Jump to content

User talk:GoldRingChip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   User Page        Talk Pages        Toolset        To do        Bibliography        sandbox        sb2        sb3        sb4        sb5        sb6      

READ THIS FIRST:

Because of Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, this is my advice on quick-moving events.

Thank you. —GoldRingChip

PowerBook 100 under FA Review

[edit]

I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars

[edit]

I have readded the link to "Anglo-Spanish War (disambiguation)". Contrary to what you think, this does not create a circular link on the disambiguation page or creates other misery. In fact it is a trick used to fool the maintenance bots to think that the template does not link to a disambiguation page in its title, while it is doing that. But without the redirect, the maintenance bots will start shouting that is is an incorrect link that needs to be fixed. So please, do not remove it again. The Banner talk 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the information. I did not think it created a circular link; that was a different editor. My motivation was to link to a more direct article, but you and the other editors have correctly noted that there is no more direct article exists, so the diambiguation page is as good as it gets. —GoldRingChip 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lala Rukh

[edit]

Dear GoldRingChip,

I hope you are well. I would like to make some changes to the Wikipedia page 'Lala Rukh (Activist)'. I work at the Estate of Lala Rukh to manage the late artist and activist's archives. our goal is to make information on her more accessible. I have edited the text on the already existing page 'Lala Rukh (Activist)'. I would like to correct the title of the page to either just Lala Rukh or to Lala Rukh (Artist and Activist) as that is more accurate. Along with that, I also want to include pictures from her archives in her biography, which I am unable to do currently. If you could grant me more rights and/or administrative rights, I would like to make these necessary changes.

Thank You,

Estateoflalarukh Estateoflalarukh (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union University

[edit]

I see many, many years ago you maybe worked on Union University in New York. It is hard to track down exactly how it "exists" although I understand that Union College and Albany Law School are part of it. But I'm not sure if it is legally incorporated or what exactly. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

[edit]

Considering the Byzantine Empire page. So many issues there in the whole article.

Starting: Nomenclature

It says "The inhabitants of the empire, now generally termed Byzantines, thought of themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Their Islamic neighbours similarly called their empire the "land of the Romans" (Bilād al-Rūm), but the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), due to having a contested legacy to Roman identity and to associate negative connotations from ancient Latin literature.[1]"

The Greek speaking population of "Eastern Rome" indeed used the term Romaioi to refer to themselves. Now...the mention in the article of how others called them is a bit suspicious especially the way that its done. The article run to mention how the neighbouring islamic states called them and after that it mentions (as a bad opposition) how the Western Europeans called them. The Muslims called them Romans (so they are the "right ones") while Western Europeans who called them Greeks did it on purpose and were the "bad ones".

What about the Eastern Europeans then, or the Northern Europeans. Throughout the medieval period in their accounts we have also the sole use of the term Greeks and Greece by them also...Rus, Vikings, even Slavs. What about them? Did have the Vikings who could go and work as mercenaries in the Empire "negative contested feelings" towards them and called the state as Greece? Or did the Rus which supposedly took their religion from them after they chose carefully which doctrine is more "right" in order to adopt it, had also "contested interests and roman identity" that's why they always called them Greeks?

What about the Serbian or Bulgarian medieval Czars who would have used the term Greeks as interchangeable with the term Roman...we see in other Wikipedia articles how Bulgarians or Serbian lords when they conquered lands from the Byzantine Empire they included proudly in their imperial titles the terms "Emperors of the Bulgarians and Greeks" or "Serbians and Greeks" etc...why did they do this...apparently they did not used the term Greece as in any way to take away from the Empire its legacy and legal rights to the imperium.

So the whole case of the nomenclature is written in an away that screams that the avoidance of the word Greece and Greeks is the most important.

The article continues:

"After the empire's fall, early modern scholars referred to the empire by many names, including the "Empire of Constantinople", the "Empire of the Greeks", the "Eastern Empire", the "Late Empire", the "Low Empire", and the "Roman Empire".[3]"

That's totally absurd and ahistorical. In all medieval texts or inscriptions (as in the case of Vikings in Scandinavia) throughout Europe there's mainly one way people referred to the empire: Greece. Its not about how we like it today or to examine every now and then why they did it and always to try to avoid this fact cause "it takes away the roman character" and all those notions. When anyone would have to read any medieval text thats the word will find the Eastern Romans and their stat. That's the historical term used centuries before the Empire fell and it's not a term created after it was fallen.

The whole article creates a feeling that the identity of the Eastern Romans was something so nuanced and flex, when it wasn't for much of its history...but very much associated with their language and religion.

And lastly, I find it extremely inappropriate to end the article of the Byzantine Empire having the paragraph:

"Following the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II took the title "Kaysar-i Rûm" (the Ottoman Turkish equivalent of Caesar of Rome), since he was determined to make the Ottoman Empire the heir of the Eastern Roman Empire.[444]"

That's not relevant of the empire...the empire ended officially with the fall of Constantinople and Morea or even after the fall of Trebizond. What was the Ottoman Sultans view is irrelevant and should not be used as in the last paragraph kinda implying that the Ottomans continued its state legacy. That's too much a modern trop that is ridiculous. VanMars (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip&oldid=1245671000"