A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 15, 2017. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.-- Panairjdde 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
nothing listed here; so tag deleted
I believe the following sentence, which is found on the third paragraph of the Life section is unnecessary, and derogatory. It's a very subjective comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It should therefore be removed.
"Cantacuzenus is considered responsible for their entry into Europe."
I gave "Joasaph" a go in wikisearch and it redirected here; there's also Joasaph Bolotov first Bishop of Kodiak. should that be a dab line or just put him in the See alsos? Skookum1 ( talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The article puts the blame for the civil war mostly on the -purportedly unfounded- fears of a woman, the regent.
It says e.g. ..and the paranoia of the empress who suspected him to be a usurper....
(My underlining)
But then in the rest of the story it quickly becomes clear that those fears were not mere paranoia. John VI did actually declare himself emperor and tried to usurp the throne at the cost of his (purportedly) 'great friend' the young prince John V. That clearly makes the regent's fears reasonable and founded rather than pathological and paranoid.
The article is therefore demonstrably illogical and thereby unscientific. It may well be that the culprit of this piece of ill-logic is in the source used, but then this source unmasks itself as untrustworthy and should not be relied on. I do not know what motives that particular author had, but it might have something to do with the fact that the regent was a woman or perhaps that she was born in the West.
At any rate: the article as it stands now is an insult to the intelligence of the reader and needs to be changed. I would be very surprised if no historian could be found that looks at the story differently. Jcwf ( talk) 12:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dated, but the EB mentions
— LlywelynII 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If this guy was the usurper in the first place, then when he was deposed, I don't think that is a usurpation. Lathamibird ( talk) 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it really the case that he died on exactly the same day, 15 June 1383, as his successor Matthew Kantakouzenos? That seems extraordinarily unlikely in itself, and what's even more unlikely is that no mention is made of this amazing coincidence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 15, 2017. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.-- Panairjdde 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
nothing listed here; so tag deleted
I believe the following sentence, which is found on the third paragraph of the Life section is unnecessary, and derogatory. It's a very subjective comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It should therefore be removed.
"Cantacuzenus is considered responsible for their entry into Europe."
I gave "Joasaph" a go in wikisearch and it redirected here; there's also Joasaph Bolotov first Bishop of Kodiak. should that be a dab line or just put him in the See alsos? Skookum1 ( talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The article puts the blame for the civil war mostly on the -purportedly unfounded- fears of a woman, the regent.
It says e.g. ..and the paranoia of the empress who suspected him to be a usurper....
(My underlining)
But then in the rest of the story it quickly becomes clear that those fears were not mere paranoia. John VI did actually declare himself emperor and tried to usurp the throne at the cost of his (purportedly) 'great friend' the young prince John V. That clearly makes the regent's fears reasonable and founded rather than pathological and paranoid.
The article is therefore demonstrably illogical and thereby unscientific. It may well be that the culprit of this piece of ill-logic is in the source used, but then this source unmasks itself as untrustworthy and should not be relied on. I do not know what motives that particular author had, but it might have something to do with the fact that the regent was a woman or perhaps that she was born in the West.
At any rate: the article as it stands now is an insult to the intelligence of the reader and needs to be changed. I would be very surprised if no historian could be found that looks at the story differently. Jcwf ( talk) 12:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dated, but the EB mentions
— LlywelynII 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If this guy was the usurper in the first place, then when he was deposed, I don't think that is a usurpation. Lathamibird ( talk) 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it really the case that he died on exactly the same day, 15 June 1383, as his successor Matthew Kantakouzenos? That seems extraordinarily unlikely in itself, and what's even more unlikely is that no mention is made of this amazing coincidence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)