Javits2000

Archives 1: 20. Nov. 2006 bis 3. Apr. 2007.

Archives 2: 5. Apr. bis 19. Dec. 2007.

Iconography

Hi, this is finally on the move - any changes or additions you'd like to make would be very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be adding & will expand on the Panofsky scheme & will get Krautheimer in. I don't have Holly unfortunately. Do keep an eye on it; User:Stomme, an AH prof, has also contributed. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

lead

Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire, please take a look at the talk page. Tourskin (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I know you wanted not to be distracted, but can we continue our discussion therefore here?

The Ayyubids were not in ay geographic proximity to Europe. Neither were the Abassids, bottled up between rebellious Islamic state who in turn were blocked by Byzantium. No one is suggesting that Byzantium is our hero, only that she played that part for Europe. As for the Ottomans, the Byzantines tried many times to stop them. The Fall of Galipollis brought Turkish reinforcements into Thrace and from then onwards the Byzantines were too screwed a position to defend Europe, because they no longer had the gates to Europe; Gallipoli was in Ottoman hands. Tourskin (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean to say is Byzantium never wanted to be the battered walls of Europe and yet she was. Tourskin (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I would simply point to the whole question of attempts on Constantinople. After 717, the final Umayyad siege of the city, no Islamic state makes another attempt until the Ottomans (so instead it's the Rus, the Bulgars, the crusaders, etc.). And it's been fairly clearly demonstrated that for both the Umayyads and the Ottomans the desire to take Constantinople was based on specific eschatalogical theories, which were used to support an idea of actual Islamic "imperial" expansion, as opposed to simple maintenance of the umma. (The idea of "empire" is in fact profoundly problematic in medieval Islamic political thought, and leads to a lot of internal dissension among the Ottomans, for example.) The Seljuks are the perfect example of this. They simply wanted to carve out a piece of Anatolia and had no interest in pushing westwards after this -- so that they quickly become in effect Byzantine allies.

So let's take this proposition: "Byzantium sheltered Europe from expansionist Islam." There is really only one time when this could be argued, and that's the seventh and early eighth centuries. And in this period you could as easily argue that the Franks played a more direct role in sheltering Europe. By the late eighth / early ninth the frontier skirmishes with the Abbasids had become largely ritualized. And by the tenth Byzantium had become the "expansionist" power. The eleventh sees the emergence of the Seljuks, who are only interested in Anatolia. In the twelfth we have primarily Byzantium as an uneasy ally of an expansionist Europe. In the thirteenth the Byzantines are clearly not sheltering anything. In the fourteenth we have the emergence of the Ottomans out of the ghazi states and within decades they are in the Balkans; so Byzantium hasn't "sheltered" anyone. The rest is history. --Javits2000 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, theres a difference between sheltering someone and just being in the way. I suppose a good compromise would be that the Byzantines shieled Eastern Europe from Islamic expansion then during the dark ages? Norwich states that whilst the Franks could inflict the occasional defeat on the Saracen foe, only Byzantium could defeat them with enough consistency to defend southern Italy. Tourskin (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good compromise. Although then you have to take into account that at that same time the Byzantines were fighting a two-front war, the other front being precisely in the Balkans, against the Bulgars, Slavs, etc. I guess want I want to say is that it's too problematic to state categorically in the lead, although it's a subject that comes up often enough that we should certainly address it in the "legacy" section. If we want to give two sentences or so on the general significance of Byzantium in the lead, I would probably mention: preservation of Roman state traditions and Greek culture; religious influence on south-eastern Europe and Russia (so basically, the conversion of the Slavs); central role in the Mediterranean economy and beyond; maybe also some reference to the very powerful idea of Constantinople as a city of wonders (something we find both in Latin and in Arabic literature). Those all seem to me relatively basic and undisputable points. I think the point you are trying to make could be rephrased to say something like, "played a central role in the balance of power of the medieval Mediterranean," or words to that effect. --Javits2000 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just that I'm an Eastern Christian. From were we stand, that is, conquered and persecuted, we do not trust Islamic empires to be close to Christian states. When the US asked by what right the Barbary states of North Africa had in enslaving Christians, they responded that it was in the Quran, or something to that effect. War inevitably resulted. Point being that war is explicitly sanctioned in the Quran. Come on Javitts, no historian in their right mind would say that the Arabs would stop at taking Byzantium only. Why would they? The Arabs never stopped unless defeated militarily - after the 8th century, the Muslims were never in a good position to take Europe due to internal squabbles and Byzantium being the nearest "infidel" state. Tourskin (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I understand that there are any number of cases where the Quran has been used to advocate a belligerent foreign policy, and an oppressive domestic one. I would just be very careful about forming broad generalizations on the basis of those cases. In general I think it is better to see the medieval Mediterranean in terms of a constantly shifting balance of power, not one monolithic Muslim aggressor. It is equally clear that Byzantium in the later ninth and tenth did not stop expanding until they were defeated militarily -- regardless of whether their foes were Arabs or Bulgars. And domestic treatment of religious minorities is a similarly complicated subject. We happen to know, for example, that most of the Christian communities in the Levant remained Christian until the arrival of the crusaders -- that is the period of mass conversion to Islam occurred under Christian rule. This is not to say that there are not numerous cases of extreme oppression -- obviously there are. It simply varies by period; thus under the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkish Republic there are periods when Greek and Armenian Christians have very broad freedoms, even significant power within the state, and other periods when they suffer unimaginable perseuctions. But neither belligerence nor oppression of religious minorities is intrinsic to Islam; any more than anti-Semitism is intrinsic to Christianity. --Javits2000 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass convserion from Christianity to Islam under Christian rule? Dude, hell no. They converted yes, but not all at once. Christianity declined after the Crusades, not before or during. Refugees fleeing Mameluke armies left cities open for new Muslim populations to repopulate whilst massacres at Antioch (see the siege of Antioch in 1268) which saw the death of 100,000 individuals (Muslim source) explains another decrease (other massacres too) - such massacres are not spoken of nor even condemned widely because this was a part of warfare were ever one goes. Finally, Timur-i-linga (Aramaic translation of Timur the limp) devastated Christianity in the northern parts of Syria and Iraq. Tourskin (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the Levant that may be; I'm just passing along what I understood to be the present consensus, but it may be I was misinformed, and will have to look into it. As for Timur, he was a very ecumenical butcher, and certainly massacred as many Muslims as Christians, if not more. --Javits2000 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine studies

On 29 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine studies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

Some folk are calling this soapboxing. I am not so sure. What is your impression? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it was removed. The contributor was found to be socking, but before it was removed, I brought it to one of my user sub-pages, located here. I think it needs citation work and the links need to go (apparently its linkspam), but the user made some fair points. I was wondering if you could help me clean out the cruft and maybe find some sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear!

Sorry to see you go - all the best! Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kubadabad.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kubadabad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eusebius (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Kubadabad.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kubadabad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Paranormalized.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Paranormalized.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Severe exposure.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Severe exposure.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Kubadabad.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kubadabad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)