Revision as of 02:33, 25 March 2015 editLawrencegoriel (talk | contribs)238 edits →Mosul← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:42, 25 March 2015 edit undoFlightTime (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors156,924 edits →Mosul: Good luckNext edit → | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:::Your ]. We are all racist even the experts I get it... I am the one surprised here. I wish you all the best of luck. -- ] (]) 02:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | :::Your ]. We are all racist even the experts I get it... I am the one surprised here. I wish you all the best of luck. -- ] (]) 02:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::What are you talking about? Nobody has called you racist. I am saying that the opinion which was cited in the book you cited was no more than an opinion. The book even begins the entire section with "One theory is..." meaning that it has not been proven! I change the word from Assyrian to Native instead of Chaldean, which can easily be inferred from the Woods document. I am not racist by any means and the only POV I have is from one which can be cited without question and put in correct context and still remain true. Perhaps my research skills are too advance for such a web site as this where one can simply take a sentence, completely out of context, and cite it in inappropriate ways to validate an invalid idea! I was under the assumption that this site was an encyclopedia rather than a news organization. --] (]) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::What are you talking about? Nobody has called you racist. I am saying that the opinion which was cited in the book you cited was no more than an opinion. The book even begins the entire section with "One theory is..." meaning that it has not been proven! I change the word from Assyrian to Native instead of Chaldean, which can easily be inferred from the Woods document. I am not racist by any means and the only POV I have is from one which can be cited without question and put in correct context and still remain true. Perhaps my research skills are too advance for such a web site as this where one can simply take a sentence, completely out of context, and cite it in inappropriate ways to validate an invalid idea! I was under the assumption that this site was an encyclopedia rather than a news organization. --] (]) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::{{tq|"Perhaps my research skills are too advance for such a web site as this"}}, Aren't we full of ourselves, it is this attitude that will eventually get you blocked. I too wish you luck, you're going to need it. Cheers, <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 02:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:42, 25 March 2015
Topics
Ancient Iraq
Chaldea
Chaldean vs Assyrian Ethnicity
Chaldean Villages in Iraq
Tel Kaif
Al Qosh
Mosul
- User Moxy cited book by Maria Annie (2012). Mesopotamia - Unabridged Guide. Emereo Publishing. p. 296. ISBN 1486427618.
- Book contains material directly lifted from Misplaced Pages including text, pictures and lists. Author copied and pasted "Self-designation" section directly from "Assyrian people" page. This was done to justify changes to Mosul page using incorrect information to transplant the Chaldean name with Assyrian.
- User Moxy cited book by Will Kymlicka; Eva Pföstl (2014). Multiculturalism and Minority Rights in the Arab World. Oxford University Press. p. 272. ISBN 9780191662621.
- Justifies use of Assyrian name on Mosul page by stating that Iraqi government considered Assyrio-Chaldean state to include both ethnicities as a single nationality. This book gives credence to Chaldeans and Assyrians as a separate ethnicity since it addresses them separately and attempt to marry them under a single nationality.
- Further investigation yielded the following reference on page 268 "In addition, Article 125 says that the Constitution must guarantee the administrative, political, cultural, and educational right of the various nationalities: Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and all other segments of the population."
- Book also states on p.269 "If one really insists on mentioning the nationalities, then all of them should be mentioned: Arabs, Kurds, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs, and Turkmen... with a view to equality and without hegemony." The author obviously meant ethnicity rather than nationality since all of these, most obviously Arab, are ethnicities without nations per se.
- User Moxy cited book by Liam Anderson; Gareth Stansfield (2011). The Ethnopolitics of Conflict and Compromise. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 25. ISBN 0-8122-0604-5.
- Unknown reason, content is irrelevant.
- Replied with citation from web, "Minority Rights Group International: Iraq : Chaldeans". "Until the 1950s the Mosul plain had always been the centre of Chaldean life."
- I cited "Who are the Chaldean Christians?". BBC News. BBC News. 13 March 2008. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
- I cited "Refworld - Iraq: Chaldean Christians". UN Refugee Agency. Department of Homeland Security. 27 June 2000. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
- I cited de Courtois, Sébastien (2004). The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans. New Jersey: Gorgias Press. ISBN 1-59333-077-4.
- User Moxy cited book by Eliz Sanasarian (2000). Religious Minorities in Iran CLICK HERE. Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-139-42985-6.
- The book (on page 40-41) quotes a woman named "Arian Ishaya" who states that, "Chaldeans are ethnically Assyrians who refuse to give up their Assyrian name"
- Author was merely stating one of the many theories to show their conclusion that, "The problem of defining the ethnic identities of either Chaldeans or Assyrians is related to the convoluted and complex history of their social and political evolution." Otherwise stating that there is no consensus on this topic.
- User Moxy cited book by Suha Rassam (2005). Christianity in Iraq: Its Origins and Development to the Present Day. Gracewig. p. 138. ISBN 0-85244-633-0.
- Claims citation doesn't mention Chaldeans at all.
- On Page 142 author states that, "By this time the largest community was that in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, namely the Chaldean and the Syrian Catholic Churches. Next in size was the Syrian Orthodox Church, then the Church of the East (or the 'Assyrian Church of the East') and the Armenian Churches. There were also small Protestant, Latin, and Greek communities."
Dohuk
Batnaya
Zakho
Ankawa
Kirkuk
Araden
Tel Eskof
Baqofah
Assyrian Villages in Iraq
Barwari
Tyari
Sharafiya
Hezany
The above information serves as documentation of instances where editors have used Assyrian Nationalist talking points and unjustified and unethical methods to remove the Chaldean name from history. Do not delete it, alter it or edit it in any way, shape or form. Please feel free to start topics in Open Discussion section below.Open Discussion
Please create your topic below
Mosul
- After reading all this I can see you just dont understand the problem at all or the fact I have been showing you and all sources that explain the problem and can be used for some changes. Let me explain with just one example so this is clear. Lets look at what you have said just above about the Suha Rassa source "Claims citation doesn't mention Chaldeans at all" ....does the cited page that is #138 that is linked mention them yes or no? Do you expect our readers to take the same time as you did to find a word? So what should you do? You need to change the source our use one of the new ones on the talk page to change it. The problem is changing it all but not changing the sources....every time you do this and someone looks at what is going and the sources dont add up. BTW some women named Dr. Arian Ishaya. Good luck I am done hope you get it now!-- Moxy (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- The quote was "a woman" not "some woman" so let's just set you on the right path there. Also, that woman happens to be of Assyrian descent... What a surprise! Thank you for being done, I was hoping you would realize that you can't defeat the facts by taking things out of context and it has finally happened. Cheers! --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your POV is very evident. We are all racist even the experts I get it... I am the one surprised here. I wish you all the best of luck. -- Moxy (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Nobody has called you racist. I am saying that the opinion which was cited in the book you cited was no more than an opinion. The book even begins the entire section with "One theory is..." meaning that it has not been proven! I change the word from Assyrian to Native instead of Chaldean, which can easily be inferred from the Woods document. I am not racist by any means and the only POV I have is from one which can be cited without question and put in correct context and still remain true. Perhaps my research skills are too advance for such a web site as this where one can simply take a sentence, completely out of context, and cite it in inappropriate ways to validate an invalid idea! I was under the assumption that this site was an encyclopedia rather than a news organization. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Perhaps my research skills are too advance for such a web site as this"
, Aren't we full of ourselves, it is this attitude that will eventually get you blocked. I too wish you luck, you're going to need it. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Nobody has called you racist. I am saying that the opinion which was cited in the book you cited was no more than an opinion. The book even begins the entire section with "One theory is..." meaning that it has not been proven! I change the word from Assyrian to Native instead of Chaldean, which can easily be inferred from the Woods document. I am not racist by any means and the only POV I have is from one which can be cited without question and put in correct context and still remain true. Perhaps my research skills are too advance for such a web site as this where one can simply take a sentence, completely out of context, and cite it in inappropriate ways to validate an invalid idea! I was under the assumption that this site was an encyclopedia rather than a news organization. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- After reading all this I can see you just dont understand the problem at all or the fact I have been showing you and all sources that explain the problem and can be used for some changes. Let me explain with just one example so this is clear. Lets look at what you have said just above about the Suha Rassa source "Claims citation doesn't mention Chaldeans at all" ....does the cited page that is #138 that is linked mention them yes or no? Do you expect our readers to take the same time as you did to find a word? So what should you do? You need to change the source our use one of the new ones on the talk page to change it. The problem is changing it all but not changing the sources....every time you do this and someone looks at what is going and the sources dont add up. BTW some women named Dr. Arian Ishaya. Good luck I am done hope you get it now!-- Moxy (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)