Talk:Typos of Constans/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I will review this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Overview

Interesting subject and good research.

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations.
• Many parts are not clear yet for the average uninitiated reader. I will do a detailed review later. In general, however, the article reads smoothly.

I assume that these are now covered below. I have addressed them there. Let me know if there are further unclear parts.

• The article doesn't specify which type of English is used. Just a code is given, which is used in certain scripts, indicating it is neither American nor British English.

I am not sure that I understand this point. The article is labeled EngvarB, or English: Variety British.

Have you read the template page? It says This maintenance template adds articles to the hidden category Category:EngvarB to denote articles that have non-specific spelling that cannot be identified as American English or Canadian English spelling. Try {{Use British English}} or {{Use British English Oxford spelling}} instead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Done.

• A great deal of the text is quoted in the section "The Text of the Type". This is unusual for a Wikipedia article, especially at GA. You need to paraphrase and summarize, and include the full text as an external link or as a Wikisource link.

A quick check shows other articles at GA or above quoting longer documents in full. Eg United States Declaration of Independence, which not only quotes it in full but annotates it! The section is clearly labeled as "The Text of the Type", so a reader can skip it if they do not want to read it. I feel that as the full document is available and is not too long a reader should be given the opportunity to consider the full text for themselves. As is not unusual in other Wikipedia articles.

Thinking about it this is not a 'deal breaker' for me. I will work on a summary and then replace the full text with it.

• It is true that the United States Declaration of Independence quotes the declaration in full, but every part of this is discussed extensively. It clearly has a function in the article's prose. In this article, however, this is not the case. So either give the quote more of a role in the text, or summarize it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, my strike through of my comments above went missing. I will summarise.

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS:

• Though not strictly required for GA, pictures are not supposed to "sandwich" text between them.

I am unaware of this guideline. Could you direct me to it? I have seen this used elsewhere, to figuratively have opponents 'staring at each other' across the page and have copied it here for that reason.

MOS:SANDWICHING.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

• The See also section includes some wikilinks, which are already mentioned in the body of the article.

Done. Duplicate links removed, except for those duplicating a link in the lead.

3. References layout:

• No dead links
• Four sources are referred to, for which not enough information is provided to identify them: "Liska (1998)", "Read (2001)", "Sahas (1972)" and "Howard-Johnston (2006)"

That was sloppy of me. I have replaced two with references to sources already in the bibliography, deleted one which seems to be a stray from another editor and cited the fourth in full. Apologies for this.

This does not appear to have been fixed... "Read" and "Sahas" still do not refer to any source. Also, you might want to chose either Howard-Johnston or Howard-Johnson, right now you have both.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. (Both.)

4. Reliable sources: Unable to check yet, as many sources are too briefly cited.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: Checking...

7. Focus: There is a lot of background information. I would advise you to take a good, critical look at what content is really required to understand the subject well.

This made me smile. I was expecting an assessor to complain that I had condensed or skipped information. I am hoping to take this to FAR and feel that it will need to nearly double its, non-quote, wordage. For example it will need a section on dyophysitism, see below. I will have a run through and see what I can make more succinct. I think that the issue is that I feel that a reasonably detailed explanation of the background is needed to explain why a lay person issued a theological edict. I don't see how this can be understood unless the political pressures which caused Constans to issue the edict are explained, as well as the religious issues which caused the political disaffection, and which I have skimped on, as well, of course, as a theological summary. But that is not to say that there is not redundant wordage and I will have a look.

8. Neutral: Article is neutral.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Nicely selected. There is some technical error at File:Pope_Martin_I.jpg.

I spotted that. It seems to be a text formatting error and I assumed that we could ignore it.

Corrected.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

Lead

• The lead does not actually mention what the Type is, e.g. an edict, etc.

Er, the first words of the article are "The Type of Constans was an imperial edict issued by...".

Yes, you are right, of course. I feel the lead is still a bit too concise, but I will check again at the end.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You may well be right. I am often criticised for over-conciseness. I will have a look at it myself.

Continued below.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Political background

• Nowhere do you mention what religion people embraced before the conquests of the Caliphate. I presume that this is Christianity, but you need to state this somewhere.

Done. I think. I would welcome advise as to whether this is clear enough.

Clear as crystal.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... Islamic Rashidun Caliphate ... From which country? No wikilink?

Done. Good spot.

• The Muslim, also known as Arab ... Seems to me these are two different terms.

They are indeed, which is why I felt it necessary to point out in the article that they were used interchangeably at the time and in many modern sources. Probably because at the time the only people who were Muslim were also Arab, and virtually all Arabs were Muslim.

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• The army of Heraclius ..., this name is only explained later. You need to reorganize the text or add more explanation.

Done. Good point. A typical problem of my being too close to the article.

It seems unusual to just cut out the name, since it is a quote. Keep the name and add a word of explanation in brackets, as you have already done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. (Although where I was taught to reference that would drop me a grade.)

Well, then put [Byzantium] in a note format that is not inline ({{refn}} or something like that).--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your way actually seems clearer, so if you are happy I'll leave it as is. (It just goes against my training.)

• ... hated bitheism of Constantinople ... To maintain a neutral tone, you need to rephrase this as "perceived bitheism", or "which they interpreted as polytheism", etc. I don't think the Syrian or Egyptian Christians actually used the term bitheism in their own doctrines.

I had to think about this for a while to see what you meant. Too close again. Very good spot. Amended. Yes, they did describe Chalcedonian Christianity as ditheism. Or dyophysitism if they wanted to be polite. (Usually they didn't.) Let me know if you would like a further explanation and/or if you think that the article needs further detail on this. It is an area I have deliberately not give too much detail about; I was saving a review of that for the possible expansion for FAR.

If by they you mean the Arabs, you might want to indicate briefly that is was their perception that the Byzantines were polytheist.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No. "They" refers to the locals. Rephrased.

• ... believed by most of the Byzantine population to be illegitimate ... An illegitimate son or an illegitimate emperor?

Done. Both an illegitimate son and because of this an illegitimate emperor. Well picked up; phraseology amended.

Theological background

• wikilink hypostasis. If you don't want to have wikilinks in quotes (the policy isn't clear-cut), you'd have to paraphrase instead.

• Paraphrased and wikilinked.

• Tweaked.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately ... EDITORIALIZING, please remove.

• Done

• ... so was forbidden his seat ... Who forbade that?

• The Exarch of Ravenna. It's complicated, as is everything on this topic. I have inserted a simplified explanation.

• ... how Monophysitism had weakened the defences of Syria and Egypt. How was that related?

• Done. Please check; it's a long sentence and may not even be grammatical.

• It's a complex sentence. Try reformulating it in active voice, and perhaps split in two sentences.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have rewritten the paragraph.

Type of Constans

• ... supremely indifferent ... Quite strong language. Is this supported by the source cited?

• Source: "understood little and cared less". It seems a fair paraphrase to me. Also "never had any time for theological speculation".

• He had just established an uncertain truce with the Arabs ... This is not mentioned in the Political background section.

• I didn't want to duplicate and I didn't want to treat the political and theological sections in isolation. The theological section follows on chronologically from the political one and the truce is mentioned in the correct place. That said, it would be easy to move, notwithstanding my first two points.

Opposition to the Type

• ... taking his army with him. You mean retreating from Italy?

• No. Reworded to be clearer.

• ... before the Senate. Can Senate be wikilinked somehow?

• Done.

• He was banished ... to where?

• Added and sourced. (I had skipped it as an unnecessary detail.)

• ... refused a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople. Unclear, please expand further.

• Expanded

• Constans even personally journeyed ... To do what?

• Expanded.

• ... in an effort to have him recant. Sound like it was his own effort, please rephrase.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Done

Condemnation of the Type

• ... the doctrine of the two wills of Christ ... Which one?

• It is possible that I don't understand your point, as it seems clear to me. I have attempted to further explain. Let me know if I have got it wrong.

• I just meant that the average reader may not always remember the exact differences between the two doctrines in the article, and the compromise. It is okay now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... carefully expressing no opinion. So what was his opinion in the other sessions?

• He wasn't present at the other sessions. Except the final one where, as it says, he "personally signed the final declaration". (He was the emperor, "God's vice-regent on Earth"; if he was present, he chaired.)

• Okay, of course.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... in the purple ink allowed only to the emperor ... Not relevant, cut out.

• Done

Details of the Type

No comments. I think you have dealt quite well with converting the quote to prose.

Broadness

For the GA criterion of broadness, you would have to include the following things:

• The Typos was issued between 648 and 649, i.e. could be 648, could also be 649.[1]
• There have been theories that the Typos was not authentic, now largely debunked (same source).--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a number of other sources[2][3][4][5][6][7] you might want to check, though I was not able to find anything required for GA (and did not access one of them). I am pretty sure they are relevant for FA, though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I had trouble accessing your number 1. Then my PC crashed when I clicked Publish on a lengthy reply. So, in brief: I have just checked five very RSs; all state 648 or "early 648". I am not persuaded by Consentino's revisionism and could provide good (OR) reasons why he is wrong. Even he only states "... it is reasonable to think that..." which would get kicked out of a GAN as weasel words. I have added a note, although I consider that more weight than it is worth. What do you think? Brandi's theory that the Type was "not authentic" was attention seeking fringe lunacy and not, IMO, worthy of mention. Wikipedia is not a repository for wild theories; as Consentino writes, they "have  been rightly rejected and no scholar today thinks that the document is suspect".

It is hard to say at this point. The subject is very specific, and it is too early to say whether Consentino (2014) is fringe or mainstream. It didn't strike me as bad scholarship; however, since the chapter was published as part of a Greek book that has not received any scholarly reviews, you could dismiss it. Personally, however, I don't see why you would dismiss the entire source: the chapter is the most direct source that could find about the subject, and it seems good scholarship to me.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Consentino wasn't a solid scholar, or that I was dismissing the source. Very reputable chap, some useful stuff in there. I just think that on the date issue he is pushing his reasoning in an absence of primary sources; and seems to recognise it himself with his distancing comment. After your previous post I did add his view on the date in a footnote.

A 1991 tertiary source that has an entry on the Typos says 648 CE, so if you do not want to add anything that might not yet have received scholarly consensus, then that's fine. Apparently, in 1991, consensus was 648 CE.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As above, already mentioned in a footnote. As scholarly consensus is dead against it and even the author doesn't seem totally convinced that seemed appropriate weight.

With regard to the 1908 theory, I don't know whether it is fair to designate this as fringe as it is early scholarship. I would mention it as it pertains to the validity of the entire's article narrative. But you should quickly dismiss it, of course. I know that if I was writing about notable Dutch scholars of Buddhism, I would have to mention Hendrik Kern, even though the guy had a theory about Gautama Buddha that is widely considered incorrect these days (that the Buddha was a sun god). Then again, if you can vouch that no single other scholar mentions the 1908 theory, then don't bother. FRINGE is only part of Wikipedia if it is notable.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The only times I have seen Brandi mentioned, not often, is to have his "theory" derided. Consentino with his "been rightly rejected" is as kind a treatment as I have seen. And not so early. Ecclesiastical scholarship goes back a long way, and a base source for Byzantium is J. B. Bury, 1889.

Treadgold is already in there, although only referenced to once. Shoju looks very interesting; thank you. All worthy of going through in more detail for a FAC, two of them previously unknown to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, glad to be of help.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Name Wiki article

I have noticed that reliable sources unanimously speak about a Typos of Constans II, rather than a Type. Thought not part of a GA review, I would like to make a note here that I suggest the article's name be changed to Typos of Constans II.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I have been putting this off as potentially disruptive to "stable" - some editors have firm and not always readily understood convictions. (Eg see my current GAN Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch); yes, a lower case 'd' - don't ask.) Once GAN is out of the way I will flag up a move and see if anyone objects. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, alright. Objections would be difficult to make though, because nearly all RS refer to Typos.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Waiting for your response to continue the review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Many thanks for picking this up. It is a tricky mixture of real life events, political manoeuvres and theology, so I was expecting it to wait a while. As you have recognised, I found it difficult to strike the 'correct' balance between the three elements. I have, I think, addressed the points you raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Late here. I will come back to this tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, there are new comments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Most points addressed. I will come back at it tomorrow. I still have to paraphrase the text of the Type, but have started with the last paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I still think that the Political background section needs to be trimmed for lack of relevance, though not the Theological background section.
• This does not mean the article is too long; I am checking for broadness now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Checked for broadness above. A few details to add. Will finish with reviewing the lead as soon as you are ready with broadness and focus, and then we can wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The political background section might still need to be trimmed a bit. It seems a bit undue to me.

OK. I will see what I can do.

Done.

• As for the lead, this is actually very well-written.

You sound surprised about that.

I am not good at compliments. That's why I do GA reviews. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I do think the sentence The Type attempted to dismiss the entire controversy, on pain of dire punishment. is a bit too concise and cryptic, and you are going to have to mention explicitly somewhere in the lead that discussing the issue of the nature of Christ was prohibited.
• Speaking of the nature of Christ, why not mention inline in the lead that the discussion was about Christ's nature? It would help to imagine what the article is about.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Good points. Possibly tricky to get across both comprehensively and concisely. I shall have a go tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, explain a bit and wikilink a bit. I could say that it is peanuts for you, but then I would be giving compliments again. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2018 (

Thank you. The lead and the first section look good. There are some details in the article that are still unclear:

• The army of Heraclius [Byzantium] we shall indeed, with your 'amil's' help, repulse from the city. This quote still does not run very smoothly. Is this a translation or a direct quote from an English text? It reads pretty rough with the adverbial clause in the middle. Either translate this more smoothly or paraphrase it.

Better? (Direct quote. I don't read medieval Arabic. I assume that the original translator thought it was smooth enough, although goodness knows why.)

• Secondly, still about the same quote, the word amil is unclear to me. I was not able to find a translation of this. The first time I read this, I thought you meant army, but I haven't fixed it yet, because I wasn't certain.

Done.

• The rebellion of Olympius is hardly explained. Why did he rebel against Constans? The text implies that he did not carry out his orders when he was met with much resistance, but it's still a large step to join a rebellion.

Because he could. Senior Byzantines rebelled all the time, for political and/or religious and/or personal reasons, or just because they thought that they could get away with it. See this, incomplete, list List of Byzantine usurpers It lists 7 pretenders during Constans' reign, including his father-in-law who I Have just removed from Political background. Over 20 Emperors rose to that position via coup d'états. I didn't mean to suggest that he met any physical resistance; it seems that when he realised how (morally) opposed the Roman authorities were to Constans he saw a chance to set up on his own. "Arriving while the Lateran Synod was sitting, he realised how opposed the west was to the emperor's policy and set up Italy as an independent state; his army joined his rebellion." Not unusual, see Year of the Four Emperors, Year of the Five Emperors orYear of the Six Emperors.

• His successor, Theodore I Calliopas ... Meaning Olympius' successor?

Rephrased.

• ... was elected in 654 ... by Rome or by Constans?

By the College of Cardinals. (That's a simplification, but it is reasonably accurate for a short answer.) Emperor's didn't elect or appoint Popes, but did attempt to reserve the right to confirm or veto their elections. One of many bones of contention. (The other patriarchal sees were more firmly in the gift of the emperor.

@Farang Rak Tham: See above.

Sorry that I didn't mention these things earlier.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice edits, passing for GA. Two more things: Let me know if you do a DYK entry. And if you are available, please review one of my articles at WP:GAN#REL. Good luck with FA!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.