User talk:Garzo

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Wikiproject Ancient Egypt Milestones

Help our Wikiproject improve! Recently we have been asked to set our milestones, in which we will strive to gain our goals (which could be number of FAs or such). Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuzzerack (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia profile

Hi Gareth. I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction for learning about building a wikipedia profile? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Catholic Church

Hi Gareth, could you maybe chime in at Talk:Old Catholic Church#Vague statement recently added? I genuinely don't understand what this fellow is on about. —An gr 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some mistakes in articles

"(...) Diatessaron 'survived to the present day'." Sometimes I do some mistakes. Usually I correct them later, f.e. Codex Beratinus II (hurry), Codex Sinopensis (careless), Codex Boernerianus (uncounscious), Codex_Mutinensis (surprised), Kodeks minuskułowy (tired). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moran

Regarding the summary for your edit reverting my edit: Why? 'Moran' has one meaning 'Moran Mor' another; all is explained in the article. The reason is that WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries recommends Entries should not be pipe-linked—refer to the article name in full. And the entry does not appear to fall under any of the described exceptions. If you'd like to make a separate redirect for the meaning that you entered, that would be just fine. Or else the entry may need to be a bit longer, such as "* Moran, a variant form of Mar meaning a Syriac title for Jesus Christ". older ≠ wiser 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your edit to have been overly bureaucratic. I wrote the article Mar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in order to draw together a number of related terms. I added a link to Moran (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that anyone searching for the meaning of 'Moran' as a Syriac title could find the article. Moran Mor is a related title, so I created a redirect there. The argument is that someone searching for this meaning of 'Moran' will come to Moran (disambiguation) looking for that term rather than 'Moran Mor'. I'll edit it so that we don't have a piped link. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac articles

I understand why you protected articles like Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, but it won't resolve the conflict, when the protection runs out I will revert the article to the other version. I've discussed it why in the discussion page of the article, but user:Am6212 ignores this, he just keeps reverting calling it "vandalism". Articles like for example Osroene, "...was a historic Syriac kingdom located in...", links to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people article, should it be redirected to Assyrian people though the article says Syriac? The TriZ (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garzo, I would be interested in how you justify this protection of a blatant violation of WP:CFORK. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help me

I do not know if you actually have a time, but I need some help. Possibly you remarked, English is not my first, or even second language (fourth or fifth). Of course, you remarked it. My thinking is typically slavonic, I developed from some boundories... Sorry, it is not important for now. Actually, I am looking for somebody, who wants to correct some of my articles. Especially Novum Instrumentum omne. I know, introduction in this article is correct, but later part of article... I am sure, not everything is correct. And the other article, if you have a time: List of New Testament minuscules, only introduction in this article. I know it is not correct. Please correct me. If nobody will correct me I will never learn your language (most important language in the world) as well, as I need it. I hope you understand me. Do you have time for it? By the way, I appreciate your articles concerned Syriac. I am impressed. Thanks for your willingness, to correct Syriac versions of the Bible. It was only one reason that I created this article, it did not exist before my editing. With great regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac vs Assyrian

Sorry to have to bring up a rather dull dispute over the translation of the word "Süryani" in Yusuf Akbulut, an article which you also commented on a while ago. I will not remove the changes by Am6212 and Trippss, letting you handle the disagreement when you get the chance. Best Ordtoy (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the Turkish word 'Süryani' is etymologically related to the English words 'Syriac' and 'Syrian', and the Syriac word ܣܘܪܝܝܐ. There is an open question whether 'Assyrian' has the same etymological root. However, it is safe to say that the English word 'Syriac' is closer etymologically and semantically to the Turkish. For a translator from Turkish to English to translate it with 'Assyrian' is adding a meaning to the text which the text itself does not have, and thus is a bad translation. I met with Yusuf Akbulut a couple of years ago. I can't remember him giving any clue to his preferred ethnic label, but that may have been a diplomatic silence. Likewise, an interview in Turkish is likely to be err on the side of caution. The answer is probably to find a neutral solution like: "Syriac ('Süryani' in Turkish, but understood by some to mean 'Assyrian')". — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I'm not sure if you looked at the recent history of Yusuf Akbulut, but 'Syriac' has is being rejected in favor of 'Assyrian' by some. The dispute comes down to whether the original Hürriyet article should be valued more than the English-language reports that came after. It's reached the state of a revert war, from which I have removed myself. My opinion was always to remove 'Assyrian' when quoting or paraphrasing what Akbulut said (based on the same rationale you used in your answer), but keeping it when referring to the organizations who challenged the Turkish government. In any event, it would be good for an admin to step in. Best Ordtoy (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Christians

Hi! Am6212 (talk · contribs), the user that was being disruptive on this article, just got blocked for abusive sockpuppetry and insane revert-warring. Do you have any objections to me unprotecting the page? Yours, east718 // talk // email // 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaic alphabet

A deletion request regarding de:Mandäische Schrift made look at the article here and Image:Mandaic Alphabet.jpg. It's not quite clear what's the source for the "Mystery" column. Article and image were create in ye olde times of Wikipedia, when sourcing was way less strict now, and while I take your authorship as proof of correctness, adding some explicit sources would be great.

The website I just delinked (for general reasons) states The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, by E.S. Drower, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1937 (Reprint Leiden:E.J. Brill 1962) page 241 as source. But by the autopsy principle (oops, article is missing here, see de:Autopsieprinzip, the requirement to not rely on sources only indirectly known) I don't want to add it without having it seen.

--Pjacobi (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost certain that the information was taken from Macuch's Mandaean handbook. I made a bit of a rush job of it. I might have some time next week to bring the book into the office and either give a decent attribution or redo the table properly. I'm not sure where the original file used to create the image is now. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Assyrian people

Gareth, Dab moved the page with no discussion what so ever. His reason was scope, but if you look at the article, it talks about Assyrian independence and Assyrian genocide and Assyrian empire, so I don't know how he got his reason. The page needs to be moved back. Their hasn't been no agreement on calling Assyrians as Syriac Christians in Wikipedia. So where did he get his title from? Chaldean (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Aramaic dialect classification

Dear Gareth! I'm working now on language maps of Neo-Aramaic and trying to look into all those "Assyro-Chaldeo-Ashireto-Jewish" cobwebs. Several questions I have already got, maybe you could help me:

Is the list of dialects in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic given according to Maclean 1895? Compared to this map (which is also done "d'apres Maclean") there are some discrepancies, namely:
First of all, is this scheme linguistically meaningful or it's only ethno-historical one? If
Upper Barwari, Dez, Baz are in Northern group in the article (A) but in "Group des "Achiret" in the map (M).
Central group (A) looks like Zones de transition (M) but I don't understand what is Anhar (A) (maybe it's corresponded to Achita (M)?) and it's unclear whether Nochiya (A) should include in this case Baradost, Tergawar, Mergawar, Khumaru, Derrenaye and Shekak.
Western group (A) looks like Group des "Achiret" (M) with mentioned exception. But what is Tal – I haven't found it in other sources..
Group de Sud (M) looks like Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. Is there reasonable linguistic frontier between it and the rest (=Assyrian Neo-Aramaic) or it's just confessional distinction?
Then, are all Nestorians in Iraq south of the Western / Southern group border the early 20 c. refugees from Hakkari? (cf. those maps)
Is there a more detailed classification of Chaldean Neo-Aramaic / Group de Sud?
Many smaller tribes aren't mentioned in the article and not easily classified looking at the map, among others: Nerva, Raykan, Pinyanesh, Sapna.
Were there areas say in early 20 c. where Neo-Aramaic was spoken by majority of population? Especially somewhere in Hakkari and adjacent areas?

Well, that's all up to now, but further questions will possible rise in future… --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is concerned, I wrote the dialects based on Maclean 1895, but with a little modernising. I'm sure if you look at the history you'll see my original version. Since writing the article, various users, mostly speakers of the language, have altered it. In the most part, this is to emphasize their ancestral village. Without further investigation, these insertions remain little more than a geographical broadening of the dialect groups. Certainly, what Maclean could gather in 1895 is not true now. Many distinctions in dialect only existed due to isolation and lack of ready communication. Printing presses brought the establishment of the Urmežnaya dialect as a standard form of the language, in opposition to the Aširet dialects of the hill country. The later movement of Aširet speakers to the Mosul plain has lead to the so-called Iraqi Koinē, which is probably the most widely spoken variety of the language in Iraq and diaspora (i.e. everywhere but Iran and Turkey). Chaldean Neo-Aramaic belongs at the southern end of the dialect continuum with Assyrian Neo-Aramaic; traditional southern Assyrian varieties have more in common with Chaldean varieties than Aširet or Urmežnaya. There is a confessional distinction between the two, but this also led to the standard variety to which each confession looked being different. Assyrians in northern Iraq looked to Urmežnaya, then the Koinē blend of Urmežnaya with Aširet, as the standard. Whereas, Chaldeans had long before established Alqošaya as a standard. As far as I can tell, the division between spoken varieties in Iraq and diaspora is breaking down, and Iraqi Koinē has become commonplace. The southern group of varieties bears much less distinction than Aširet. Even Hakkari, I think that Kurds lived alongside Assyrians, so there never was a sizeable region of Assyrian speakers. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo

Shlomo loch Garzo, long time no seen as I haven't been around. Hulmono loch w-fulhonoch (hopefully you will understand lol). Well what I came to ask for is to end this nameconflict on wikipedia once and forever. There is a conflict going on the Assyrian people's page, what it's title should be. I have messaged some adminstrators about this and asked them to move this article to "Assyrian/Syriac people" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" in order to end this conflict once and for all, and if possible lock it for changings in the title. I was wondering, as you know a lot of people around here if you could message someone who could make this possible? God bless, Aloho mqadesh --Yohanun (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot force one point of view until there is a consensus. I have long grown tired of this argument. The problem is that advocates of some of these names will not let any other version be heard. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion please...

If you have a moment could you take a look at the comment I made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Terrorism#When should we rename articles?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To be" in Syriac

Hey there Gareth,

Quick question: is there any difference between ܗܘ and ܐܝܬܘܗܝ, or do they mean the same thing? --334a (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both copulae and can often be used interchangeably. Their original functions are different: ܗܘ is the third-person singular masculine pronoun, while ܐܝܬ is particle (originally a noun) with the meaning of 'existence'. I feel in my bones that there is a difference in usage between the two, but I can't put my finger on quite what it is. I took a look at what Nöldeke says about Syriac copulae, and he comes up with some nice examples of equivalence, but none of difference. Here are the example sentences he gives:

ܚܢܢ ܚܢܢ ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ — ḥnan ḥnan bnai Abrāhām — the pronoun 'we' is repeated, the second is used as a copula: we (we)-are the-sons-of Abraham
ܚܢܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ — ḥnan enon bnai Abrāhām — the pronoun 'they' is used as a copula: we (they)-are the-sons-of Abraham
ܚܢܢ ܐܝܬܝܢ ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ — ḥnan itain bnai Abrāhām — the particle ܐܝܬ with the 'we' suffix: we are-(we) the-sons-of Abraham
ܚܢܢ ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܚܢܢ — ḥnan bnai Abrāhām ḥnan — the predicate is fronted: (we)-are the-sons-of Abraham we
ܚܢܢ ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ — ḥnan bnai Abrāhām — simple lack of copula/subject: we-are the-sons-of Abraham
ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܚܢܢ — bnai Abrāhām ḥnan — fronting predicate: the-sons-of Abraham we-are

Different writers in different periods have had a preference for one or other of these forms. I feel that ܐܝܬ as copula speaks of the existence of something (especially because it's used in the form ܐܝܬ ܠ to indicate possession), whereas ܗܘ is used to talk about the properties of something. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Thank you! --334a (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hey Garzo, just wanted to let you know that the Aramaic language article is currently up for review (regarding its featured status). I'm contacting you since you're the main contributor. Regards, Khoikhoi 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It looks like the wiki-bureaucrats were getting bored and jumped on this one with glee. I could do some work on it, to get it back up to standard, but it would be more useful if they provide a list of changes rather than wring their hands over their beloved categories. Would you have any suggestions? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue that I can see is that there aren't enough inline citations (in the form of footnotes). Although you listed your references here, the references aren't cited in the format that most featured articles are. I think back when the Aramaic language article became featured however, most articles did not adhere to this method anyway. Some examples of featured articles in which there are plenty of these include Mayan languages, Rongorongo, and Tamil language. You can try contacting YellowMonkey to ask what specific parts of the article needed improvement. If you want I could try to help you with the citations as well. Khoikhoi 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 steps

Hey Garzo, Thought you might like this [[1]] It was yesterday in Alqosh. Iraqi (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garzo, this user - User:Chaldeaan was created to somehow ruin my credentials by someone by acting foolishly. His userpage is a direct copy of mine. Isn't their any Wiki rule that would ban this user? You blocked him for 24 hours back in October. Iraqi (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imset(y)

The name of this god is Imsety. Before New Kingdom, this god was a goddess Imset (t is ending for names of goddesses), and was painted in yellow, without a beard. Later, this goddess became a god Imsety. So, the article must be named Imsety, with y.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72.93.90.146

Hi, you posted a first vandalism warning to the IP 72.93.90.146 several months ago. After looking into recent unconstructive edits, it appears that several others warned and temporarily blocked the account since.

Perhaps something can be done to prevent further problems due to this user?