The article was moved from 'John Axouch' to 'Axouch' without prior discussion here. Additional to this drastic step being made without any discussion, I believe it was and is unwarranted. The reason given for the move was that Axouch is 'the common name', this is false. Any inspection of relevant scholarship will show that on first mentioning this person his full name is always used, subsequent mentions may just be of his surname, but this is standard practise for all historical figures, especially when others of the same forename are also being mentioned. John Axouch was a captured Turkish child raised by Byzantine emperor Alexios I in his household. He therefore became Christian and Byzantine Christians had saints names and all Byzantines of this period had both surnames and Christian names, without exception. Also, Alexios intended John Axouch to be a companion for his son and co-emperor heir, John Komnenos, the two boys became fast friends and John Axouch was undoubtedly named John because of this connection. His forename is therefore an important pointer to his connection with John II. John Axouch also had a son named Alexios Axouch, who was a prominent military and court figure in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos. The use of only the surname for his father is just going to be confusing for readers. Urselius (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
