User talk:Garzo

---

Welcome to my discussion page. Please post new messages to the bottom of the page and use headings when starting new discussion topics.
Please also sign and date your entries by inserting — ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.
Start a new discussion topic.

---

Old discussion topics can be found in the archive.

---

Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac/Aramaean naming crisis revisited...

This debate continues... Every entry should be a seperate article. I don't understand why this is still an issue. Link all the articles together and state the opposing view points and for each article explain what the actual title is and where it derives from in relation to the current usages of the ethnic designations.Sharru Kinnu III 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is tough. I've been through this so many times, and have realised that there's no easy solution. There are plenty of people who want to talk up one of these identities and reduce the others. I have a fairly good idea how these names were used in late antiquity and throughout the middle ages, but this is at odds with how many people today understand them. The articles cannot be completely separate because they are naturally linked. I know of Chaldaeans who call themselves Assyrian, and Syriacs who call themselves Aramaean. It would be easy just to use church membership as a guide, but many see this, understandably, as superficial. They, instead, point to ethnic background as the correct identity to use, but all questions of ethnicity (anywhere in the world) are very complex. Sometimes I have suggested a more united approach, trying to bring together all the different identities, acknowledging that they share more than divides them. This has come into difficulty with those who want to promote one identity above the others. One idea was to do as you suggest, and have the separate articles, but also have a united article that discusses common themes. However, there is a major problem about bias here — article should strive to be as neutral as posible. However, these articles, at the moment, tend to express one view over the others. This is tough stuff, and takes time to get consensus. — Gareth Hughes 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the historical data present? I'm interested in knowing how the Syriac authors presented themselves to the world. As much as I know we've refered to ourselves as "Syrians" in Syriac/Aramaic for at least as far back as we were Christian but what did the classical authors say or did they say anything? I mean the Chaldean name is rather erroneous though not completely far fetched and the Assyrian name is more nationalistic than ethnic and Aramaean sure gets the language in the picture but I mean honestly Syrian would make the most sense if the world wasn't so politically chaotic. We are Syrian though geographically Assyrian makes sense and the Chaldeans were Aramaic-speaking and very well could have fled Persian pograms to the north and possibly have mixed in with the population but the very fact that there was a schism within the Church of the East and from what I hear within the church even during the 16th century there were ongoing disputes on weather we were (As)syrian or Chaldean though the Mandeans if anyone are the most likely descendants of Babylonian/Chaldeans and Marsh Arabs probably closest to the ancient Sumerians. Again I just would like to know what historical Syriac documents state if there are any instances of people questioning their identity. What about Arabic documents? What did the Classical Arab authors refer to us as?Sharru Kinnu III 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Syrian would make the most sense if the world wasn't so politically chaotic - Where on earth do you think this word came about in history? I agree with Gareth, acknowledging that they share more than divides them. - I dont think any Aramaic speaker will deny being called a Suraya, but to just stop at that and not talk about the word's origins and the real meaning, is basically unfair (to the Assyrian point of view.) Chaldean 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean, I'm not dipsuting that Syrian is derived from Assyrian but let us say that if things were different politically today and that the United Arab Republic had merged with Iraq and had stayed united to this day we would no doubt be calling ourselves the indegenous Syrians if that was the name of the country. In fact if Syria wasn't called Syria we would all agree to the name Syrian. It's the very fact that Syria exists as a national entity that we avoid confusing people by not calling ourselves Syrian just as with the whole Syriac designation for some of our people. I don't think anyone would be disputing weather we are Syrian as they do with Chaldean, Assyrian, or Aramaean.Sharru Kinnu III 12:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly I agree with you. If their was no Arab Syria today, and we were all calling ourselves Syrian, then don't you think we would all (Churches) be agreeing to acknowledge our Assyrian heritage? Chaldean 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we're not Assyrian. I'm just saying that this wouldn't be as hot a topic if that was the case. Because of the very fact that we call ourselves Syrians in Syriac we have all this confusion. Chaldean on the other hand even if the theory that after the Persians conquered Babylon they fled to the north was true they would have assimilated in with the (As)syrians very quickly due to the similarities in culture (like Candadians in America) and I don't know of anyone that says "Kaldaya" in Syriac when referring to themselves. Koulan amrakh Sour(y)ayeh-wakh. Maybe nowadays people may say Kaldaya in Syriac but it is very rare from my observation being a Chaldean Catholic. I don't disagree with people calling themselves what they want because over time our people have somewhat evolved into distinct groups but wheather or not that renders them into new ethnic groups is questionable. It is no doubt that Maronites, even Melkites (including Palestinian Christians) were originally Aramaic-speaking at one point and are ultimately "our people" in the sense that they shared much of our culture and heritage even though there always has been division as well wheather it be denominational, dialectal, or geographical but as time has weathered away at our humanity our shape has changed as has our landscape. We are now fragmented and our roads may have started at the same point but we each took different paths in the fork of history. Even in ancient times you couldn't really group people together as "one group" so to do it now is rather foolish. People were loyal to their city-states, royalty, religion, etc. That defined our anscestors when we were many in number even though never truly untied. Now that we are depleted and share much with each of these remnants of the ancient Aramaic-speaking (Christian for the latter part of our history) world we tend to want to unite into one group yet again yet can't agree on what to call ourselves or how to conduct ourselves as one people because we were never truly united as people only through multi-ethnic states governed by the same rulers whom for the most part were ruthless and in constant threat of being overthrown not too much like the current situation in Iraq after Saddam. Ultimately you want to unite all of humanity together but you can't do it by telling people that they're wrong. You have to show them that you're right.Sharru Kinnu III 16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The historical data generally supports the name ܣܘܪܝܝܐ (always two ܝs: the spelling with one ܝ is much later), which can be understood as both 'Syrian' and 'Syriac'. The name is derived from the Greek Συρια. It seems that this Greek name is an aphetic form of Ασσυρια. The Greek usage of the term Συρια is complex, and complicated by their parallel use of Ασσυρια. It seems that Aramaic-speaking Christians (i.e. those not of the more westerly, Greek-speeking urban centres) adopted the Greek name when the term ܐܪܡܝܐ, the native Semitic word used for what the Greeks called Συρια, came to refer to Aramaic-speaking pagans. Thus, it is fair to say that ܣܘܪܝܝܐ means 'Aramaic-speaking Christian'. However, the Greeks continued to use the term Συριοι for anyone living between Anatolia and Persia. Mediaeval texts show the invention of the borrowing of a differently vowelled ܐܪܡܝܐ from Biblical Hebrew ארמי ('Ārāmāyā' meaning 'Aramaean' in a good-to-neutral sense, with original 'Arāmāyā' in anegative sense). The word ܟܠܕܝܐ is not common, but, where it ocurrs, stands for a pagan astrologer. It is even taken into aph`el form ܐܟܠܕ ('akled') meaning 'to consult the stars'. The term does ocurr in the Peshitta Old Testament, and later literature does use the term to refer to people from the region of Baghdad. The name ܐܬܘܪܝܐ is not at all common in late-antique literature. There are two references to Persian armies advancing on Roman territory as ܐܬܘܪܝܐ (in biblical allusion). In mediaeval literature, the term is a rather neutral one for anyone coming from the province of Mosul. Mediaeval Arabic documents tend to prefer the word سوريني — the terms كلدي and اشوري are much later, and attached to legal church identities in Arabic, Persian and Ottoman Turkish. Mostly, all of these words are used to describe someone by their language, geographical origin or church membership. The idea of them referring to ethnicity is really quite modern (last few centuries). This is what I find when I take the long view. It suggests a situation that is a lot more involved and intertwined than a lot of the websites out there are claiming. — Gareth Hughes 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the fact that this is much more complicated than the oversimplified websites claim. Syria may have been derived from Assyria and Aramaean may have meant Aramaic-speaking pagan at one point and Chaldean no doubt related to Astrology and our Ancient Religion but nevertheless how does one hold supremacy over the other? Until our leaders reach a comprimise and unite and everyone accepts it this debate will continue. It doesn't look likely that they'll do that anytime soon. As far as I see it our people may have referred to themselves as Aramaean meaning they spoke Aramaic and they may have called themselves Assyrian due to their geographical location or Syrian as the usage replaced the more histrical Assyrian and possibly even Chaldean if they were priests in the old religion but I don't see how any of these are actually wrong. They are all correct in different usages but as far as ethnic designations I would have to refrain from stating that any of the terms refer to specific ethnic groups. We are all of these designations but for the sake of unity in this day and age where we are low in numbers we ultimately have to come up with a common name which I think if not for the nation state of modern day Syria we would call ourselves Syrians.Sharru Kinnu III 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of Egypt restored

11-July-2007: The ID "User:Lanternix" (notified) was logged as overwriting an unsourced map image onto a map of Egypt developed by the American CIA, on 19-May-2007 at 1:09 a.m, which has been restored (after 52 days). Map image: Image:Egypt-region-map-cities.gif (view older versions to compare).

Received with WikiProject: Ancient Egypt. -Wikid77 08:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apostasy articles

Hello Gareth, do you think it might be worth it to sprotect the talk pages of the Apostasy articles where the spammer is relentlessly placing his comments on? Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting close to that. The abuser keeps using different IPs, and I can only block them for a few days really. A lot of the posts are on the talk pages, and I'm not so sure about protecting them. I think I've put temporary blocks on about six or seven IPs now. If we see that the abuse slows from this, all well and good, but if it continues, then protection is the only option left. — Gareth Hughes 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83 seems to be back as User:Irrer

Hi,

Thought you might like to know that Mariam83 seems to have reregistered as User:Irrer, with some major reverts to other articles, perhaps to establish credibility. Bouha 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). This user has made a few good edits, but has also made reverts to very old versions of articles (e.g. Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). It looks likely that the user is Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'm looking into it. — Gareth Hughes 11:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bouha

Since you have warned me about Vandalism, I take it you are an administrator of some sort. This is rather strange, but I noticed on the Tunisia Talkpage that Bouha posted a reply to my explanation as Drmaik, and then changed her/his signature to Bouha. Would you kindly check on this? I see no reason for her/his aggressive reverts, as I genuinely believe the older version is a better version. Thank you. Irrer 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to page under construction - Jennifer Moore.

Hello, Gareth. I am still learning Wikipedia. I noticed that this user had edited a page I had put 'Under Construction', the 'Jennifer Moore' page. Is he an administrator?

---

cur) (last) 11:13, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,996 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:11, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,961 bytes) (→The Teenage Prostitute Accessory) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:11, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,965 bytes) (→The accused murderer) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:11, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,969 bytes) (→The Accused Murderer - Please review the wikipedia manual of style, section 4.2) (undo)

---

Please let me know, thank you!--MurderWatcher1 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! AdamJaz (talk · contribs) is a new editor, not an admin. This user's edits to Jennifer Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are simply cleaning up grammar and style. The 'under constraction' banner is really just a note to others that the article isn't supposed to look finished yet, so AdamJaz was just helping out a bit. You might want to give the Wikipedia:Manual of Style a good read through, as it explains general style issues. — Gareth Hughes 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth!--MurderWatcher1 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hosanna

Hi Gareth, if you're not quoting from the Bauer lexicon under under Hosanna#Etymology, please would you change it to leave the original quotation intact? Perhaps your inserted line should come first, including the transliteration from Hebrew, followed by the detailed quotations from the various lexicons. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes I didn't realise that I was inserting the transliteration into a quotation. Of course, the lexicon presumes a standard of knowledge about the language that Wikipedia readers may not have. Thus, it might be more appropriate to add a general sentence first. I'll do just that. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer

Perhaps you've been doing this work awhile. I was surprized that you removed the Lord's Prayer with it's Spiritual Interpretation, and put me on the blacklist without even following the Matt. Code. hmmm. Simplywater 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood. There was an external link in that article that is blacklisted as a spam link. I removed it. I do have a blacklist, nor put people one one. I removed the Mary Baker Eddy text from the article, suggesting that it would better suit another article. You seem to have found a good place for it, and I've linked to it. I could, though, do without the 'Matt. Code. hmmm' comment. — Gareth Hughes 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic - Akkadian

Since we share an interest in ANE languages I would be wondering if you could tell me a little bit about any similarities or differences you are aware of between Akkadian and Aramaic. Rktect 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in replacing loanwords in Aramaic from Arabic/Turkish/Persian or even English/French with Akkadian words and Aramaicizing them. In my dialect there are many loan words from Kurdish/Turkish and to a lesser extent English and French. eg. Souleh for shoes, Bagno for Bathtub, Douche for Showerhead, Atnabil for Automobil, Lira or Pareh for money, Odeh for room, etc.Sharru Kinnu III 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Loanwords are a vital part of any living language. There have been attempts in many languages to 'purify' the language of loanwords: almost all of these have ended in failure, and many were simply ridiculous. Only dead languages stop borrowing. I would treasure the loanwords rather than purge them. Do you really want to get rid of Persian words that have been used in Aramaic for 3000 years as well? Might you accidentally throw out Aramaic words and miss well-hidden borrowings? If you did manage to purge loanwords and replace them with what Akkadian words you could find, the language would be as artificial as Klingon! What is the Akkadian for automobile (Arrabanu???) anyway? — Gareth Hughes 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right it does make for an interesting language but Modern Hebrew is a reconstructed language though it contains a plethora of loanwords mainly form Indo-European languages such as Yidish which I call Jewish German and even Arabic and Aramaic. I understand what you're saying but in my dialect it contains an unusually high amount of loanwords because our village was very close with the British and French adminstrators during their post colonialist endevours. We have a dish called Chilifry which is tomatoes fried with onions and bits of steak served the traditional Iraqi way on top of rice. That's a remnant of their adminstratorship over Iraq as are many words I can't think of at this time. Dollara, Milliona, Billiona, Tyeera for Tire, Matora for Motor, Makina for Machine, Merci in place of Baseema, Bonjour maybe used as well as Bonsoir, Hallaw for Hello, Telafon, etc. I'd say at least 50% of our vocabulary is Arabic. I'm not even going to begin to list words.Sharru Kinnu III 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Hebrew is quite exceptional. It only worked perhaps because of strong connexion that Jews have with Hebrew. However, Modern Hebrew is marked by a large number of loanwords. It is, perhaps, Hebrew's openness to loanwords that has allowed it to thrive. Trying to enforce artificial Hebraisms on speakers of Modern Hebrew would likely end in failure. The best way for a language to grow through its loanwords is to give it access to media, publishing and everyday use. This allows a language to be itself even though it is full of borrowings. Without this outlet, a language can cease to be seen for its borrowings. If you get some really clever Akkadian words, that sound good, they might catch on if they're given enough exposure. However, I would suggest that purging a language of borrowings is a negative step likely to lead to the decimation rather than the flourishing of a language. — Gareth Hughes 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian cuisine

I need some assistance here. I can't move that silly template out of the way. It's nice there's an Assyrian template but it's blocking the cuisine template. I can't find the script for it. HELP!!! Sharru Kinnu III 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it. I hope that's what you were looking for. — Gareth Hughes 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude! What do you think of the article? I expanded on it as much as I could for now. It is more than double the length of the original article and is longer than many of the linked articles. I think the assesment on it should be changed. It is rated low-grade but that's another story.Sharru Kinnu III 12:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello i have seen you knowlegde about the Sumerian language, i wonder if youi can help edit "Sumerian people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nochi (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 July 2007.

Arendt/Heidegger Reverts

I was puzzled at your revert of Arendt edit and then read the Cabinet article. I then noticed that you reverted references to the same article from the Heidegger piece. While it may not be the best place for the reference in the Arendt piece, it would be a pity to lose the link to an interesting article which quotes from her diary. Perhaps it could be left in something like a footnote. It would be even more of a shame that the reference is totally removed from the Heidegger entry as it really does add an interesting dimension to his life. Joel Mc 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about Hannah Arendt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Martin Heidegger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I reverted a number of edits made by the new user WinstonWinston (talk · contribs). Although many edits were of reasonable quality, all of them were links to Cabinet. The user's edits thus constitute an attempt to spam, to raise the profile of this magazine. Individual edits that seem worthwhile may be re-added. However, I have warned the user to stop adding links to the same website to multiple articles. — Gareth Hughes 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have looked beyond those two pieces and see what you mean. I will find a way of citing an interesting and well-written article at a later date.--Joel Mc 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content of Iranian history

Afew days ago I deleted some text and then you put it back in and said it was deleted for no good reason, but you didn't notice that the information was too detailed for the section which was supposed to be a short snappy description of the time. I will make that edit and others similar to it in the coming days and weeks. If you are unhappy with my edits please disuss it with me on my talk page before putting it back in.Manu kian maheri93 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would help greatly if you used edit summaries for all of your edits. At the moment, none of your edits are given summaries, except for the automatic summaries. If you remove contents from an article without explanation, the rest of us are left to guess what your motives might be. I, and many others, would automatically revert any unexplained deletion of good material from an article. You are likely to find many of your edits reverted if you fail to include a basic summary of what you are doing. With regard to simplifying articles, you should ensure that all removed material is included elsewhere. Thus, if a section of a more general article is streamlined, material should be moved to a more focused article. If no such article exists, you might consider creating one. A template like {{main}} can be used to link from a section in a more general article to the more specific article. — Gareth Hughes 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbasid article protection

About this edit, the banned user who was disrupting that page with various sock-puppets, has returned with a new sock-puppet/throw-away account. Can you please restore the protection? --Mardavich 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One edit was made and then reverted. I changed the article's protection from infinite to a period of a week. Limited protection is used to encourage vandals or those engaged in edit wars to give up. Infinite protection is only applied in certain circumstances. If the article becomes a problem, I'll protect for another week. — Gareth Hughes 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrianism revisited

As you have noted, there is again someone doing his utmost best to Assyrianise everything related with Syriac Christianity. One example is the page Syriac Assyrians. I put it up for deletion, as its mere title is POV, but I'm afraid something went wrong. Unfortunately, I'm currently unable to monitor the discussion. Would you please keep an eye out? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that it is completely biased and unnecessary. — Gareth Hughes 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I too am concern over growing bias going on with Assyrian related topics lately. As a moderator Gareth, I think you need to start taking actions (in the most neutralist way) and stop being on the sideline. Please get back involved again. Chaldean

With the way this is going [[1]] what are you going to do now Gareth? I don't think people outside of this topic understand this situation much. I don't think it made sense to have this on a public vote since the public doesn't really have much knowledge about the subject. Suggest these articles to be merged with other ones. Chaldean 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD nominations have not been very fruitful, the cases were closed due to a lack of consensus. The issue has gotten worse, since Dbachmann now believes that "Assyrians", being the most used term for referring to the Syriacs, should be the common denominator. On his talk page, I have tried to convince him that statistics is no way to solve this matter. Understandably (considering you work among the people involved), you have more or less been standing on the sideline, but considering your expertise in this area, I urge you to throw in your weight to change the momentum in order to present a balanced picture of the Syriac Christians. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got a selection of good scholarly sources here that may help to shed some light on the issue. I'll try to edit something together and put bits of it in different articles. Mostly, it's about the fact that 'Assyrian' isn't commonly used anywhere before the 19th century. Dab is only judging the issue based on what information he has got. I imagine that his point of view will change when presented with hard, detailed facts. — Gareth Hughes 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, it's about the fact that 'Assyrian' isn't commonly used anywhere before the 19th century Why are you making up stuff? We are not claiming that, but we are claiming Suraya is another way of saying Assuraya. Chaldean 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not 'making up stuff'. I thought you knew me better than that. The link between the words isn't very clear. Some have said that the Greek word 'Syria' comes from the word 'Assyria', but many are not so sure. Mainly because Greek uses both words, and uses 'Syria' for a wider region, mostly west of the Euphrates. Certainly, the spelling 'Suraya' is a fairly late respelling of 'Suryāyā'. The two 'y's are there for a reason. — Gareth Hughes 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not making up stuff. I thought you knew me better than that. - you know very well you have the utmost respect from me, but it gets really annoying when every now and then you label us as the bad guys.

ertainly, the spelling Suraya is a fairly late respelling of 'Suryāyā'. - the only reason I say Suraya is because that is how we say it in our language. I really never heard of Suryaya. Do you have Ishtar TV? Its a great way of getting a better understanding of the Iraqi Sureth community. Chaldean 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone is 'bad'. I'm just saying what reliable sources say. It happens to be different from what the Assyrian media say. So, it needs to be said. I understand that Assyrians are going to be upset by it, but I'm not doing this to upset anyone. It's all about the honest facts. The fact that you haven't even heard of the word 'Suryāyā' is part of the problem. It's all over the historical literature and is still used today. The spelling with only one 'y' seems to be a fairly modern spelling. If I put together well-referenced, scholarly information and add it to Wikipedia articles, why should you worry? I suppose you worry because what academics generally say is not on Ishtar TV or AINA. The fact is that there is widespread academic scepticism about what these agencies say. — Gareth Hughes 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Me and other Assyrians work so hard and put so much time in our research, but our work gets smeared as lies and biased by you and Benne. I ask you this: where have we ever used AINA as a source? Where have we used biased sources? Show me Gareth, and I personally will remove them. I have established myself as a person that really cares about the information on wiki be very much NPOV. Every now and then a user will come and change the population of the Assyrian people, citing AINA. I immediately revert and demand only census and reliable sources be used. If I put together well-referenced, scholarly information and add it to Wikipedia articles, why should you worry? - No Gareth I don't have a problem with that, but our nationality is not negotiable. You can't change the title of the Assyrian people. That is what the world knowns us as and that is what we call ourselves. As for creating an ultimate unifying page - I for the past 2 years I have suggested you and Benne numerous different solutions, but never got any response back. As for the term Suryaya - I don't understand where your going with this. All these issues including the extra y can all be confronted once and for all in a unifying page, probably Syriac Christianity. Chaldean 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why we're doing this again. I think the Assyrian people article is quite good at the moment. I do think that your work on it has been commendable. And, like you, I'm annoyed when someone comes along trying to push it one way or the other. We both realise that Assyrian identity is a political issue. We both probably wish it were not, but that is the way it is. I stand with the great Assyrian writers of the last couple of centuries who have helped a scattered people find a united identity, and I wish that there were more unity than there is today. I support all this. There is, however, scepticism about the trappings of this identity. Particularly, the evidence that, before the 19th century, the ancestors of modern Assyrians did not hold to this identity. The evidence points quite strongly to European missionaries introducing ethonyms, the earliest introduction was 'Chaldean', that was then taken up by the Catholic Church. It's all from good reliable sources. I think the names of Syriac Christians article might be the place to introduce this material. I think that Syriac Christians article might make a good unified article, but it needs some serious work (that's why I haven't started anything there myself). — Gareth Hughes 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more then aware the naming issue is more of a political thing then any other thing. Particularly, the evidence that, before the 19th century, the ancestors of modern Assyrians did not hold to this identity. - you say it as if the word Assyrian diapered for 2000 years and just came back. I realized that Syriac speakers didn't always call themselves Assyrian, but answer this question: While we called ourselves Suraya durin AD, what did our neighbors to the North and to the East called us? Why did the Armenians continued to call us Assyrian? Why did the Georgians continued to call us Assyrian? Why did the Persians continued to call us Athuraye? You make it sound as if Syriac = Assyrian is a far-fitched theory. But common sense and putting everything together tells us otherwise. Chaldean 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello, just a courtesy note, that some of your interactions with Makalp, is being presented as evidence against him, in an Arbitration case [2]. VartanM 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab's persistant vandalism of the Assyrian people article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&oldid=148929248 <--------- Sharru Kinnu III 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. — Gareth Hughes 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I don't care anymore. I'm moving on to other articles. I like the current article but it does need to be toned down just a little bit. I looked at it from a non-Assyrian perspective as if I were to be totally ignorant on the subject and at times it did seem to be self-glorifying. Sharru Kinnu III 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not falling into the traps of Assyrians

Hello Garzo

My name is S. Marco and I am a Chaldean who is annoyed with the Assyrians claiming and distingushing other cultures in order to increase their numbers, and if you have a look at the Chaldean Assyrian site you will be informed about my believes. The field of Ancient Sumeria and the other civilisations in the middle east is my expertise, however, i dont have any university degree in any type of History. Once again thank you, and i hope that you and I could correct a coule of the aricles of the Chaldeans.

Professor Marco

Asm ccc 07:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look who's back. Shlama :) Chaldean 13:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm a historian but I can't prove it". lol — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:45 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Xubuntu vs Zenwalk

Do you have any experience with Zenwalk? I'm currently running Xubuntu which runs great on a low-power PC but I was wondering if Zenwalk would perform any better. I hear it's based on Slackware which is supposed to be really efficient but I have not run it before. Do you have any experience with Zenwalk or Slackware? Sharru Kinnu III 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went and installed it myself and found out. It's pretty good actually. It's very efficient though less refined than Xubuntu. I think with a little bit more refinement and we have ourselves a wonderful distro. Sharru Kinnu III 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs

I say it's time to split the articles and on each article explain the movements to unite and the different nationalistic movements. Explain the Chaldean perspective. Explain the Syriac perspective and the Aramaean movement. Explain the Assyrian perpective and Assyrian nationlism. The uniting article should be Syriac Christianity. What I'm getting at is that each perspective on why they feel they are that group should be thoroughly explained as well as the opposing groups counter to that claim and in the end explain that ultimately they are united by more similarites than differences. There are countless perspectives on this issue. Many feel that they are all of these people merged. Some feel connected to one and not the other. And some are blatant ultra-nationalists. Sharru Kinnu III 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rktect

Has this user been a problem before now? 209.244.42.97 20:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see he has been blocked thrice and arbitrated once.209.244.42.97 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brēšîṯ îṯau-wâ Melṯâ

Hello Gareth,

In the image Brēšîṯ îṯau-wâ Melṯâ you created, the two waws connect to the right (in the serto version). Shouldn't they be written in their normal form? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was fine when I typed it, but I think some bit of software had a problem with using unlinked waws in the middle of words. — Gareth Hughes 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Catholic Church of the East

Our "professor" wants to change the name of the Church. Can you please clearfy the meaning behind the name to these Chaldean Aussie teens please - Talk:Assyrian_Church_of_the_East#Questioning_the_name_of_the_Church Chaldean 08:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting User 38.117.139.174 be banned permanently

Gareth, I just noticed that User:ImmortalGoddezz fixed the Imette St. Guillen page from a change which I consider malicious from user 38.117.139.174. This person, whoever he/she may be, has done this before on Imette's page in July. Please check the history of the Imette St. Guillen page. FYI, I have reason to believe that this person is someone I know here at my firm. Let me know if my I.P. matches this person, thank you. Also, please let Candice User:ImmortalGoddezz know, thank you again.--MurderWatcher1 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's 4:41 p.m. New York City time and the above user did it again! I undid what he did but please block this user!--MurderWatcher1 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: It's 5:48 p.m. New York City time and I saw that 38.117.139.174 left a comment on the talk page for Imette St. Guillen. ImmortalGoddezz and I left our respective comments.--MurderWatcher1 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian talk page reversion by Elias Alucard

Can you rule on weather his revert is justified. I feel the subject matter I posted is VERY relative to the subject matter of the article and I'm not at all interested in a edit war over a talk page so I'm asking you to rule on weather it should be retained or reverted. Sharru Kinnu III 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Garzo has given up on us. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:26 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Quite indeed so. Sharru Kinnu III 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you blame him? I have clean my hands from the project for right now as well. Chaldean 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Template cleanup

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infingement on California Kingsnake article

I am a relatively inactive wikipedia user, but I was randomly checking pages when I stumbled upon the California Kingsnakearticle, and the content within seems to be fully copied from http://www.petclubuk.com/view/page.do?id=362, and I am completely unaware as to what to do in this situation, and as such, found an admin from the admin list (I selected randomly o.0) I trust you know what to do :) Chaos Reaver 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[3]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More on the Imette St. Guillen page from the Malicious User

GARZO: I left a message for ImmortalGoddezz but please check the discussion page for Imette St. Guillen, specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imette_St._Guillen&diff=prev&oldid=154801608

and you'll see this user left a comment which he/she deleted, directed at me. I believe that this user is one of the bar people who worked at The Falls, mentioned on Imette's page. Thank you.--MurderWatcher1 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request help with article Ancient Egypt

As you are listed as a member of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, I'd like to recruit your help in reviewing the article Ancient Egypt. The article is listed as top priority in the Wikiproject and as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, but appears to have failed to meet Good Article criteria at its last nomination. The article is in need of some serious attention.

In the past week, I asked for (and got) the article to be semi-protected to protect against the constant barrage of vandalism. This protection lasts for two weeks. I also did a little clean-up, added a map and so on. I would like to see everyone in Wikiproject:AncientEgypt have the chance to add their input to Ancient Egypt, and get the article up to featured status as soon as possible. I believe the article is at least 80% of the way there, and some focused attention will bring it the rest of the way.

The most pressing concerns seem to be the culture/architecture section, and the achievements/unsolved problems sections. Also, the entire article, especially the achievements section, the sources, and external links need to be seriously checked for accuracy. These sections also require a little organization too.

Ancient Egypt ought to be the top priority of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, and I look forward to working with everyone to get this article cleaned up and hopefully promoted to featured status. Thanks for your help, Jeff Dahl 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian identity

Hello Garzo, I think you should listen to this interview (wait a few seconds and it'll pop up). An anti-Assyrian like yourself, I'm sure this project will break your heart once it's released. Enjoy! :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:25 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, make sure to pay attention to the fact that the producers behind this project is one Chaldean Catholic and one Syriac Orthodox. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:27 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. I don't appreciate your labelling either. — Gareth Hughes 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your decline just proves my point. You are one-sided, anti-Assyrian, and you refuse to listen to what he have to say. You're nowhere being "neutral" and objective as you claim to be. If you were, you'd at least give this interview a chance. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:00 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, c'mon. Chill out. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, I apologize for those remarks. But Garzo, what do you say about we start collaborating again, and I get my act and temper together? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:42 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My warning

I would like to say I DID NOT do the vandalism to the "fall of constantinople" page. I never remember doing those edits I saw in the history. I am sorry if it was somebody else on my IP, but it was not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.219.156 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I listened to Aboun.ogg

I've only begun studying Syriac, but was curious about your use of begad kepat in the chant. Specifically, it sounded as if your use of "bet" never mutates after a vowel.

I have heard both "awoon d'washmaya" and "avoon d'vashmaya", but never "aboon d'bashmaya". Is it just a different regional dialect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchristopherlittle (talk • contribs) 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Good luck with learning Syriac. How are you learning the language? There are a number of differing pronunciations of Syriac. In the recording, I use a pronunciation that is usually used in Syriac Orthodox liturgy, from which this setting is taken. In this pronunciation, the letter bēt is often pronounced as if with quššāyā. You will also hear the zqāpā vowel pronounced as 'o'. There are a few other features that differ in this text from a 'classical' pronunciation. — Gareth Hughes 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Syriac by Wheeler Thackston. It's a very very slow process... Compounded that I'm guessing at best about pronounciation based on his guide. --Jchristopherlittle 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchristopherlittle

Thackston can be a bit tough. I know it's popular in the US, but I don't think anyone in Europe uses it. Robinson (Paradigms and Exercises) is the old favourite, but I think Healey's First Studies in Syriac is probably the best there is on the market. Thackston is just a little odd in its presentation, but it's main draw back is that it uses unvocalised Syriac. This discourages the learner from pronouncing the phrases, which hampers familiarisation of the language. I'm all for exposing students to unvocalised texts, as it's important when dealing with real texts, but I do feel that it's better to work without vowels once one has a basic grasp of the language. Having said that, I know a number of people who learnt with Thackston and have done well for themselves. — Gareth Hughes 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ܫܠܡܐ ܐܚܐ ܡܝܩܪܐ

Hi there Gareth! I was wondering why the Kurds are trying to make Adiabene and Corduene Kurdish? We all know Adiabene was Syriac/Assyrian and not Kurdish, and we all know the Kurds origin is not in Mesopotamia originally.--Yohanun 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For exactly the same reason you want them to be Assyrian: politics. It is done by the piecing together of vague references to 'Assyrian' or 'Kurd' with some none-too-clever analysis. It's all rather sad, and I don't want anything to do with the rewriting of history for political ends. Please don't let this response be an invitation to meaningless discussion. — Gareth Hughes 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Politics and BS asside, the Kurds and Arabs did the same thing in Arabization and Kurdification and sadly you are right to an extent. Some modern Assyrians are going through hell and high water to Assyrianize anything remotely related to Syrian or Assyrian. Again I would like to point out that we're Syrians meaning Aramaic-speaking Christians and not Aramaeans because in terms of history they Aramaicized the middle east after Akkadian faded away and yada yada yada after Christianity to distinguish themselves from the pagans called themselves Syrian. The only reason Assyrian or Syriac are used today is to distinguish between us and Syrian nationals [and with that the implication of an Arabic identity]. It's sad how close the Aramaean and Assyrian movements are in that they try to fall back on our ancient identities that were dissolved into newer ones when we already have a Syrian identity that is unfortunately hijacked by the [Arab] state of Syria. Sharru Kinnu III 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)