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.

---

Syriacs

Shlomo Gareth,

Would you be so kind as to give a reaction to my suggestion for (re)starting a project with the purpose of co-ordinating the articles related to the Suryāye? I think the subject is too complex to be dealt with on a single-article basis. There are just too many articles involved. I believe this problem has been lingering on for too long now, and needs to be solved in a way that involves people coming from and/or having experience with the various (sub)cultures involved.

A Syriac Christianity portal would be nice, I think. This could in my opinion co-exist with overlapping portals dealing with the modern Assyrians, Aramaeans, and the Aramaic language. But first we need to set up a structure that allows contributors to place the articles concerned in a wider context.

I hope this approach would prevent statements like "Modern Assyrian language is called Syriac in English" (on the so-called future page) from remaining unnoticed.

Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement is 100% accurate. The language spoken by Assyrians are modern dialects of Syriac aka Neo-Aramaic. I don't what Assyrians have don't to this person but his tone is VERY ANTI-ASSYRIAN.King Legit

I don't appreciate people shouting accusations on my talk page, especially when they're not about me! I think we have too little material yet to need a portal for it all. We could use Syriac Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a 'hub' article to link into the others, or create a new article to act as the hub. It should, in either case, be a place where there is a general description of the complicating factors around ethnicity in the Middle East, and some description about how peoples who are traditionally Christian and traditionally use the Syriac language describe themselves. — Gareth Hughes 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There might not be enough material for a portal yet, but how about a project? I suggest renaming that project Syriac Christianity.

I'd also like to have an article Syriacs again, which could mention the various definitions of Suryāye/Syriacs, just as the Assyrian people page should do (cf. the German-language article on modern Assyrians). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I requested a move for the miniproject to a new project Syriac Christianity. Please see Talk:Syriacs/miniproject#Requested_move--Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Modern Assyrian language is called Syriac in English" - Benne what problem do you have with this statement? Chaldean 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly opppose to a "Syriacs" page, as it tries to put groups under a different name. It makes it look like as if "Syriacs" is an ethnicity or something. Chaldean 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are people in this world who define themselves, whether ethnically or whatever, as Syriac. They call themselves Suryoye and point to a long history of being called such. They point out that 'Atorāyē' was originally used to describe Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Nineveh/Assur district. As for the name of the language, ܣܘܪܝܝܐ is the most important spelling over all regions of all periods, and the proper English version of that word is 'Syriac'. — Gareth Hughes 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

whether ethnically or whatever, as Syriac. - and when they say that, they mean they are "Christian". Suraya = Christian. Suraya = Syriac in English. So "Syriac Christianity" makes perfect sense. Not "Syriacs". Chaldean 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that argument is not going to work with someone who studies the history of the language. Of course, the most important Syriac word for 'Christian' is ܡܫܝܚܝܐ. There are other words, but they are not as important as that one. The word ܣܘܪܝܐ can be vocalised as 'Suria' (where it is used in texts to refer to the Levant as ܣܘܪܝܐ ܓܘܝܬܐ — Suria Gawāytā — and to Mesopotamia as ܣܘܪܝܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ — Suria Barāytā). When it is vocalised as 'Surāyā', it is a debased form of ܣܘܪܝܝܐ — 'Suryāyā' — which has the basic meaning of 'Syrian' or 'Syriac'. Its translation as 'Christian' is a late, minor, mediaeval connotation, which stands against ܐܪܡܝܐ — 'Armāyā' — which shifted in meaning from 'Aramaean' to 'pagan'. All of this is there in the history and manuscripts, and it is only for political reasons that people today want to simplify the rich heritage of the past into one, monochrome strand. — Gareth Hughes 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Payne Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary doesn't mention "Christian" as a possible meaning for ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, and considers ܣܘܪܝܐ an "unusual spelling" of the same word. In Syriac class, I was taught that the word for "Christian" is ܟܪܝܣܛܝܢܐ (or ܡܫܝܚܝܐ indeed). How should I understand this? Could it be that ܣܘܪܝܝܐ began to mean "Christian" in a context where Syriacs were the only Christians? Cf. the mediaeval connotation of the word Turk, which often was used as a synonym for Muslim. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it: the ܐܪܡܝܐ/ܣܘܪܝܝܐ dichotomy used these two virtual synonyms to divide the Aramaic-speaking peoples into Christian and non-Christian groups. However, the fact is that, before this occurred, the two were ethnonyms, one with a pure Semitic root and the other with a Hellenistic one. — Gareth Hughes 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Benne, you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. Kristyana isn't ARAMAIC. It's derived from Latin/Greek. MSHEEKHAYA means Messianic aka Christian, in Aramaic. Souraya is also used interchangebly for a Christian just as the Greek vs Turk scenario. No one in modern times (up until the huge worldwide diaspora) in the middle east used Armaya or Ormoyo, Athuraya/Othuroyo on the other hand has been used for ages as has Suraya/Suroyo... and so forth. I've lived in Iran and Iraq. Have cousins in Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon. Where you get your info, I don't know, most likely from people in the diaspora who want to start a new identity... like Sarhad Jammo... you most likely won't know who he is but I'm sure Chaldean does.King Legit

another thing, why do you have so much clout... you seem to be THE ONLY ONE disputing the term Assyrian. I don't care if you took a Syriac class or two. That means absolutely NOTHING. I took French I and II and World History. I'm not going to claim I know more about it that someone native to the language or country. That would be absolutely foolish. Everyone knows history is dictated by the people who wrote it aka the victors of wars and those in power. Yet your side of the story isn't even that, your just anti-Assyrian. That's what you present to wikipedia is Anti-Assyrianism.King Legit

I am not even going to respond to this ridiculous rant of yours. I thought I'd asked Gareth a question, not you. If you have something to ask me, let's not use his, but my talk page. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, I was not talking about historically, I'm talking about today. Today, if someone in Iraq or Turkey tell you they are Suraya, what they are trying to imply is that they are Christian, not "ethnic Suraya" Chaldean 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First to Sargonious: I have already said that I don't like to read that kind of thing on my talk page. Benne has demonstrated that he knows Syriac. You might want to look at Acts 11.26 (PDF link) in the Peshitta for the use of 'Template:Semxlit'. Second to Chaldean: there are people who call themselves 'Suryoye'. Almost all of them belong to the West Syriac tradition, and hardly any are from Iraq or Iran, or in the same areas of the US diaspora that those of the East Syriac tradition are in. They use this word to define themselves, they use it as their ethnonym. We've been through this so many times before. There are plenty of Christians who speak Syriac, at least traditionally, who do not call themselves 'Assyrian'. What point is there trying to make their long-standing choice disappear like this? Now, you'll probably call me anti-Assyrian again. I've called anti-everything by people here on Wikipedia: all it means is that I don't support their views. Just take it on board that there are people who for centuries have called themsleves 'Syriacs' and not 'Assyrians'. — Gareth Hughes 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I try my best to not call you and Benne anti Assyrian, but how can I not question your motives when you and him stand out compared to the general public opinion like [this] and [this] .

Gareth, can you please keep an eye on Arab Christians. Look at there argument in the talk page. Arab nationalist are trying to boost there numbers, claiming there are 800,000 Christian arabs in Iraq. Chaldean 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User iso15924

IMO your template knowledge could be helpful at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Writing systems#User iso15924 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care for ISO 15924, as there is insufficient openness and feedback in the registration system. I haven't been doing templates for a while, and it takes a little time to get back in the saddle with parser functions. You could use a switch sub-template like Infobox Language, but parser functions allow you to encode the variations in directly (albeit, perhaps not so easy to modify). — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Syriacs 2

I have implemented the new strategy devised on the Assyrian people talk page. Syrian, Syrians both now redirect to Syriacs which is no longer redirected to Assyrians. It is now a disambig page.King Legit 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Syriac by W. M. Thackston

I understand this book but it's written really funny. I don't mean in Syriac. I mean the way the book is written it's very sloppy. I also noticed that not everything is pronounced right and the Latin character system for Syriac stinks. What good books are there written in English on the Syriac language... I would actually prefer a dictionary more than a book on grammar. I know how to speak the language fine, I would like to learn a lot more words though. I've actually come up with a word for comptuer based on the Aramaic word for count. From mani I've come up with "manetha."סרגון יוחנא

Thackston is probably the most popular Syriac grammar in the US. In the UK, Theodore Robinson's Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar is more popular. Thackston is written in Estrangela throughout, and is designed for reading older manuscripts. Robinson is written in pointed Serto. Thackston's transliteration is quite normal. You'll probably be surprised that there is a distinction between khet (ܚ) and softened kap (ܟܟ), but this was the case in classical Syriac, and still is the case in many modern pronunciations. You're probably also unsure of the different vowel values, but he's using pretty well documented classical Syriac pronunciation. I quite like John Healey's First Studies in Syriac. I think it has been reprinted by Gorgias Press in the US: it has handwriting in all three flavours of Syriac, and some nice chunks of text at the back for translation exercises. I like your word for computer. I think Abrohom Huro came up with something similar in his Tawldotho, but I can't find it now. — Gareth Hughes 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found the Tawldotho entry. Nuro offers either ܟܘܡܦܝܬܪ (kumpyuter) or ܚܫܘܒܬܐ (Template:Semxlit). I prefer the latter. It's based on the word ܚܫܘܒܘܬܐ (Template:Semxlit, which occurs in mediaeval literature for 'arithmetic' or 'computation'. Its formation is based on what Nöldeke calls the nomen agentis — Gareth Hughes 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, can you please stop Sargon from writing what he thinks is right. He is trying to control the whole Assyrian page as if he is the sole author of the article. He writes things I have never heard of my life. Chaldean 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Referrences on the Assyrian people page

The referrences are misbehaving. They're doubling at times and some aren't appearing propperly. Do you know how to fix them?סרגון יוחנא 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ipa-N

you may be interested in

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Need someone familar with topic....

Hi Garzo,

I posted a humble request here for someone whose skill set and interests may resemble yours... Thanks! --Ling.Nut 02:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Encountering the Suryoye of Turkey

Hi

hope that everything is ok and that you are still active in working with syriacs.

I just wanted to say that i noticed that you were in a travel group in turkey August, 2005. With Beth mardutho.

http://bethmardutho.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol9No2/HV9N2TRSaintLaurent.html

I hope that you can see things from the perspectiv of syriacs/suryoye. And i hope that you enjoyed your staying there. The sad thing is that we didnt meet in turkey. I think we missed eachother in couple of days. I would have loved to discussed many things with you and Dr. Kiraz.

by the way My name is Michael and I have been studying suryoyo people for many years now.

God bless you

best regards Michael

Thanks, Michael, it doesn't seem a year now since I was on the Turo. It is a pity we didn't meet there. As you can see from the travelogue, we divided our time between the Turo and other important sites in the region. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to know about the trip. -- Gareth Hughes 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete My User Page

I quit Wikipedia. User:Sargonious

delete Peter Agga, Jihad Jones, and Yessou El Maseekh Satan The Savior is not mine.

Can you delete them or what?סרגון יוחנא

You put a notice on each of your user accounts (you're only supposed to have one really) that they are now inactive, and then you stop editing Wikipedia. Your user talk pages and their archives will not be deleted, as they are a record of your interaction with the community. However, you seem still to be editing Wikipedia, so you clearly are not intending to leave. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind about leaving completely. This place seems to be a visual narcotic for me. Too much information is never enough. I'm not concentrating on it anymore as now I see the Assyrian page is much better than before. I'll just make corrections on it and related pages every now and then.King Legit 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Everton F.C.

Hi Garzo,

I have reverted your grammar changes to Everton F.C. as the earlier incarnation is correct under British English. See the discussion on the Manchester City F.C. talk page for a good summary. If there were any edits in there that were unrelated to plurality then I would encourage you to recreate them. Thanks. ⁂veila# 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand the grammar issue. I admit to getting carried away. I think I saw the opening line was 'Everton are a club' and it snowballed from there! — Gareth Hughes 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MARVEL

Hi

Can you plase take a look at User:MARVEL's latest edits, he was banned for a month because of suck-puppetry and evading/violating 3RR, and he's already broken 3RR on Hatra upon his return. --ManiF 05:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arabic names

A year or so ago you were kind enough to weigh in and offer your expertise on Arabic names. Can I ask you to weigh in again?

During the last year I have been adding articles to the wikipedia on the Guantanamo detainees. I have done my best to write them from a NPOV, using verifiable, authoritative sources. When the DoD was forced, by court order, to release 6,000 pages of transcripts I started adding articles about those detainees, based on those transcripts.

About once a month someone nominates one for deletion, claiming they aren't notable. Frankly, I get the feeling that these efforts are really prompted, possibly unconsciously, by a desire to prune the wikipedia of material that does not reflect well on the USA - without regard to how well documented that material is, or whether it conforms to NPOV. The eleventh nominator announced his intention that Shaker Aamer should be a test case, and if it failed {afd} he would nominate all the articles on Guantanamo detainees for deletion. The fourteenth nominator also announced his intention that his nomination should be a test case -- for all the articles on Guantanamo detainees that hadn't been expanded beyond stub status.

It is hard to assume good faith from these nominators. When they complain about an article, and then I expand it, during the {afd} so their complaints are satisfied, they don't withdraw or revise their nominations.

When I expanded the most recent one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, I found that the USA had put another Muhamad Al Juhani, Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani, on their most wanted list, in January 2002. Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani was removed from the most wanted list, sometime in 2002.

Personally, I consider it likely that the two transliterations, Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani refer to the same individual.

I am not an expert on Arabic or Arabic names. But I am doing my best to learn about them. I think it was a mistake for us to follow the example of the Washington Post and the DoD and separate Arabic names into traditional European lastname, firstname order. I noticed that the DoD seemed to be having terrible problems managing their roster of prisoner's names at Guantanamo. They released an official list of all the prisoners whose cases were heard by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, on April 20 2006. And they released an official list of all the prisoners who had been held, in military custody, at Guantanamo, on May 15 2006. Given that they were released just 25 days apart one would have hoped they would have been transliterated the same way on both lists. They weren't. Approximately 20-30% of the names are transliterated differently on the two lists. Many of them were simple typos. Many of them differed only in that the names had extra components. But some of them were quite different.

Anyhow, the most recent nominator disputes that Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani are similar. He labels my noticing the DoD difficulty in using consistent transliterations "original research". Although he doesn't precisely say so, he implies that there is no possiblity the two transliterations could describe the same individual.

I found a page on the Saudi embassy's web-site where a Saudi official referred to the terrorist "Muhammad Al Juhani". It seems obvious, to me, that, if the two transliterations refer to two separate individuals, that this could refer to either the Muhamad Al Juhani held in Guantanamo, or the Muhammad Al Juhani who was on the most wanted list.

I put the addition to the article. The guy who nominated the article for deletion removed it, called it "fluff".

He has been complaining about me on WP:AN/I, and, frankly, mischaracterizing my statements.

Could you weigh in? Muhamad Al Juhani could refer to both Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani, couldn't it? I'll understand if you don't wish to be drawn in to another dispute.

Cordially,

Geo Swan

P.S. I don't think of myself as a disputatious person. I think it is the topic, not my personality, that gets me drawn into these disputes.

I've been away from my terminal for about a week, so get back to me if you still want help with this. Two Al-Juhanis is possible, they may be related, or not at all. When full names are given without kunya, the personal name appears first: I would greet these individuals as Muhammad and Khalid respectively. Khalid is clearly the son of a Muhammad — his father is probably not the same person as the first Muhammad al-Juhani. It would be wrong to treat 'Al-Juhani' as a surname in the European sense of the word. Criticising your attempt to understand who is who as 'original research' is silly game of process that some editors try to pull. — Gareth Hughes 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC),

Greetings,

I am going to ask you to offer an opinion on another question related to how the wikipedia articles try to address the tricky questions around mapping Arabic names.

I made a mistake, I think when I first started creating articles about guys with Arabic names, to try to follow the example of the US DoD, and the Washington Post, to try to figure out what the surname and family name of these individuals were, and have lists of Arabic names, or wikipedia categories containing mainly Arabic names, sorted as if we uninitiated English speakers could figure out the sort order that made sense.

I recently started a dozen or so new categories to help organzize the 400 or so articles about Guantanamo detainees. After reading so many of the documents the DoD has released about them I can see what terrible confusion the DoD experienced simply managing their identities. I put a note on the categories requesting other contributors to leave the articles in these new categories sorted on the default sort order, on their first character, and not take special steps to try to figure out a European style surname to sort them on.

When I saw another wikipedia contributor changing the sort order of some of them I left them a note asking them to discuss it with me first.

One of those awkward misunderstandings took place. I wondered why he or she wasn't replying. And he or she too must have been wondering, because they did reply, but accidentally put their reply on User:Geo Swan, not User Talk:Geo Swan, so I didn't see their reply until a day after they gave up on waiting for me to reply, and spent half a dozen hours, or a dozen hours, changing the sort order on all the rest of the categorizations in these articles.

Anyhow, in their courteous note to me they cited the Arabic names article, and said they thought it described how to figure out the "family name" portion of an Arabic name. And I have replied that I think that what the article describes as a "family name" is less like a European surname, and more like a clan name from an old-style Scottish clan, where the leader of a clan, like MacDonald might have people with a whole bunch of surnames being members of their clan.

1. In your opinion, does it make sense for those of us who are just beginners at figuring out Arabic names to specify a new sort order for those names?
2. If so, do you think it makes sense to use what the Arabic names article calls the "family name"?
3. Any pointers to other places us uninitiated can learn more about Arabic names? I strongly suspect that resolving questions about Arabic names isn't the main thing you want your wikipedia contributions to revovle around.

Ah, and let me thank you for the help on Arabic names you have provided in the past.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to say that the discussion is taking place at User:Geo Swan#Arabic names / Extrajudicial detainees. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan!

There are a number of complicating factors here. One factor is that Arabic names are used by varying degree by Muslims throughout the world, whether they are Arab or not. Further to this, among Arabs there is much deviation from what might be regarded as a classical Arab naming practice. In this regard, some people with Arabic elements in their names may have a European-style surname. In classical Arab names, the nisba does function somewhat like a clan name or a Roman nomen. In most Arabic-speaking countries, it is considered acceptable to address someone politely using their given name (ism). This is also true of Turkey, where a man called Mehmet would be addressed as Mehmet Bey (I suppose equivalent with Mr Mehmet). I think it would make more sense to list these people under the natural order of their names, rather than trying to find a surname equivalent. — Gareth Hughes 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Geo Swan 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lesslie Newbigin

I added a couple of 'public domain' bishop portraits to User:Garzo/moretea for your enjoyment, one just brand new, uploaded yesterday by a priest who met and photographed the late bishop. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alqosh

Gareth, can you please stop the person that is terrorising the Alqosh page? Chaldean 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Code-switching

As you seems to be a linguistic expert, perhaps this article could be of intrest to you. As it stans now, I feel like it's a mess, perhaps you could fix it? My self isn't so educated in the area. _→AzaToth 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Esoteric syntax

Hi Gareth, since you have experience with esoteric template syntax from your work at Template:Infobox Language, could you stop by Template:Ethnologue and edit it so that it has an optional label parameter that will default to {{PAGENAME}} if left blank? At first it had an obligatory label parameter that in most cases would be the article name, now it automatically gives the PAGENAME even if you don't want it to. I think it should be more flexible, but I don't know how to edit it accordingly. Thanks! —Angr 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! — Gareth Hughes 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr. That was exactly what I wanted! —Angr 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shlam Elokh Garzo!

Garzo, it's been a while since I last asked you a question but this time it's about Dab. He's vandalizing the Assyrian people page. We've all pretty much agreed on the current form of the Assyrian people page and he's making outrageous and unilatteral changes to it. Him and Chaldean are constantly reverting each other's edits and it's not Chaldean that's at fault. He's merely reverting Dab's nonsense. Could you please intervene?סרגון יוחנא

It looks like Dbachmann is giving the current academic consensus rather than the Assyrianist propoganda — vandalism: pot and kettle? — Gareth Hughes 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What Assyrian propoganda. I'm not affiliated with any establishment.סרגון יוחנא 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this tactic... I've used it before myself...

IranZaminBozorg is a blatant sock/meat puppet of Dab.סרגון יוחנא 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trouble on Afshar Experiment page ...again!

Dear Garzo, Michael C. Price is ignoring talk page discussions and is being extremely unhelpful in ensuring the content of the article is made objective. He insists his ideas on "decoherence" to be included in the "critics" section of the article without having explain explicitly what relevance it has to my experiment, in contrast to all the other cited critics who have gone to the trouble of writing papers on the topic. A quick look at the conversation below copied from the article's talk page should give you a better understanding of the emotional animosity involved. I have asked for the talk page to be archived and start a new page on the issue of decoeherence and its relevance, but to no avail. Maybe you can help? P.S. My paper has been accepted in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and will appear soon. (I can give you more specific information and testimonials from notable physicists on the importance of the paper only by means of e-mail as embargo does not allow me to disclose publicly which journal it is.) So all I am asking is that Michael write a paper like all the other critics and then post it in the critics section. I also think my rebuttals should be made available in the article to the same extent the critics' arguments are reflected. Thanks for your help.-- Prof. Afshar 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself. I shall have to be blunt, I see. Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity. There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery? The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL

Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The languages

Please help me try to understand this. What are we talking about in the Aramaic language page? The ancient aramaic that nobody speaks today or the neo-aramaic languages with the different dialects that I speak today? If it is today's aramaic language, then how can it have only 445,000 speakers when you add the total of its dialects of the Assyrians alone;

• Chaldean Neo-Aramaic - 600,000
• Assyrian Neo-Aramaic - 210,000
• Turoyo language - 300,000

adding them totally is far more greater then 445,000. And where does Syriac language fall in all this? Thanks. Chaldean 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Aramaic language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is about the three-thousand-year history of the language. Aramaic has always had some diversity in it: I can understand the ancient languages far easier because they are not as diverse as the modern ones. The numbers are a problem, and they probably did add up originally. One of the difficulties is guaging how many people speak these languages with sufficient fluency. Assyrian sources would likely want to overestimate the figure, so they should be used with caution. I think the figures were originally based on Ethnologue's information, which can be a bad source of information, but is relatively unbiased on such things. Classical Syriac is perhaps extinct, although it has continued to be used in the daily life of many monasteries of the Syriac tradition, and there are certain West Syriac scholars who are trying to revive it as a spoken language with some success. The East Syriac traditions are focused more on the colloquial languages, with the more literary dialects being Alqoshi among the Chaldaeans and Urmežni among the Church of the East. I have heard it stated, I think by Otto Jastrow, that there are around half a million to a million speakers of Modern Aramaic varieties today, and that's probably the best available figure. — Gareth Hughes 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ܫܠܡܐ

ܫܠܡܐ ܐܒܘܢ ܡܝܩܪܐ

ܐܢܐ ܐܪܐܡ ܡܢ ܐܬܪܐ ܕ ܒܠܓܝܟܐ ،ܐܠܐ ܒܫܪܫܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܡܢ ܣܘܪܝܐ .

ܗܪܓܬ ܬܐܘܠܘܓܝܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܬܪܬܝܢ ܫܢܝܢ ܘ ܗܘܫܐ ܚܝܐ ܐܢܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕ ܠܝܐܓ

ܘܐܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܨܒܐ ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܐܗܘܐ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܒܥܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܪܚܝܡܬܐ ...ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܬܐ ܬܪܝܨܬ ܫܘܒܚܐ

ܪܚܡܬ ܕܐܩܪܐ ܫܠܡܐ ܥܠܝܟܘܢ ܘ ܕܠܡܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܚܒܪ݀ܐ ܒܕܥܬܝܕ ̣ܘܐܢ ܒܣܡ ܠܟܘܢ ܗܘܢܐ ܗܕܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܦܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܥܠ ܘܝܟܝܒܝܕܝܐ ܥܪܒܝܬܐ ܐܪܡ

Believe it or not Danko again

Dear Garzo, Danko has once again infected the article. I have removed the related text, but would like you to keep an eye on this guy. The article is getting more and more un-ecyclopedic by the minute. This has to stop! Below is the exchange that promted my action. P.S. "Phil Sci" archive is NOT a peer-reviewed journal or archive and have previously removed Danko's paper, whcih I will request once more to do.--Prof. Afshar 07:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC):

" For example Danko Georgiev works from a pure math position and a QM definition of complementarity. He arrives at a situation in which he has two incompatible equations. The "=" sign doesn't work. And so one divides the universe in two, one in which one equation obtains, and the other in which the other equation obtains." Carl Looper

I am pleased that at least one person has realized the importance of my paper, and has verified the math content of it. The next step is to find out what have proved Afshar. While I am prone to accept (after suitable quotation provided by Afshar) that Bohr's view/interpretation of complementarity is wrong, I have mathematically proved that Afshar's claim to have violated the duality relation is inconsistent, and also I have proved that Afshar has not violated the mathematical definition of complementarity that is very nicely and profoundly linked to the (reduced) density matrix of the photon (qubit in general). I have suggested to Afshar that he has gone "too far" but he did not take seriously my advice. Only the claim that Afshar has disproved Bohr's interpretation of complementarity is possibly acceptable [yet, I need to see exact quotation by Bohr where Bohr exposes his own views]. But the absurd Afshar's claim to have proved $V^{2}+K^{2}=2$ deserves more attention by all participants of this discussion, because such a huge mistake immediately must question Afshar's competence in QM. Again I want to stress on my main thesis which has never changed - even if there are no wires there is no which way information. This is clear - Afshar starts from wrong premise, and derives wrong conclusions. Unruh and others accept the wrong premise of which way information and then wrongly try to save complementarity. So please do not play with the semantic load of physical terms, mathematical definitions have been already done by physicists, I did not invent them, just have shown how a real scientist must approach the problem through rigorous mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is where I draw the line on insanity in Wikipedia. As discussed before the material presented in Danko's paper is Original Research and will be removed from the main article due to the admin. Gareth Hughes's request and Danko's own promise: "I will prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued." Your questioning the which-way information in my experiment is a bigger claim than my claim on violation of Complementarity. There is a good reason why Unruh, Drezet and Motl disagreed with you, the conservation of linear momentum ensures validity of which-way information (See my paper on the crossed-beam experiment AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299.) It has been explained to you a number of times by world class physicists before (in a not so flattering language, which if need be will be publicized), and just because an uniformed person (Carl Looper) happens to agree with your nonsense (I'm sure due to lack of knowledge about your pathological past which included claiming I had falsified facts and committed scientific fraud) you feel justified to advertise your OR in Wikipedia. I am removing the ref.s to your paper and anyone who disputes it can start an arbitration request. I will not allow an article on my work to be tainted with utter crackpottery. -- Prof. Afshar 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear admin, I would like to inform you about recent vandalism done by Afshar on the article concerning his own experiment. Recently posted by me paper at PhilSci concerning his experiment has been added as reference in the Afshar experiment article by one of the participants in the discussion, namely Carl Looper. Afshar however decided to act by his own will without discussing his modification on the talk page, and started to insult Looper because of his statement that my work is mathematically correct. All of the papers on Afshar experiment are preprints and web blogs, because peer-reviewing itself takes 2-3 years. Afshar's own work is also not published in peer-reviewed journal, but only in conference proceedings. Also Afshar's own paper has been submitted to Physical Reviews series of journals and has been rejected for publication. Afshar never posted oficially the received negative comments for his work, but instead exploited and exploits popular magazines and media to annouce his work, and now abuses Wikipedia. Please revert the changes done by Afshar, as they have not been approved by other editors of Afshar's article. Danko Georgiev MD 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry Danko, my paper HAS been accepted for publication in a famous peer-reviewed journal. I HAD the support of a number of world-class physicists all along, and more have joined their ranks recently. Your paper on Quantum Logic is at best a reproduction of a very samll part of Robert B. Griffiths' Consistent Histories version of QM, which you have not even mentioned in your "paper." Then you have such scholarly statements like:"This is a very deep argument raised by Georgiev (Wikipedia, 2004), that was completely neglected by physicists." or "Needless to say that the importance of the fact that in the image plane of Afshar's setup one has P(x) = P(x) was not recognized by anybody except Georgiev in 2004 when results from Afshar's result was announced" which is nothing short of delusional. The reason nobody had rasied the issue was because it is wrong! You have been told that so many times, yet you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth. I expet Grazo to deal with this situation swiftly, or ask another admin with the right experites to rectify the problem.-- Prof. Afshar 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Afshar, I have said "physicists", not "all physicists". Also I have proved that your work is mathematically inconsistent, so it is funny that you resort to consistent histories at first place. Danko Georgiev MD 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry Danko, but you have picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy at the wrong time. I'm not going to let you off easy this time. Something has to be done about your behavior in Wikipedia. No ifs and buts about it.-- Prof. Afshar 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Turoyo Language

YOU said revert: 'Western Assyrian' is a complete fabrication, there is absolutely no prior record to the use of that term, which was invented in the diaspora - how is Turoyo different? Please explain how Turoyo has a record of prior use by its inhabitants, and how it is not invented in the diaspora? Chaldean 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The language is generally referred to as 'Turoyo' by its speakers and in academic literature. Often its speakers prefer 'Suryoyo' (always spelt that way), but that causes some difficulty as it simply means 'Syriac'. Thus, 'Turoyo' has historically been used to describe the language of the Turo. 'Surayt' is an old name for the language that is used by some older speakers. I think Aziz Tezel's doctoral thesis offers the best description of the etymology and usage of 'Surayt' as a term for the language. 'Western Assyrian' is a new creation attempting to link the language with the mixture of Ashiret dialects and standard Urmezhnaya that is often called 'Assyrian'. 'Western Assyrian' has no historical use, and is not widely used or accepted by speakers of Turoyo. However, Turoye in Tur `Abdin use either 'Suryoyo' or 'Turoyo' to describe the language — using the former when there is no need to be clear that it is not the classical language that is intended, and using the latter to be clear that Kthobonoyo is not meant. Jastrow always uses the term 'Turoyo'; whereas Tezel uses 'Western Neo-Syriac (Turoyo)', which causes problems as 'Neo-Syriac' is a generally rejected term now, although still found; Ishaq always uses 'Suryoyo', which is clarrified at the beginning of his Lexicon as "Suryoyo d-Tur Cabdin au Suryoyo Turoyo". I cannot find any literature where the language is called 'Western Assyrian' (there seems to be a growing trend of attaching this label to everything — haven't you noticed?), and the term 'Surayt' has become a marginalised term (it's not in Jastrow's index). — Gareth Hughes 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The language is generally referred to as 'Turoyo' by its speakers by its speakers in the homeland? Gareth do you have any proof of this? While I only visited ACOE villages in Turkey, I did come across some Syriac Orthodox and they all told me they speak Suryoyo. If the majority of Syriac Orthodox in Tur Abdin use Turoyo, I dont mind at all, but I find this very hard to believe. I am more then aware that Western Assyrian is a properganda term created in the West, just as the "Aramae" identity. And oh by the way, "western Assyrian" was not created by Chaldeans or Assyrians, please dont try to make it look like as if were trying to "Assyrianize" Syriac Orthodox, when the truth is that Syriac Orthodox themselves created the term, because of th hostility they got from Syriac Orthodox "Arameas". I dont know if you see it or not, but their are many Syriac Orthodox in Europe whom are strong supporters of the Assyrian identity, up to the point created terms like "Western Assyrian". I did not write this article = Assyrians in the Netherlands, but rather contacted a Syria Orthodox from their and he wrote me the article..notice the "Western Assyrian" being used their. Chaldean 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, 'Suryoyo' is the usual name for the language in the language, but 'Turoyo' is generally used when it's necessary to distinguish it from Kthobonoyo, which is also Suryoyo. For that reason, the academic literature tends to use the latter, more precise term. Yes, I do know that there is a strong Assyrian movement within the SOC, which has unfortunately caused divisions among the people, and it is from the SOC Assyrians that the term 'West Assyrian' has been adopted, in the same way that 'West' and 'East Syrian' has been used. — Gareth Hughes 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Spammy Flan

Stop blocking us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.159.237 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 January 2007.

Why? I blocked 24.62.158.237 for persistant vandalism. The IP address you are using is not blocked, nor has it ever been blocked by me. If your IP address is shared by an institution, then you should blame other users around you who vandalise Wikipedia: they vandalise and the IP addresses get blocked, it's that simple. If you're using an ISP's IP address, you can avoid getting blocked by creating an account. — Gareth Hughes 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate mass-spamming messages: don't do it again. — Gareth Hughes 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Invite

Diez2 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Simele massacre

Greetings Gareth. I was wondering if I could have your opinion about the article. I was wondering if you think the page is neutral enough (I am trying my best to keep it as such.) Does the page sound wiki-material or too propergandish? Thanks. Chaldean 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. What do you think of this edit [[1]] Chaldean 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish inhabited regions

Please take a look at the notice that you placed at the head of Kurdish inhabited regions. The notice asks you not to depopulate the category. Seeing as this is a policy which you yourself have used in preparing the category for deletion, the category has now been repopulated. You are also reminded that this category is politically sensitive, and widespread deletions lack such sensitivity. Please let the deletion process run its course, and, if the decision is to delete the category, the links to it from articles may be removed by hand or by bot. As the policy is quite clear depopulating categories again will result in you being temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was removing the categories as per WP:NOR and WP:RS. The policy on populating categories is also quite clear (WP:NOR/WP:RS applies). I wont be reverting you, but I take good note of this nonsense. --Cat out 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. The notice clearly says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress", which former you have done. I understand the policies you have linked to above, and realise that while they may be relevant to any discussion to delete the category, they can not be used as excuses to depopulate the category. One is clear, the others require consensus judgment. — Gareth Hughes 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hello, Garzo, could you please have a look to the user:PStaple? I think he is a sockpuppet of user:Busca4. Thanks --Garcilaso 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

reply about Indonesian article

It wasn't a test. From what I know East Timor official languages are Tetum (that's pretty similar to Bahasa Indonesia, but still not Bahasa Indonesia) and Portuguese, not English. — 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The constitution of East Timor provides for Tetum and Portuguese as the official languages, but allows for Indonesian and English as working languages in the government administration. However, even though your change was good, you managed severely to curtail the article — see your edit in this diff. This is sometimes caused by the technical limitation of some browsers, but was flagged up as a test. You may want to try dumping a lot of text into the sandbox to see if your browser can cope with the length of longer articles. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Style guidelines for sound pages

Hello, recently CyborgTosser and I discussed and came up with proposed style guidelines for all the individual consonant and vowel pages wherein the Occurrence section would have a table rather than a bulleted list. You can see the discussion here. So far nobody else has commented on the proposed guidelines and I believe it's safer to get a solid consensus before undergoing the work to change so many pages. If you could comment on what has been proposed, even if it's a simple yay or nay, this would help us out quite a bit. Thank you very much. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac

Mr. Hughes, I ask that you reconsider your endorsement of FayssalF's summary in light of my more detailed response thereto, which I have only now found the opportunity to put together.Proabivouac 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oriental orthodoxy

Dear Garzo,

I am asking your help in stopping this wikipedia user who is attempting to tamper with the facts in the Oriental Orthodoxy Page. Please read my statement in the discussion page and his answer followed by my reply. I am reporting this to you as an administrator to take whatever action needed to stop him, I think that he will not back up. Please advise. Orthopraxia, 11:44 pm, Pacific Time, January 23rd, 2007

Mlahsö

Hey Gareth, could you please check out the question at Talk:Mlahsö language? Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

I believe we discussed the phenomenon of wikipedians leveling accusation of "original research" that stretch their definition of "original research" to unreasonable extremes.

I've received another accusation of "original research" -- this time from an administrator -- who left an admonishment that could be interpreted as a threat of blocking, or some other sanction.

Could you take a look at this colloquoy? Do you concur that conflating Yakup with Yakub was original research?

FWIW I believe this is the first exchange I have ever had with this administrator.

As before, I am happy to look for your reply here, on your talk page, if that is convenient for you.

Thanks! — Geo Swan 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I hope I can do something for you some time.  :-)

Languages

How on earth did you learn so many language to such high levels?! I have trouble remembering new words in my native language never mind in foreign languages. Thulium 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By using them, I suppose. I mug up on them and use them. — Gareth Hughes 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nineveh Feast

I have never heard or seen Syriac Orthodox members fasting for baoutha? [[2]] Chaldean 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://sor.cua.edu/Calendar/index.html — sixth line, third paragraph. — Gareth Hughes 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You learn something new everyday. Chaldean 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :)

I just wanted to tell you that I really love your photographs of vestments--they really help on individual articles. I also think your singing voice is beautiful. "Pange Lingua" often resides on my playlist. I hope I do not sound creepy, but I just wanted to thank and congratulate you on your work. Also, your interests are cool--almost exactly like my own. May I add you on Facebook?

Pax Domini Tecum, --Feerique 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC), Anissa

Yes, that's a little creepy, but, seeing as you have my robes and my voice, you might as well have my Facebook profile. — Gareth Hughes 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic Wiktionary

Gareth,

Long time no chat. :-) I've proposed something that you may find interesting over on Meta. When you have the time you might want to give it a peek.

אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Steve! It looks interesting, but writing a dictionary that is anywhere useful is a time-consuming process. How many workers to you imagine you will be able to get on board? I don't have the time for it at the moment, but let me know how it goes. — Gareth Hughes 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not a silly edit.

History will look back at this era in that view.סרגון יוחנא 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the sillyness and do good work on wikipedia. I think Gareth should've banned you more then 24 ours since this isn't the first time you have missed around here. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria and improve pages neutrally. Chaldean 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about this — http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_kings_of_Babylon&diff=106053453&oldid=104493504 — pretty silly, trying-to-be-clever political crap. You've been blocked before for vandalism and abusive behaviour. This is to let you know that there are now no warnings. — Gareth Hughes 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway... What do you think about this commentary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chaldean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

In a word: sad. With two others: badly informed. — Gareth Hughes 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to the anti-religious nature of it.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)