rest of their lives. The article has passed GA and ACR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9[edit]

Do we have a source for File:4KANARCHY20.png? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could use File:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.svg instead: seems correctly sourced (+ in SVG). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: Has been replaced as suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - support[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • "accepting exile into the monastery in return for safety" - "the" monastery makes it sound like the specific monastery in question has already been mentioned, but it hasn't, so I would change it to "a monastery"
    Done; some scholarly sources like to use "the monastery" for the concept, but I suppose it doesn't translate well into laymen's English.
  • I don't like the brackets in " and the troops of the Opsician Theme (Byzantine province)" and would suggest changing it to " and the troops of the Opsician Theme, one of the Byzantine provinces,"
    Done
  • In the lead you have both Opsician Theme and Opsician Theme. Both links point to the same article, so only the first link is needed
    Done
  • "Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia, capturing many officials" => "Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia and capturing many officials"
    Done
  • "Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia, capturing many officials, including his son" - written like this it indicates that he was the son of Leo. Change to "Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia, capturing many officials, including Theodosisus's son"
    Done
Body[edit]
  • Move the link on Constantinople to the first paragraph of background rather than the second
    Done
  • "The modern historian Romilly Jenkins states that between 695 and 717, the only competent emperors" => "The modern historian Romilly Jenkins states that between 695 and 717 the only competent emperors"
    Done
  • "Cyril Mango proposed that it was actually Theodosius' son who became bishop." - I am getting very confused by all the people with the same name. Does Mango suggest that the Theodosius who became bishop was the son of the man this article is about? You already said "Theodosius, the son of Tiberius, was bishop of Ephesus by c.729" Both can't be true.......
    This is actually a really fun example where the scholars make the situation much more confusing; to try to explain it as simply as possible: first, Theodosius III might be the son of Tiberius, and so the two (Theodosius son of Tiberius and Theodosius III) would be identical; this is unlikely for the reasons provided that he would have had to live for much longer than is reasonable. Secondly, it is generally accepted that Theodosius, son of Tiberius, was the bishop in question. Cyril Mango proposes instead that Theodosius Jr. (son of Theodosius III), was the bishop. If Theodosius son of Tiberius and Theodosius III are the same person, then Theodosius III would be the bishop, if not it was Theodosius son of Tiberius, or possibly Theodosius son of Theodosius III. I've changed it to "Cyril Mango proposed that it was actually Theodosius III's son who became bishop, rather than the son of Tiberius", which is hopefully more understandable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Theodosius, who Byzantine sources convey" => "Theodosius, whom Byzantine sources convey"
    Done
  • "While they had not taken any action to prevent the overthrowal" - "overthrowal" is not a word. It should be "overthrowing"
    wikt:overthrowal and Merriam Webster overthrowal; happy to change it if you view overthrowing as superior, but it currently works.
  • "they took issue with Theodosius' ascension" vs "among other officials, Theodosius's son" - be consistent with your use of 's
    Fixed.
  • "After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus" - stated as fact, but earlier you said that he only might be the man who became bishop. Or is it that he definitely did, but he might not be the same Theosodius as the one who was bishop in 729? This is all a bit unclear to me......
    Tried to clarify the situation. The two ordering of the sentences made comprehension more difficult; has been rewritten to clarify that if he was the son of Tiberius, he definitely was bishop and probably died in 754; if not, it's a big question mark. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see any reason for the bold text in note a -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed.

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "seizing the throne of the Byzantine Empire". Optional: "of the Byzantine Empire".
Is it okay to keep "of the Byzantine Empire"? I think it makes more sense.
  • "accepting exile into a monastery". Suggest ' accepting exile in a monastery'.
Done
  • "an Islamic empire". "an"? Was there more than one?
There was multiple Islamic empires, though they existed at different points in time.
Then you need 'the'. (As Theodosius was the emperor, even though ...)
Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you please rephrase?
He was giving an example; done.
  • "stipulating tribute payment to the Bulgarians." Just a suggestion: 'stipulating the payment of tribute to the Bulgarians.' And in the main article.
Done
  • "Theodosius died at some point after". Everyone does. I suggest a reword.
Done
  • "Sulayman began assembling his forces in the plain of Dabiq". Is it known when?
    Done
  • Why is "status quo" in italics?
    Done
  • "the Heraclian Dynasty, which had ruled for eighty years." Only people can rule. Perhaps 'which had been in power'?
    Changed to "retained power for"
  • "Theophanes states that" And who might Theophanes be?
    Done
  • "commanded the navy to gather at Rhodes to then advance to Phoenix." Is it known why? And where is Phoenix?
    Not particularly; as laid out in the footnote there's three very different locations it could have been.
  • "before sailing for Adramyttium". And where might that be?
    Done.
  • "he already had an imperial name". Perhaps a footnote explaining?
    Funny story, the literal meaning is that his name (Theodosius) sounded regal, thus he was made emperor; it would be like a person in France being crowned king because their name was Louis. Changed to "imperial-sounding"
  • "He was therefore acclaimed as". I suggest losing "therefore".
    Done.
  • "Anastasius led his armies into Bithynia". Do the sources specify that there was more than one?
    Done.
  • "he launched a six-month-long siege against Constantinople". Perhaps "against" → 'of'?
    Done.
  • "supporters within the city managed to open the gates for him, allowing him to seize the city in November 715." Any way to avoid "city" twice in half a sentence?
    Done.
  • "reinstate the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which Emperor Philippicus Bardanes had removed". Reinstate and remove from what? The dome of the Hagia Sophia?
    That's likely, but the source doesn't particularly say so: "to replace the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod".
Just this left. You need to tie it to something. I originally thought that you meant on coins - the statement is next to an image of a coin. A reader doesn't even know if all images were banned generally, or if one particular image was removed and reinstated.
@Gog the Mild: I added a link to religious images; should I expound in the article itself? Perhaps change it to "religious icons". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you need to be either vaguer or more specific. The sources probably decide which way you go. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Source says little more than the "replace the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod"; so probably vaguer, but not sure how to go about it.
@Gog the Mild: Actually, Ostrogorsky actually gives the location as the imperial palace; has been added and cited, so should now be good to go. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I can't find it on page 153 of the work you've cited it to. Could you give me the actual words you are relying on? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it's a typo for page 135! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Ah; my mistake, I used the archive.org page numbers (from a revised edition) instead of the ISBN-cited numbers; now corrected. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overthrowal"! Suggest 'overthrow'.
    I believe overthrowal is more correct in this scenario, and don't really see a need for the change.
  • "After his son was captured". Whose name was ...
    Done.
  • Footnote 1: "the regnal name Constantine (With his full name being "Theodosius Constantinus")." Why the capital W?
Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Believe Unlimited and I have done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

  • After the Umayyad Caliphate was repelled at the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674–678), the Arabs and Byzantines experienced a time of peace. Consider rephrasing for neither the Arabs nor the Byzantines experienced a time of peace after the siege. For instance, the Bulgars started invading the Byzantine Empire shortly after the siege.
    Added qualifier of "between each other"
  • Why is Armenia linked to the Armenian highlands?
    Fixed.
  • After 712, the defenses of the Byzantine Empire began to weaken... Did it begin to weaken or did it weaken? Could the reasons be shortly mentioned?
    Done; made mention that basically everyone just started leaving, which weakened forts, so everyone starting leaving, so...
  • Arab raids began to penetrate deeper into Byzantine Asia Minor... Did they begin to penetrate or did they penetrate?
    Done
  • Consider linking Slavs to Early Slavs because the latter term is more specific.
    Done.
  • ..., including villas and estates near the capital, where the Byzantine elites often summered Is this necessary in the article's context?
    In my view, yes. I think it characterizes well the severe issues the Byzantines were having that even the villas were getting raided. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • During this... During what?
    Done.
    • For me, it is still ambiguos. During the anarchy (mentioned at the very beginning of the previous sentence), or during the 80-year-long period mentioned at the end of the previous sentence?
      Specified.
  • Why is Navy is capitalised in the term "Byzantine Navy"? It was not an organisation.
    Done.
  • The reference to the Aegean Region is anachronistic. Perhaps southwestern Asia Minor?
    Done.
    • Perhaps the link to Aegean Region could be deleted because I doubt that a 20th-century geographic unit has any relevance in the article's context.
      Done.
  • I assume Graham Sumner was a Byzantologist, not a Byzantine historian.
    Done.
  • Link Adramyttium.
    Done.
  • Why is Emperor capitalised in the phrase "acclamation as Emperor"?
    Sumner quotes it as such (from Theophanes), so I have kept it as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was acclaimed as Emperor Theodosius III by the troops... I assume specifically by the troops of Opsician Theme.
    Done
  • ...the ephitet of "orthodox"... I think Orthodox should be capitalised because it is an ephitet.
    Done.
  • ... was viewed as a puppet emperor... By whom? By his contemporaries or by later Byzantine historians?
    Done.
  • ...Thus he was not recognized as legitimate by many other themes, especially the Anatolics and the Armeniacs... Was there any other theme recognizing him as emperor? Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to state that the two themes refused to recognize him.
    Done.
  • Theodosius negotiated a treaty with the Bulgarian khan Tervel (r. 700–721), likely to secure their support... Their support or his support?
    Done.
  • Link Bulgarian Empire to First Bulgarian Empire.
    Done.
  • ..., who may have promised to become a puppet of Sulayman,... Is this necessary? If it is necessary, some context should be added.
    Removed.
  • Without the threat of the Arabs, it is possible that Theodosius may have retained power, and a succession of nominal emperors might have followed him, controlled by court officials and the elites. Is this necessary? If it is necessary, it should be mentioned as Bury's theory.
    Added.
  • Use italics when mentioning the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite.
    Done.
  • The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite gives a different narrative, stating that when Theodosius "saw a host was marching against him" he "resigned the empire, put down the crown and shaved his head". Although Leo attempted to buoy him, saying "strengthen yourself and fear not!", he still "firmly resigned the empire". The two sentences are verified only by a reference to a primary source.
    I'm unable to track down a good secondary source for this, and it is sort of ridiculous to think Leo would ever actually oppose Theodosius' abdication, so I'm going to just remove it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka: Believe that I have responded to or dealt with all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was a historical Joshua the Stylite, but the Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite is not by him. He was the scribe. We currently have two articles that do not explain it well. It is on my to-do list. Also, I don't see a problem with quoting a primary source with inline attribution and a citation to a modern edition. After all, Harrack's edition does say that (Pseudo-)Joshua said this. Srnec (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Harrack's edition confirms that the statement was made by Joshua but I think we should verify the relevance of this statement with a reference to a reliable secondary source. If scholars studying the history of the Byzantine Empire under Theodosius do not think Joshua's statement is relevant we should not pretend that it may have some relevance. Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • ...acclaiming the reluctant Theodosius as Emperor Theodosius III Why not "...acclaiminng the reluctant Theodosius as emperor"?
    Done.
  • Many themes refused to recognize the legitimacy of Theodosius, believing him to be a puppet of the troops of the Opsician Theme, especially the Anatolics and the Armeniacs under their respective strategoi (generals) Leo the Isaurian and Artabasdos. Many themes or the Anatolics and the Armeniacs? Furthermore, the quoted text implies that the Anatolics and the Armeniacs were the troops of the Opsician Theme.
    Done.
  • Leo ... allied himself with the Umayyad Caliphate...; Theodosius allied himself with the Bulgarians... Could the text be rephrased to avoid repetition? ("allied himself with")
    Done.
  • ...ceding the Zagoria region to the Bulgarians, as well as stipulating the payment of tribute to the Bulgarians Could the text be rephrased to avoid repetition? ("Bulgarians")
    Done.
  • ...in spring 717... Is this necessary? We are soon informed that he abdicated on 25 March. (Spring begins on 21 March.)
    Done.
  • Do we know that he died in Ephesus as the infobox states. If yes, this should be mentioned in the main text (and verified).
    No, that looks like something I forgot to remove, or was added later; removed now.
  • I do not understand the "Names" line in the infobox. The footnote could be placed in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
    @Borsoka: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this short but excellent article. I really enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Sources
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how locations are formatted
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this has been fixed, but someone else should probably give it another check just in case. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few tweaks for consistency/brevity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Theodosius_III/archive1&oldid=1143296439"