Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chaldean (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 14 February 2008 (→Population statistics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please read this Hi, and welcome. Take a deep breath and relax your eyebrows. If you are about ready to explode it is suggested that you stop for a minute and relax, because that indeed may happen after sifting through these heated debates. This is a controversial topic, and always has been.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Assyrian people. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Assyrian people at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Assyria Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 (122 K, Jul '03 - Feb '06) Archive 2 (156 K, Feb '06 - Aug '06} Archive 3 (122 K, Aug '06 - Nov '06) Archive 4 (126 K, Nov '06 - Aug '07) Archive 5 (187 K, Aug '07) Archive 6 (159 K, Aug '07 - Oct '07) Archive 7 (31 K, Oct '07 - Dec '07) Archive 8

Megalommatis

Megalommatis is not a WP:RS. He was even up on stormfront recently for his claim that Europeans are Assyrians, and even the Nazis couldn't take his bullshit seriously. The guy presents himself as: Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, and Islamologist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 49, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. Come on, does anyone really believe that? Which accredited university is this Mr. Genius publishing his expertise for? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Google scholar only amounts to one hit. This guy isn't to be taken seriously and he's most likely a fraud or a con-artist because he makes all these bold statements and self-aggrandizement about himself, presenting himself like a big shot but he's nothing of a kind. Megalommatis should be kept out of every article on Misplaced Pages since he's no academic source. I'm tired of his attacks on our Assyrian ethnicity and how some moron Assyrians believe what he says and start believing they're Aramaeans because Megalommatis says that we are Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same one that suggested having concentration camps for Iraqi Sunni Arabs? And yet 3rd party users are not seeing how reduculus this whole thing is. This single user (Vegant with his IPs) is ruining Wiki pages, but 3rd party users all care about is following procedures. Give me a break. Chaldean (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the pseudo-Aramaeans are not smart enough to realise that this joke of a fraud is not representing their cause very well, their opinions should be ignored. This con-artist has also been involved in attacks on the Oromo people (not to be mistaken for Oromoyo fanatics though). He's been making a lot of ridiculous statements and his credibility is zero. I think it's quite good though that he's publishing a lot of disingenuous nonsense on aramnahrin because the more people like him on that site the better for us Assyrians. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And his other source is a mirror-website of Misplaced Pages of the page Arameans. Can this user just get banned from making these edits? If his not being contructive, whats the point of trying to couperate with him. Chaldean (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his indopedia link is an old copy of Aramaeans (link:), which hardly makes it a WP:RS. These antics are signs of bad faith and should not be tolerated. And they're not here to make constructive edits, they're just here to edit war and try to get it their way. If they were here to present their case seriously they would read wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and take it seriously. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

about Megalommatis

I dont care what hi is or what he studied. He´s doing a interview with the person, and what that person is saying is inresting, not what megalommatis are or what he has studied or how many languages he can speek. And stop removing what im writing. Chaldean, you remove everything without any reason. you cant do that. as long as i have sources as backup for the text im writing in the article, you and EliasAlucard dont have any right to remove everything i write!VegardNorman (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone here obviously needs to get acquainted with how Misplaced Pages works. Try reading WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:QUALITY. We can't accept "sources" here on Misplaced Pages because you like them or because these "sources" tell you what you want to hear. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and has encyclopaedic standards to maintain and follow, per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. We rely on serious sources, published by people who have at the very least a Ph.D or any similar academic background. Other sources, that are considered fairly reliable, but not necessarily academic, can be accepted. Megalommatis, is not one of those sources. And don't make stuff up, me and User:Chaldean have very good reasons to remove the joke that is Megalommatis, simply because he is not a scholar, but rather, a cheap fraud who claims to be Mr. tough shit yet he doesn't even know what he's talking about in his articles. I find it unbelievable that you aren't even ashamed of bringing this guy up as your supposedly credible source and representing your cause. Have some dignity and don't back up your history with Megalommatis; he writes all kinds of nonsense with no grip on reality. If you keep reinserting this Megalommatis joke, it will be reverted by me and everyone else until you get blocked for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what that person is saying is inresting - how do you want to be taken seriously when you say something like this? Do you even know what an Encyclopedia is? Hint: Its not a Blog. Chaldean (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You should read what he says. stop your false assyrian propaganda.. both of you tries to make every article here inwikiepdia "assyrian". EliasAlucard you are a problem in english wikipedia and also in swedish wikipedia. you try to make all articles in swedish wikipedia assyrian. you try remove the article about Syriacs in both swedish and english wikipedia. cant you just accept that Syriacs is a ethnic group and that you and your friend Chaldean belongs to the Syriacs, descendants to the arameans! 91.126.59.166 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And Megalommatis is still not an academic source. The ethnic group is Assyrian. Even Suryoyo is spelled with a silent Aleph in our church history. We Syriacs are Assyriacs, or more properly, Assyrians. Get over it. Anyway, get it through your head that Megalommatis is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. He is not a credible source. Do you at all understand what that means? Believe me, you don't really want this moron saying you guys are Aramaeans because he's a fraud. If you understood any better you wouldn't bring up Megalommatis. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the question is when. Syria and Assyria was not the same thing in Roman times, which is the time the terms "Syriac" and "Assyria" go back to. It is thus no coincidence that the people pushing "Assyrian" tend to be from what once was Roman Assyria, and those who don't are from what once was Roman Syria. There is a division here, and the dispute is real, no matter how much you rant about one side being "wrong". You are right in pointing out that Megalommatis isn't an academic source. You are wrong in pretending that your "silent aleph" has anything to do with the question. dab (𒁳) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And you sir, are most definitely wrong when you claim that only those who are pushing for Assyrian are from "Roman Assyria" and those who aren't are from "Roman Syria". There are Assyrians from Roman Assyria (the so called "Chaldeans") who aren't pushing for Assyrian whereas there are "Chaldeans" who are pushing for Assyrian. And there are those who are from Roman Syria who are pushing for Assyrian. Look, forget about what you read on that Friesian site. It was written by an outsider who has no real understanding of this issue, and while he may be agnostic on the matter whether we are Assyrians or not, he does not know all the details. This isn't a coherent dispute between two cohesive divisions. There are religious factors, nationalistic factors, historical factors, and many other reasons as to why the dispute is the way it is. Don't try to simplify things by generalizing because it's not that simple. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, the preceding silent aleph has everything to do with this question. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Friesian Proceedings

The stuff on the Friesian site is interesting. I found the original article in the Wayback archives. And it is sad to read all those letters of protest that Kelley Ross received, and that moved him to withdraw this information: http://www.friesian.com/notes/assyrian.htm . /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That article does bring up some interesting points but certainly not every detail. For instance, he writes: Self-identified Chaldeans and Aramaeans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists. — This is true, except for the omission of the fact that it's not Assyrians from the Assyrian Church of the East who call "Chaldeans" and "Aramaeans", Assyrians. It's from their own churches where this is happening. There are many Syriac Orthodox Christians who are originally from "Roman Syria" and are Assyrianists. The same is true for the so called Chaldeans. That article seems more like an anti-nationalist essay than trying to actually present all sides. Oh and, this is a funny statement: As descendants of real Aramaeans, the modern Chaldeans are more likely to be related to the real Chaldeans than anyone else, but there is no documentary or historical connection that can be traced after the age of Nebuchadrezzar, when the ethnic Chaldeans had blended into the older Babylonian population, and Aramaic began to be spoken by everyone. — Yes, there's a good reason why there are no documents or any actual proof that modern Chaldean Catholics are descendants of the ancient Chaldeans. It's because we are not. We Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians. It's that simple. And the Chaldean name has only in recent times been attached onto a stock of Assyrians, which has only complicated this issue. He makes bold statements without being an expert on the subject and most of his article is based on hearsay rather than citing academic sources. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and in case you didn't figure it out, that article isn't an objective description of modern Assyrians and our name issue. It's a biased, anti-Assyrian piece of paper, probably written by some Christian fundamentalist who is very biased due to the negative depiction of Assyrians in the Bible, trying to instil feelings of a collective guilt over what our forefathers did against the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel (as if the Israelites themselves were innocent angels), and by mentioning the crimes of our forefathers, trying to make us feel guilty and un-Assyrian. It has false assumptions that modern Chaldean Catholics are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans simply because modern Assyrians have a church called the Chaldean Catholic Church. Self-proclaimed experts who haven't done their homework really shouldn't speak on such complicated issues as this. We modern Assyrians have all the right in the world to identify with the ancient Assyrians and no one has the right to come and use "Assyrian" as a word of shame against us. Unfortunately, the Assyrian ethnicity is under attack not only from this Friesian site, but also from modern Assyrians themselves (so called "Aramaeans" and "Chaldeans"), Kurds (who nowadays claim that modern Assyrians are not Assyrians, but get this, "Kurdish Christians"), Turks, Arabs, and just about everyone else. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Need an edit

{{editprotected}}

Need an admin to restore this article to the last stable version by User:Chaldean, the current version is POV, OR and as can be gleaned from the discussion above, filled with sources that do not pass reliability, and don't even get me started about its poor grammar in the beginning of the lead ("them selfs"). Simply put, the current revision is beyond tolerance. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted, not because of POV or OR (I'm hardly qualified to judge), but because everyone here is using the talk page with the exception of VegardNorman, who has so far declined to talk about his edits save for this barely coherent post that didn't really address the content issues adequately (or at all, for that matter). – Steel 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. Keep it protected for a while, we'll see if this VegardNorman guy can present his case adequately. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Population statistics

Hey, should we use this population chart? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Zenda (an obviously Assyrianist website) a reliable source? --Benne _(talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you consider Zinda unreliable, that means Zinda is reliable and flawless. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No I dont think we should use it. I always emphisize on using census provided by each state. And if census date isn't available, then we look for other sources, like Zinda, etc. Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, we don't have census for many countries which this Zinda link covers. I don't see the problem. Benne is of course protesting as usual because it's Zinda and not Aramnahrin but I don't see how that is a problem since this isn't about the name dispute. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously Zinda claiming 400,000 Assyrians live in United States, isn't neutral. Chaldean (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, do you seriously believe there are only 82 000 Assyrians in all of the United States? That's just the recent census, and I seriously doubt every single Assyrian participated in that census. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are more then 82K, but we don't know exactly how much. Thats why I believe it is more apropriate to post most recent census. Its unfortunate the US does census only once very ten years, but oh well, we'll wait in 2010 to see what the population is. Chaldean (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion to use this Zinda link as statistics is not about the US census. I think it should be used where we don't have statistics available. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Perhaps we can post all the smaller countries in teh Assyrian diaspora page. Chaldean (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Assyrian articles
• Top-importance Assyrian articles
• WikiProject Assyria articles