Misplaced Pages

Assyrian Nationalism

I will be devoting several paragraphs of my forthcoming book to the subject of Assyrian nationalism, and the negative effect (in my view) of the tactics used by some of the more extreme nationalists on the international image of the Church of the East, so it's a subject which I will be educating myself on over the next few months. You are very welcome to use my paragraph, hot off the presses, on the origins of Assyrian nationalism, but as it has not yet been published I suggest you cite as its source an article by the late J. M. Fiey, 'Assyrians or Arameans?', which was published in The Syrian East (Madenkha Suryaya), volume 10 (1965). I don't have the page references to hand, but I'm sure there's a link to this article somewhere on Wikiproject Assyria, or it shouldn't take you long to google it. I've basically boiled down Fiey's 13-page article into a single paragraph, so it's a perfectly legitimate citation.

If I may, I'd like to run some of my stuff on Assyrian nationalism past you as I write it up. I know it's a sensitive subject, and although I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest if my book offended Assyrian extremists (indeed, quite the reverse), I would be very unhappy if I said anything that upset moderate Assyrians and Chaldeans.

Keep up the good work. The truth will prevail, eventually ... Djwilms (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou and of course you are very welcome to run it by me, it sounds interesting. The excerpt is a good summary in itself. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I share your impression that Assyrianists have conspired to get the upper hand over a number of articles, but in my experience, this isn't about the Chaldaean group at all. Those Assyrianists I have seen were perfectly happy to admit the existence of a separate Chaldean group. What they were after, and what really had them foaming at the mouth, was the suggestion that their group was also called "Syrian" or "Aramaean" by some of their own people. I.e. this is entirely about Assyrianism pitted against Aramaeanism. The result, as always in these cases, is of course an entire category of Misplaced Pages articles misused as WP:BATTLEFIELD and degraded in quality, plus the impression taken away by non-involved editors that the entire ethnic group (at least the angry young men with internet access) is composed of puerile vitriolic morons. In other words, nationalist editors on either side of the divide are only doing damage to themselves and the image of their cherished in-group. --dab (𒁳) 11:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would quite agree that more damage is done than good. You seem to have a deep understanding of the problems that have been caused by the proselytizing Assyrianists on Misplaced Pages. I think much of the problem is rooted in the power that having the article titled after them has given them. It would be very interesting to have your thoughts on this at the recent discussions on Talk:Assyrian people if you have time. Thankyou for the message. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is quite a bit of difference between blind Assyrian nationalism and edits that are sourced and backed up though, and you seem to have a bit of an issue with Assyrians that looks to me more personal than anything else tbh. The Assyria After The Empire section on Assyria is an example. If folk make unsupported comments then fine, remove them or ask them to provide some links, but on that issue, those that edited the section actually backed up what they wrote pretty well, and there wasnt a logical or fair reason to remove them.

The edits about Assyria after the fall of its empire seem fine, quite importantly theyre backed up by good independant source material. Seems to be more than a little Anti Assyrian bias going on here!

Looking at these edits i cant see any evidence at all from the anti Assyrian camp. But those folk that have added the Assyria After The Fall section have put in evidence; Saggs, Frye, Parpola, Roux, Biggs, Saggs, Tsertelli and so forth are pretty good independent sources from what i can see and should be taken very seriously, same with those sources in Armenian, Arab, Russian and Georgian records. I think unless those people who dont like to admit the link between the ancient and modern Assyrian people can provide the same proof or evidence to back their side up, they should back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV

AIV is for persistent vandals and spammers only. Please do not use it to air your grievances with another editor. If you can't work it out between yourselves, try on of the content noticeboards or, as a last resort, WP:ANI. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have my report mixed up with the other one HJ. There is real vandalism in my report, unlike the other one. The other one saw my report about his behaviour and brought his dispute to AIV. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I left him the same message. AIV isn't the correct venue since the two of you are obviously in some sort of dispute. If you really must, you can take it to ANI, but I suggest you keep your head down and I'll keep an eye on it. I'm not averse to issuing my first block if it continues, but it would be nice if you two could work it out or leave each other alone and save me from getting my brand new mop dirty! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your advice then. All this editor has done is attack me, make accusations, vandalize my talk page, and refuse to use the article talk pages to resolve anything. I haven't done any of those things. So I reported it, and he followed up with his attacks and disputes at AIV. I mean, refusing to discuss on talk pages while repeatedly spamming personal attacks has got to be vandalism. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Be generous when you see uncited material

You removed the "Media" section from the Iraq article, saying that the material was "unreferenced". This material was not contentious, and contained a genuine link to the actual article on Iraq's media. I don't know why you were so heavy-handed, but rather than removing material, why not add a few {{fact}} tags to request people add references instead? cojoco (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh it was laziness on my part to be honest, I should have tried to improve it. It didn't need removing I agree. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian deletions

I'm curious about why you're systematically going through lots of articles with "Assyrian" in the name, removing most of the content, and then nominating them for speedy deletion? I realize that the articles are pretty bad, but arguably you are making them worse by deleting the material, not better. Thparkth (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the dead links and certain unreferenced bits. Some of the stubs seemed unnotable, and I nominated them for that rather than for content. I understand your concern though, so in future i'll consider going for normal deletion in these cases. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have removed some Assyrian material that HAS been referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Izzedine for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — ξ 23:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your editing styles and patterns are way too coincidental. –MuZemike 21:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I don't have friends here on WP....but I think I am diplomatic....But I always thrash things out none the less...and avoid verbage. Please can you give me the diplomacy barnstar. I've seen some others get it and frankly, I don't think they deserved it...so I would like it please. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)