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.

---

Assyrians

I swear on my fathers head Gareth that I say this with all due respect, but do you think the word Assyrian is a dirty word? A word that you can't stand? A word that you take offesne too? Then what is your reason for removing sourced info? [[1]] This isn't the first time. Do you remember before on how many times I used to ask you how can the average person not think you having an anti-Assyrian agenda? Well do you blame me? Chaldean 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I knew you were going to do this. I know that no ancient authority refers to Bardaisan as Assyrian. Now, I do not think it a 'dirty word', but, as you, I am against what I perceive to be the anachronistic of modern ethnic distinctions to historical figures. Now, I believe that there is a case for calling someone from the Mosul/Nineveh area (or at least from the east bank of the Tigris) an Assyrian, I can find plenty of cases where, when ancient manuscripts use the word 'Assyrian', it is used in a negative sense to describe God's use of Parthian/Persian powers to harass the Christians of Northern Mesopotamia (I've just read that in the Life of John of Tella). I may come across to you as anti-Assyrian as I am challenging things that you hold very dear. However, be assured that I am not on some campaign against Assyrians. I have read some of Naum Faiq's Syriac editorials, and greatly admire his drive to consolidate the disparate tribal interests of the Assyrian people. I would like to see increasing cohesion of the people rather than the fragmented identities we see today. However, I stand against anyone who would just try to paper over those cracks, or anyone who would invoke the pseudo-science of disproved racial theories or rewrite history to make a point. The problem I have is that no academic source would ever say anything as bold as "Bardaisan was not an Assyrian" — the question is simply not academic nor debatable, because there is no evidence either way. To ask me to find such evidence is a unacceptable due to its very nature.

Now, I believe that there is a case for calling someone from the Mosul/Nineveh area an Assyrian - excuse me but if thats the case then why were Syriac Orthodox of Tur Abdin calling themselves Assyrian? It seems that you have decided on what the borders of Assyria is/was? Assyria's boders even when it was a province of Romans and Persians always included more then just Nineveh.

challenging things that you hold very dear - I am really getting annoyed of you doing this; painting me as a typical nationalist that goes around make fictional claims. I take pride in my work here and I make sure it is accurate to its best. So I dont understand why you randomly point out this edit when I have time over time have repeatly reverted false/pro Assyrian edits (my last edit as far as I can remember for now.)

I stand against anyone who would just try to paper over those cracks, or anyone who would invoke the pseudo-science of disproved racial theories or rewrite history to make a point - Again, you speak as if I'm making pro Assyrian edits without giving sources, just going on my way, no concern, etc etc. Let me tell you Gareth that I'm here to write our UNWRITTEN history that was never written by the West since throughout history it seems all we were to them was Nestorian (and thats it.) Please note: I am NOT re-writting. I refuse to be baised. And I take pride in that.

The sources I gave were based on an article written in Christiansofiraq.com. Now I do not own the two sources, but I had faith in the writter (William Warda) and I believed it backed the claim. If you think it is false, then thats fine, but please STOP accusing me of being a properganda machine. I am a strong believer in history being as accurate as possible. Chaldean 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to accuse you of anything. What I am doing is standing up for something that you really don't like — that the use of the word 'Assyrian' to describe an ethnic group, as it is used today, is relatively modern, and it should not be applied anachronistically (I do have a reference to back that up, but I don't want to hammer it in). I'm afraid that you cannot claim an oral history that has never been recorded or investigated as verifiable. Your faith in William Warda does seem to be unfounded unfortunately. I tried this search to try to find the article you got the references from. As you can see, the only useful phrase William Warda produces is "The second-century Syriac writer Bardaisan" — why can't we just use that? If you have the link to the article that you used, could you give it, because I am perplexed at how anyone looking at Wiesehöfer could use it support calling Bardaisan Assyrian. Looking at this article by William Warda convinces me that he really knows very little about Semitic linguistics — I could make all Ethiopians Assyrians using his methodology!

We are both sensible people. Believe me when I say I am not on some anti-Assyrian agenda, because I want to believe that you are not on some pro-Assyrian agenda. The web is full of lots of rubbish, pro- and anti-. Is it too much to ask that we try to cut through it? I am going to maintain that it is anachronistic to refer to all Syriac writers of the past as Assyrian. Wherever this occurs in articles, I'm going to ask for references. I have a pretty big library available to me, so I can look up most things. So, it basically comes down to verifiability: if you cannot give decent references for something, it gets removed. It cannot be your word against mine, or original research: claims that have no backing should be removed. I know it's blunt, and I know it's frustrating, but that's got to be the way we write articles. — Gareth Hughes 12:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

if you cannot give decent references for something, it gets removed. It cannot be your word against mine, or original research: claims that have no backing should be removed. - I have no problem with this. Why do you think that I do? I am well aware that you are more knowledgable about Syriac(the language)-related topics and I have faith in your edits. But when you make some unexplained or not well explained edits then I have to question your motives. I might come off to you as someone that is trigger happy when it comes to situations like these, for that I am sorry. Chaldean 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have given two references to support the 'Bardaisan is Assyrian' line. I've got Wiesehofer here, so I'll check out that reference this afternoon. The Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society isn't shelved at the Bodleian Library, so I've ordered it from the stacks and it should be on my desk first thing Monday morning. I'll check out the references so that we can discuss their relevance. However, I think you could find more references calling Bardaisan a Parthian or Mesopotamian — so, do we go by counting which word is used the most? All in all, I find ethnicity a rather troublesome subject, and, as there is nothing written about Bardaisan's ethnicity, I would find it preferable to use geographical (Edessan, Osrhoenean, (Northern) Mesopotamian) or linguistic (he wrote in Syriac) that are well attested. — Gareth Hughes 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, this edit was just made to Ephrem the Syrian by 208.106.1.187. This stance is indefensible. Not only is the title well regarded in the academic literature of English and other languages, but this edit is based on no ancient sources.

In this series of edits you make repeated ethnicity claims for Bardaisan and offer two references. It looks like there's only been one printing of Wiesehöfer in English translation. I'm looking at page 199, as you suggest, and I cannot find anything about Bardaisan, Edessa or Assyrians on that page (none of those words, nor anything like them, is present). Now, Bardaisan is mentioned on page 205 (once, line 11). The word 'Assyrian', nor anything like it, appears on the page. Using that page for reference, one could use the geographical origin of "Mesopotamia" (line 10), but that is all the text has to offer. The nearest use of the word 'Assyria' in the text is on page 76, and nowhere in the book is Assyria or Assyrians linked with Edessa in general or Bardaisan in particular. The citing of Wiesehöfer simply does not stand up to inspection. On Monday, I should have Yoab Benjamin's article from JAAS in front of me. I hope it provides more useful support for your position. However, I note that the article is not about Bardaisan or Edessa, but about Abdisho and al-Hariri. On Monday, I shall return with my readings of that text. If I find no support for the 'Bardaisan was Assyrian' position there either, would you be so kind as to return the statements about Bardaisan's ethnicity to the way they were before your edit. Of course, you could furnish me with more references, but I do wonder where you're getting them from in the first place. — Gareth Hughes 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this matter should be resolved decisively, it has been lingering on for too long, damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. Too many Syriac fathers have been labelled "Assyrian" now, without proper justification. E.g., Ephrem the Syrian has been posthumously claimed by Assyrianists, as is shown by his picture in the Assyrian people article, and by repeated attempts to translate Suryāyā as "Assyrian" or something similar. Only if the people concerned consider themselves Assyrian (or Aramaean or Chaldaean, for that matter), they should be referred to as such on Wikipedia.

In general, I think there should be a Wikipedia policy regarding questions of ethnicity, which should be approached in an intersubjective manner, considering the diffuse nature of the ethnicity concept. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea your right, your approach of adding Aramean everywhere would greatly improve Wiki's credibility. Chaldean 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it if this issue did not get out of hand. We can agree that certain historical figures are considered to be a part of the culture of modern Assyrians. That can be the baseline that we can agree. Now I contend that the description 'Assyrian' was not used in the historical era in the way it is today by Assyrians: it was used to describe the people of the Assyrian Empire (political description, not ethnic) and as a geographical (not ethnic) description of people from Adiabene (Arbela, Mosul, Nineveh). Now, I can find plenty of good, reliable sources that reflect this naming pattern, and none that reflect a wider ethnic use of the term. It is fine for a culture to claim historical figures as their own, but it is a different matter to suggest that these historical figures claimed that culture without evidence.

So, on to evidence. It was to sad to report over the weekend that one of the sources claimed to support Bardaisan as an Assyrian (Wiesehöfer) did not stand up to scrutiny. This morning, I received the back catalogue of JAAS to read the other source used to support the claim. I must say that the evidence is not good. I read the entire article by Yoab Benjamin, which was not about Bardaisan or Edessa. The page used as a reference, page 57, carries absolutely no reference to Bardaisan, Edessa or Assyrian — if I could have found anything slightly supportive, I would have mentioned it. I really tried hard to find anything in the article that came close to saying that Bardaisan is an Assyrian. This is the best I could find (page 52): "‘Abdīshō‘ d'Subā...ranks amongst the more than one hundred and fifty Assyrian authors who contributed to the enrichment of Syriac public literature during its long history ranging from about the second century after Christ down to the thirteenth or fourteenth". As you can see, it's not a lot to hang your hat on. The mention of 'second century' could easily refer to Bardaisan, even though he is not mentioned in the entire article, but this is as close as it gets. For it to be a half-good source to support the claim that Bardaisan can generally be referred to as Assyrian, I would at least expect his name to figure somewhere in it. For the source to be decent, it should refer to primary sources. I would really like to see a copy of the original William Warda article just to check how he uses these references. The volume of JAAS that contained Yoab Benjamin's article also contained one by William Warda. I skimmed through it and was really quite appalled by the grand claims he makes based on evidence that he interprets in bizarre manner to make it mean what he wants it to mean.

So, I can say in all honesty that none of the sources used to support the position that Bardaisan was called Assyrian in his context stand up to the slightest scrutiny. I tried my best to find anything in the sources that would be supportive to such a position, but there really isn't anything on which to base any kind of argument. I shall ask for sources to support ethnicity claims for all historical figures in this field. I am happy to go and get the books and journals and check everything out. One case on my mind is Aphrahat. He is generally considered to have lived in Adiabene (although even that is uncertain), so he could be called Assyrian based on his geography. However, I can find no early sources that call him such, and most sources simply call him the 'Persian Sage' (though no one would go so far as to call this an ethnic label). — Gareth Hughes 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Keffiyah

Why do you think this strange a with two dots above is standard transliteration of Arabic ta marbuta? I always saw either -ah or -at.--Al-Bargit 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a neutral standard found elsewhere in articles. Of course, the ta marbuta changes pronunication according to its context, but always is a cardinal short 'a' in Arabic. However, this also leads to a close-fronted pronunciation in some dialects, which is often transcribed as '-eh'. The transcription with either '-ah' or '-at' to represent ta marbuta is indistinguishable from a word ending in a normal ha or ta, thus the two dots in transcription. — Gareth Hughes 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructed Languages and Wiki

Hi Garzo,

Thank you for taking the time to comment about the Toytonic page. Yes, Toytonic is of course a constructed language. But, it is also an Indo-European language (as are Esperanto, and a few other constructed languages). I was hoping you could please tell me more about what qualifies a language for listing in Wikipedia?

I have noticed several engineered, artistic, constructed, and even fictional languages have their own page or pages. There are also pages for languages that are only in the concept stage or even for language development efforts that have yet to render a full language.

If you could tell me a bit more about what is required for entry, then perhaps I could know whether this was the right place for the information (or simply know what information to provide).

Now, about Toytonic. Toytonic is the product of an ongoing collaborative effort between linguists and language educators to develop a language that is based on PIE and it's early daughter languages while evolving those systems into a more dynamic language. Toytonic is based on the word roots of PIE and several functional features of other Indo-Eurpean languages. These ancient forms have been modified to place the language at a point that accounts for the evolution from PIE that most linguists agree to be inevitable natural changes (mostly phonetic). Then, the language is structured to be absolute (everything has only one meaning). It should be simply in structure and easily learned in a short period of time.

The efforts have resulted in a grammar, basic vocabulary and rules for adding to the lexicon, and some spoken and written speech. The next step will be to compile a larger lexicon with cross-references to English, German, and Spanish. From there an effort will begin to begin establishing a literature through writing and translation.

I don't know exactly how many speakers there are currently, but it is certainly below 30 (guessing that based on contributions). As more information (words, lit, etc) become available that number is expected to increase substantially.

The final step of the project will be to establish groups of speakers (formal or informal) and monitor the langauge for change.

Please advise from here,

Thanks

Drew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

This is a rather difficult area, and there may well be Wikipedia articles that describe conlangs in a similar situation. However, it is useful to think about what the threshold for an article in an encyclopaedia would be. I think that the best guidance available is Wikipedia's notability criteria. It might be possible to put together a reasoned argument for this article, but you will have to disclose information about the creator, when it was created and an estimate how widespread it is. — Gareth Hughes 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Aramaic

We are having some kind of debate in Sweden about the Kh used a lot in the Assyrian Neo Aramaic dialect and the H being usd a lot in the Western Aramaic (Turoyo,Suryoyo). Are there any proofs of which one of whom is the correct pronounciation?--Yohanun 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical Syriac and Turoyo both preserve the phonemes [h] (written with the letter ܗ), [ħ] (written with the letter ܚ, and often transcribed as ḥ) and [x] (written with the letter ܟ with rukkākhâ, and often transcribed as ḵ or ḫ). In most varieties of modern eastern Syriac (all except Hertevin language as far as I know), even though all of these letters are still written, the pronunciation of the last two have merged, and they are both pronounced as [x] (or what you might write as 'kh'). I hope that makes sense. — Gareth Hughes 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast answer but I would like you to answer two things if you can answer them of course. Is the Sureth dialect , who uses P,A and Khet pronounciations the correct dialect or is Surayt with the F,Å and Heth pronounciations the correct dialect. Which dialect has developed its own pronouncations? Best regards / --Yohanun 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be improper to call either variety the correct dialect. Both varieties are heavily influenced by classical Syriac, but are essentially modern developments of unwritten Middle Aramaic varieties. It is mostly due to long-term differences in the underlying colloquial Aramaic that the variation exists. We have enough evidence to suggest that, in Turoyo, the letter ܦ was pronounced in a similar way to classical Syriac, where it alternates between the sounds [p] and [f] (although it seems that the alternation may have ceased at an earlier period, making the sounds lexically important in Turoyo). In the eastern varieties, this letter is almost always pronounced as [p], although, as syllable coda, it can become a [ʍ].

The vowel that is called Pthakha in the east and Ftoḥo in the west seems to have been an [ɑ] in classical Syriac (although its value in the colloquial middle Aramaics is unknown). In the modern eastern varieties, this vowel has become slightly centralised, becoming an [a] (but more centralised that its cardinal point). In the modern western varieties, this vowel has become rounded, becoming an [ɔ]. This distinction is what is considered, by Swedish writers, to be a/å.

Finally, we get back to the letter ܚ. It has always been pronounced as a [x] in eastern varieties. Whereas western varieties have followed what appears to be its classical Syriac pronunciation, which is a [ħ]. An interesting aside concerns the Hertevin language, which, although clearly an eastern variety, pronounces ܚ in the classical manner, but also pronounces the soft ܟ with the same phoneme — something that is unique in Aramaic languages. — Gareth Hughes 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Araden dialect it can be both ħeth, kheth or khap. For example khilma which means dream is actuall spelled ħilma with a ħeth and not a kap. The Telkeppe dialect tends to use the ħeth more often due to the close interaction with the Arabic language and the use of many Arabic-derived loan words rendered Aramaic. eg. Bisl=Bisla, Riz=Rizza, etc. In the dialects of Iran and northeastern Turkey not only is ħ lost and merged with kh but also the waw becomes a vav.

The classical word for 'dream' is ܚܠܡܐ, so I would expect most varieties to write it the same way, and most eastern varieties to pronounce it [ˈxil.ma] (the classical pronunciation was probably more like [ˈħel.mɑ]). — Gareth Hughes 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Araden dialect goes all classical phonemes are retained. Truth is ħaqutha. Gamal can be Jamal or Ghamal, zayn can be zhayn. kap can be chap or khap, taw can be thaw, dalath can be dhalath, etc.75.46.169.82

I don't think that the dialect of Araden has the voiceless pharyngeal fricative, as the only Northeastern Neo-Aramaic variety that has it is from Siirt Province and lacks the voiced velar fricative. Both sounds together are only preserved in Western Neo-Aramaic and Central Neo-Aramaic. The spirantisation of Tau and Dalath is a feature of NENA varieties of the Plain of Mosul, which is lacking in the Urmian varieties. The Jamal and Zhain are found in Kurdish loanwords almost without exception (sometime Jamal appears in later Arabic loanwords too). — Gareth Hughes 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I speak the Araden dialect it is definitely there just like the Arabic version of the letter. We say Esho' Msheeħa not Msheekha and ħabibti not khabibta and ħuba not khuba. Though the Telkeppe dialect uses it more for example they say Maħki Sureth where we would say Makhki Sureth. Especially in Arabic loan words like Maħkima or Shiħmaħshi... though the tribes that came from Hakkari such as part of my anscestory speak more like the Urmian dialect. My dad's side tend use Zuzeh for money where most say Pareh and for sandals they say Chikaleh where everyone else says na'aleh. Soleh for shoes vs qundareh, etc. The Tsar is Gone but I am King 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking schools

Hi Garzo, if you're going to block any IPs (e.g. User talk:203.122.254.26) clearly marked as a belonging to a school, please use {{schoolblock}} as your block reason which clearly explains how anon-only blocking works. Otherwise, the unblock-en-l mailing list will continue to have to deal with many more confused or irate emails from schools. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've just had to use that template to block another school IP. It is certainly an improvement. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ephrem and Bardaisan

Hi Gareth,

Would you be able to get a hand on C.W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan (London & Oxford: Williams & Norgate, 1912 & 1921)? In Vol. II, p. 225, Ephraim is supposed to be cited saying about Bardaisan: "the philosopher of the Arameans made himself a laughing-stock among Arameans and Greeks." I'd be very grateful. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger Pearse has typed up and uploaded the text, which can be perused at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm (scroll down to Ephrem's section to see the table of contents). Mitchell's work is of a good academic standard, and, even though, it's almost a century old, is still the best English translation of Ephrem's prose refutations. It does certainly describe Bardaisan as 'Aramaean'. Though, especially as the palimpsest is unvowelled, that could equally well be read as 'heathen'. — Gareth Hughes 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It doesn't seem very likely, though, that "heathen" is meant here, since he mentions Aramaeans and Greeks in one breath, and in general uses the names Aramaeans and Syrians interchangeably when referring to his own people.

When it comes to Ephrem himself, Jacob of Sarug also uses Syrians and Aramaeans synonymously in his homily of Mor Ephrem (Joseph P. Amar, "A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug". In: Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 47, fasc., 1, no. 209; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995, #48, pp. 37ff). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you like, I could check the Syriac text of Ephrem's prose refutations tomorrow. I know Joseph Amar's work on Jacob's memra on Ephrem is in the library, so I can compare the use of words in the two. Of course, poetry has the advantage of being limited to a certain syllable count, which can often dictate how a certain homograph should be read. — Gareth Hughes 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated ... --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have Mitchell's edition of the Prose Refutations in front of me now. I think p225 may have been the wrong passage, but I've found the right passage. I'll give you p225 first. The occurrence on 225.24–26, which read ܘܦܫ ܠܗ ܪܘܟܒܗ ܕܦܠܣܘܦܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ. This translates as "And there rests the philosophy of the Aramaean". Even thought the passage is part of the refutation of Mani, this section explicitly deals with Bardaisan. However, I found the sentence you wanted elsewhere: in 7.45 – 8.1 (against Bardaisan's Domnus). The Syriac reads ܓܘܚܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܥܒܕ ܢܦܫܗ ܒܝܬ ܐܖ̈ܡܝܐ ܘܝܘܢ̈ܝܐ. ܦܝܠܘܣܦܐ ܕܐܖ̈ܡܝܐ. This translates as "But a laughing stock he made himself among the Aramaeans and the Greeks, the philosopher of the Aramaeans". The word ܐܪܡܝܐ only occurs in one other place (in the refutation of Hypatius vol.1 122.7), it is speaking about the Manichees' reading of the Gospel of John is errant because they follow what is written in the 'Aramaean' and do not refer to the Greek text. The word ܣܘܪܝܝܐ does not appear at all in the Prose Refutations. I'm not sure what you want to make of these lines, but the context makes it quite clear that the word 'Aramaean' is being used neutrally to describe the language and people (either those who speak it or the inhabitants of a geographical region). What is certain is that Ephrem does not intend the kind of ethnic understanding of such terms as they are used today — this use is quite modern.

Now, looking over at Joseph Amar's edition of Jacob of Serugh's 'Memra on Saint Ephrem', Jacob uses the word 'Aramaean' of Ephrem in one distich, and follows it with the word 'Syrian/c' in the following distich.

155
ܗܢܐ ܕܗܘܐ ܟܠܝܠܐ ܠܟܠܗ ܐܪܡܝܘܬܐ
ܘܒܗ ܐܬܩܪܒܬ ܬܡܛܐ ܠܫܘܦܖ̈ܐ ܖ̈ܘܚܢܝܐ

"He who is the crown of all Aramaea
and through him it approached to attain spiritual virtues"

One late manuscript (the Harvard Syriac 100, 1900) has the word ܐܘܡܬܐ, 'nation', instead of ܐܪܡܝܘܬܐ, 'Aramaea'.

156
ܗܢܐ ܕܗܘܐ ܪܗܝܪܐ ܪܒܐ ܒܝܬ ܣܘܖ̈ܝܝܐ
ܘܟܠ ܡ̈ܠܦܝܐ ܡܢܗ ܘܠܟܐ ܒܗ ܐܨܛܒܬܘ

"He who was a great rhetor among the Syrians
and all teachers from him until now have been adorned through him"

If it's of interest, distich 46 compares the singing of the Hebrew women with tambourines at the Exodus to the singing of Aramaean women (ܐܖ̈ܡܝܬܐ) with the hymns of Ephrem.

I hope this tells you all you want to know. Let me know if there's anything that you want me to look into further. — Gareth Hughes 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy See of the East

Gareth, does this topic needs its own page or can it be merged with something else? Chaldean 04:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the name is worthy of an article: it's actually about the importance of the See of Antioch in the history of the Church. It's also anachronistic and partisan by claiming the see for the Syriac Orthodox: the Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Syriac Orthodox and Catholics and Maronites are all led by patriarchs of Antioch. I would suggest merging it, after editing out bias, into either Antioch or Patriarch of Antioch or both. On the other hand, it might make more sense merged into Syriac Orthodox Church. — Gareth Hughes 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Syriac Orthodox page needs expansion (and improvment.) I asked for a translation of the arabic version since it was a featured article, but nothing came from it. Chaldean 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic looks easy enough, so I might be able to do some work with it if I have enough time. I'm just about to get started translating a lot of Narsai, so I'm not sure how mcuh time I'll have. The Holy See article could have useful bits of it farmed out to more relevant articles and then turned into a redirect. — Gareth Hughes 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mor Gabriel / Deyrulumur Monastery

Gareth,

The article about the Mor Gabriel Monastery was moved to Deyrulumur Monastery, on the grounds that the latter is the official and more common name. I wouldn't know what the official name is (both names are written at the entrance), but it seems to me that Mor Gabriel (or Mar Gabriel) is by far better known, also used in the French- and German-language Wikipedia's. What do you think? If you agree, would you be so kind to move it back? Thanks a lot. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, confusingly the situation seems to be the reverse of Deyrulzafaran. Mor Gabriel Monastery is the name by which it is better known, and Deyulumur seems to be a Turkish afterthought. See the SOR page on the monastery, whereas http://www.deyrulzafaran.org/ says it all. — Gareth Hughes 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Thank you very much for your comment here. :) 86.56.48.12 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lamsa Bible Online outrage!

Why must the link to the Lamsa Bible be continuously deleted? I cannot understand how a link to the ONLINE LAMSA BIBLE is not appropriate for the wiki pages about the Lamsa Bible and Dr. Lamsa. It is also relevant to pages to do with the Bible, New Testament, Aramaic, Peshitta and Peshitta primacy. I cannot understand your continual resitance to a link to an online version of the Lamsa Bible, on wiki pages dedicated to Dr. Lamsa and his Bible version. Some pages have absolute garbage links and yet this, which is 100% relevant to said wiki pages is deleted. This is extremely frustrating. Please stop deleting the link, it is a great resource and is dedicated to the late Dr.

You are using Wikipedia to advertise a website. The two IP addresses you have used have no other edits but the addition of links to this website. I gave you information on Wikipedia's policy on external links. Another website seems already to provide the material that your site provides. While the link is relevant to Lamsa Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and George Lamsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is only partially relevant to Aramaic primacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and of minimal relevance (being a rather unimportant translation) to other articles. However, the baseline is that links added by users who are involved with improving article texts are generally considered useful if relevant, but links added by users who do nothing but add the same link to multiple pages is considered to be spamming. Looking at the section on links to be avoided, I can see that this link fail points 2 and 3: it contains misleading content and has been added for promotional value. You shall now receive your third spam warning. If you repeat your actions, you will receive a final warning. Any further spamming after the final warning will result in your IP addresses being blocked and the website you are involved with being added to a spam blacklist. Thus, your continued action in using Wikipedia to promote your website will make it very difficult for anyone to add a link to it. — Gareth Hughes 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

What is it it with wikipedia? I'm trying to point out that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians. But this place seems uninterested in the truth. You of all people should be against the labeling of these groups as Christian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Read the messages I've given you about WP:NPOV. You are imposing your own views upon the encyclopaedia. Read the articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses to find out how they see themsleves. — Gareth Hughes 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So if the Ku Klux Klan described itself as part of the NAACP then we would put them on the NAACP page? I would hope not! Then why put these groups in Christianity just because they want to mislead people about what they believe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 March 2007.

I don't understand your references to local groups or movements: I am European. The groups you are deleting from mention grew out of the restorationism movement in the USA. As such, they grew out of radical Christian movements in that country. Although they are widely considered to be heretical by other Christian groups (and likewise they consider other groups to be in error), this is a value judgment. Sociologically, they are part of the diverse branching of Christian groups that ocurred in the USA. — Gareth Hughes 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan is a group that basically believes in white superiority. The NAACP is a group to help minorities but tends to help African-Americans primarily. The Ku Klux Klan obviously is not part of the NAACP and it would be outrageous to do so. The example is to show that the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are only calling themselves Christian to fool people who don't know the difference and Wikipedia is playing right into their scam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cis2002 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 March 2007.

Still, it's not a convincing argument. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly modern movements that grew out of the radicalisation of fringe Christian groups in the USA. This makes them sociologically part of the diverse group of Christian religions. Through the millennia, different groups of Christians have called other groups heretics, so that everyone is considered heretical by someone. Thus, it is impossible to make value judgments, such as yours, on different groups based on one perspective. — Gareth Hughes 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The term Christianity refers to those that worship Jesus as God. If you don't then you are not a Christian - fact. If the United States which is a democratic republic was ruled by a monarchy then it would cease to be considered a democratic republic regardless of it's statements or history the same is true of non-Christian groups.Cis2002 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it might seem like a straightforward statement, but nowhere is Christianity so defined. You probably don't realise that christology is very complicated issue, an issue that has been wresteld back and forth over the centuries. Perhaps you should read that article; it covers some of the historical issues on the nature of Christ quite well. — Gareth Hughes 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You ought to be and probably are aware that, complicated or not, the Fathers had no problem excommunicating heretics. I would suggest that westling for the truth as they did is better than studying them and not wresting. A.J.A. 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me. — Gareth Hughes 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what you've told me. That's what user space is for. A.J.A. 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, do you have a point? — Gareth Hughes 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem, the world has muddied the waters as to what the term Christianity means. It's origins came about as a reference to those following The Way (those that believed Jesus was the Christ). I am not concerned with what Satan has tricked people into defining a Christian as but rather what the term actually does mean. And yes there are absolute truths. Wikipedia will never be a valid source as long as it tries to claim everything is relative.Cis2002 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Conservapedia — it's a Wikipedia for Americans who want to ignore reasoned argument, academia and the rest of the world. I think they allow 'This is what I learnt in Sunday School' as an authoritative source there, so you might be in with a chance. — Gareth Hughes 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought we were supposed to avoid negative persoanl attacks like your last post? Guess it's okay if you're in the majority and an administrator. BTW, I thought you were a priest and you are poking fun at Sunday School? Wonder what Jesus would think of that?Cis2002 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cis2002

Please be aware that against guidelines, User:Cis2002 has made his userpage home to polemical statements. I am writing to you because you have been dealing with his failure to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Vassyana 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What guideline? Is there a guideline that says that I can't criticize Wikipedia?Cis2002 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

adding new categories

Hi, Garzo! I saw our company name as one of the entries here in wiki. I would like to put it in more appropriate categories which describe the type of service it renders, however, those categories aren't existing yet. Can I create them instead? Categories I want to add are: Testing services, Certification services, Inspection services. Your advice much appreciated.> alen_ph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alen ph (talk • contribs) 08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

If the company is Société Générale de Surveillance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it already has sufficient categories, and Category:Product certification seems to cover it fairly well. The categories you suggest above don't make much sense to me, and probably wouldn't be all that useful. — Gareth Hughes 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I got your point. :-) and I appreciate your quick reply. -alen_ph

Regarding Armenian_language info that you removed

I noticed you were mentioning the Talk page of Armenian language about Aramaic language not being Armenian. I agree with you that there are a "handful" of the words. Yet, you removed the entire sentence instead of just removing the Aramaic part. Please put back the other parts of the sentence, specially Sanskrit which we put a blue link also with it. Sanskrit however is not the case like Aramaic, its Indo-European like Greek and Persian, and it was formed in the Armenian Highlands. Since you dont know much about that, please just remove the Aramaic part of the sentence and leave the important info back there. Thank you. 75.4.31.25 02:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is my edit. The entire sentence was referenced by Artak Movsisyan, whose credentials seem to be dubious. My initial edit was to ask for a quotation from Movsisyan so that it could be judged. If Movsisyan is the source of the original text, with its hopeful inclusion of Aramaic, then it's not worthy of inclusion. As I said, my inital thought was simply to request a quotation, but another editor gave me reason enough to remove it until it can be proved a worthwhile source. The rest of the paragraph contains reasonable arguments about Hellenic and Iranian connexions. It certainly isn't the place to list favourite Indo-European languages (like more distant Sanskrit), and a trendy mention of Aramaic is not going to fool anyone. This is reason enough to leave this claim out until the actual argument from Movsisyan can be judged worthy. — Gareth Hughes 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont put back the Aramaic part, but leave the sentence without the "Aramaic". Its not just Movsisyan, if you read the sentence it says "some scholars" like Movsisyan for example or to name a few. By the way the person in the Talk Armenian language that told you to remove it, was the guy that even put that sentence. There are more scholars that know this like V. V. Ivanov and Tamaz_Gamkrelidze, who reveal the origins of IE homeland and IE language origins. So please do not randomly remove info that you dont know about, these other scholars also mention Sanskrit being a daughter language of Armenian that stayed in the homeland of IE, Armenian Highlands —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.175.97.167 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 March 2007.