Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atabəy (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 25 March 2008 (→Happy First Day of Spring!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Yea! You're back!

I was worried because you hadn't edited Misplaced Pages in several weeks! Just two days before you left a new article Christianity in the Middle East came into being, which may be of interest to you. And Nadolig llawen belatedly! —Angr 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Angr! Thanks for the greeting. I'm not doing that much here nowadays as I'm fairly busy with work and fed up with some articles being hijacked for various causes. The new article is certainly little more than a list, so I could expand it with a brief sketch on the history of Christianity in the Middle East. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help with that article. Highly appreciated! Happy New Year by the way! — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Garzo, great stuff you're pumping into the article. But if it's not too much to ask, it would be great if you could provide some short background information on each church/sect in the list below the text. You know, basically how it came to be that this and that church developed. Nothing fancy, just some quick information. Thanks again man! — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For your great expansion of the Christianity in the Middle East article, I, EliasAlucard of English Misplaced Pages, hereby grant you this barnstar. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

International English

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article International English, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of International English

An editor has nominated International English, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International English and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Diophysitism?

Hey Garzo, what do you think we should do about Diophysitism? Is it the same as Nestorianism? I'm not so sure about these theological topics, but I think this topic should be expanded so that we can have two separate articles explaining the differences between Monophysitism and Diophysitism. I'd like to hear your opinion about this. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No answers eh? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Garzo, are you deliberately ignoring me? Have I really pissed you off that much? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much, for pushing Assyrianism on everyone despite the fact it isn't accepted by many, including the academic community. Nestorianism and dyophysitism can be considered the same thing, but the later really just precludes all but miaphysite/monophysite christology; both Chalcedonian and traditional Antiochene christology can be described as dyophysite. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Assyrian identity is however, a lot more accepted than you think. We all accept that we are Syriac Christians (as in Suraya/Suroyo etc.). Apart from that, in most of our churches, you can find many who accept "Assyrian", with pretty much every member in the Church of the East accepting Assyrian (the members from the Middle East, i.e.). While it's not accepted universally, in the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Chaldean Catholic Church, it would surely be incorrect to minimise its acceptance in both of these churches in order to be politically correct and appease those who don't accept the Assyrian identity. And besides, we all know what Suraya means originally, and I'm simply not going to pretend that it means Aramaya. Now look, I'm asking for some help here in an article entirely unrelated to this dispute; there's no need to sulk over past discussions. Would you like to help out with expanding the article Diophysitism, or do you think it should be a redirect to Nestorianism? Oh and by the way, this book might interest you. It's written in Syriac, so you should be able to glean some interesting information from it, which you can add into the Assyrian naming dispute article. It's up to you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to leave all that ethnic stuff up to you keenies: I really cannot be bothered with it anymore. No, I don't think redirecting to 'Nestorianism' is a good idea. I think the Church of the East generally prefers not to call itself Nestorian anymore, and 'dyophysitism' refers to a wider theological position, which may or may not be what is labelled 'Nestorian'. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to leave all that ethnic stuff up to you keenies: I really cannot be bothered with it anymore. — Believe me, I have a lot of understanding for this decision of yours; I'm quite sick of this name dispute myself. Thanks for your response regarding the article. Could you perhaps provide me some useful links to work with the article? I can't find much on Diophysitism per se since most sites discussing this theological concept often resort to calling it Nestorianism. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by teh way, what's the correct spelling? Dyophysitism or Diophysitism? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two possible spellings: dyophysite (fr. Template:Polytonic) and diphysite (fr. Template:Polytonic). The latter is better etymologically, but the former is used more frequently. It is applied to anyone who does not hold to a monophysite christology (including the moderate teachings variously called 'miaphysitism' and 'henphysitism'). It, therefore, can be applied to Chalcedonians as well as holders of traditional Antiochene theology (Church of the East). — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All right. Thanks a lot Garzo. By the way, no hard feelings? Friends? I really want you to know that I respect you a lot, even though I've been rude. I hope you can forgive me some day. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way Garzo, I don't know when you last updated yourself on this, but the Assyrian identity within the Syriac Christians is a lot more accepted today than it was even 10 years ago. Here in Sweden, it's growing rapidly amongst many Syriac Orthodox Christians (and has been doing so since the 1980's). I've spoken with many Syriacs who were very anti-Assyrian a few years ago, but have recently, through study of Khtobonoyo and getting in touch with their roots, become Assyrianists. You're going to see a big change soon in the Assyrian identity. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yakub Abahanov

You might remember a challenge that got ugly about a year ago over sources I used on the Yakub Abahanov article.

The DoD released another bunch of documents in September 2007. Including a new version of the memo that triggered user:thebainer's concern, with fewer redactions. In the earlier memo I counted on a handwritten inscription to get Abahanov's ID number. In the more recent version his name in unredacted.

I incorporated those new documents.

I am wondering whether to anticipate another ugly challenge.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Marthoma church is Not an Anglican Church !!!

This is with reference to you edit of Mar Thoma Church http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mar_Thoma_Church&diff=prev&oldid=187818040 Marthoma church is Not an Anglican Church ! Also plz note that the person who removed this earlier ( User:Neduvelilmathew ) is also the historian of Marthoma Church !!!

Tinucherian (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my reply to the e-mail on the subject:

Dear Neduvelil Mathew,

Thank you for your e-mail. By 'Syriac tradition' is meant the theology and practice developed in churches that use Syriac as their liturgical language. The ancient churches of Kerala are historically linked to the Syriac-speaking churches of the Middle East and Persia. The last few centuries of the Mar Thoma Church are well documented. The church is part of a greater body of Indian Christianity (Puthankuttukar) that took the Coonan Cross Oath of 1653 against Portuguese religious imperialism and sought to re-establish links with the Syriac Church in the Middle East (the link was made with the Syriac Orthodox Church). The moral force behind the establishment of the modern Mar Thoma Church apart from this larger body of Malankara Christians was Palakkunnathu Abraham Malpan. Abraham Malpan (whose last name is the Syriac for 'teacher') lead a reform party within the church, to lead a 'reformation' encouraged by CMS missionaries from the Church of England (Anglican Communion). However, Abraham Malpan found disfavour with the Malankara Metropolitan Cheppad Mar Dionysius IV. Abraham sent his nephew Palakunnathu Mathews to the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Elias II who consecrated him as a rival metropolitan for India. Thus, with their own metropolitan, the Mar Thoma Church began its distinct identity as a reforming Malankara church closely associated with CMS missionaries. Although the Mar Thoma Church is not an Anglican church (it is not a full member of the Anglican Communion), it is in communion with the Anglican Communion, and exercises an associate membership of the Communion. Bishops of the Mar Thoma Church are invited to attend the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion.

To re-cap: the Mar Thoma Church has a clearly demonstrable history as a church in the Syriac tradition. It also has links with Anglicanism, and, while it is not a member of the Anglican Communion, it is in full-communion with it.

I assume that the removal of the 'Syriac Christianity' template was just a mistake. If you read the bottom line of the 'Anglican Communion' template it says: "Churches in full communion: Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Old Catholic Church, Philippine Independent Church". It is for that reason why the template is there. None of these churches would profess to be Anglican, but they do share in full communion with Anglicans.

I do not share the sentiment that only members of a certain church, or whatever, should be allowed to write about it. I believe that this denies the chance that the outsider might be able to bring greater perspective to issues.

Best wishes,

Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Era

A tag has been placed on Template:Era requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church.

Dear Rev. Gareth Hughes,

This is the reply to your questions.

I. The Mar Thoma Church and the Syriac tradition:

There are no records to show that Malankara Nazranis (followers of Jesus of Nazareth) had contact with the Syriac-speaking churches of the Middle East, till the arrival of Kananaya Christians in 345 CE. They might have brought Bishops but there are no evidences to that. Their traditions were not followed by the Marthoma Nazranis. (Ref: “Some Years Travels into Asia and Afrique,” (1638) by English traveler Herberts. pp 304.)

The next visit was by Roman Catholic clergy in the 16th C. In June 1599, Catholic Archbishop Menezes convened a synod at Udayamperoor and forced those who gathered there to agree to his demands. In this he addressed the original Christians as Marthoma Nazranis or Malankara Nazranis. Nowhere it is mentioned that they were Syrians or Christians.(Ref. the five Malayalam copies of The Acts and decrees of the synod of Diamper. Portuguese version is in Jornada do Arcebispo Aleixo de Menezes quando foy as Serra do Malaubar(1906), by Antonio de Gouvea.)

So in 1599, Malankara Nazranis were not Syrian Christians.

Appointment of the leader of the church according to the ancient custom and during Biblical times, was not acceptable to the Catholics, who started making fun of Marthoma Nazranis. So elders of the Marthoma Nazranis sent letters to various eastern Churches. It so happened that Mar Gregorios Abdul-Jaleel, Patriarch of Jerusalem was the one who arrived in 1854. Thus began the relation between the Malankara Church and the Syrian Church. But none of the Middle East bishops had any jurisdiction over the Church. Their only duties were consecration and teaching of Syriac.

There are no evidences to show that before this arrival of a bishop, Marthoma Nazranis had any relation with the eastern churches.

Roman Catholics forcefully converted the Malankara Nazranis in and around Kochi to their church and forced them to learn Latin. It was they who called their followers Latin Christians and the remaining Malankara Nazranis, Syrian Christians.

After this a number of bishops from the Antiochan Church came to Kerala. Many of them died there. Some of them created divisions in the church and were deported. The Church was always under the jurisdiction of a Malankara Metropolitan, a Nazrani, who was elected by the clergy and by the people.

On 1875 June, Patriarch of Antioch arrived in Kerala. His attempts to excommunicate and defrock Mar Athansious and to appoint another bishop as Malankara Metropolitan were a failure. (Ref; Letter sent by the Patriarch on February 7, 1876 from Kottayam). On 1876 June the patriarch convened a meeting at Mulanthuruthy and later he consecrated six metropolitans and then went back. Those who followed the Patriarch came under the Syrian Orthodox Church. Those who continued the original beliefs and kept their independence from the East Syrian Church called themselves Mar Thoma church or Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church.

So Mar Thoma Church is not an East Syrian Church. Many of their customs and traditions are not Syrian.

II. Mar Thoma church and CMS missionaries.

(a) Reformation: The Malayalam word is Sucheekaranam which means purification. Other details are given in the article on Mar Thoma Church.

(b) The idea of having a Seminary to train the clergy was that of the Mar Thoma VIII. Classes began in March, 1815. Abraham Malpan was the Malpan (a professor of Syriac) at this Seminary. Rev.Joseph Fenn came as the principal in October 1818. The missionaries were welcomed by the Church.

(c) I can’t trace any help that was given by the CMS missionaries to the Mar Thoma Church between 1816 May 8 (when Rev. Norton the first missionary arrived in Kerala) to 1947 September 27 (when Church of South India was formed). If you know I would be happy to hear about it. (d) About Mar Thoma Church in full communion with the Anglican church: For this please read the resolutions No. 14 and 44 passed at the Lambeth Conference in 1958. This space is not enough to write all the details. Please read the books on the History of Mar Thoma Church (Malankara Mar Thoma Sabha Charitram) in three volumes by N.M.Mathew (2006, 2007, 2008). In this book evidences are given, as far as possible from original records.

Neduvelil Mathew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neduvelilmathew (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mathew,

I do not find your thesis above all that tenable. The 'not-Syriac' line is supported by the 17th-century traveller Sir Thomas Herbert. To which are you referring, I can call it up at the Bodleian Library? I have LW Brown's The Indian Christians of St Thomas and Ian Gilman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit's Christians in Asia Before 1500 in front of me. The latter clearly demonstrates the arrival of Christianity in India along trade routes with Sasanian Persia. When the Portuguese arrived in India, they describe the local church as holding allegiance for the Patriarch of Babylon. Even though, after the Coonan Cross Oath, that party's leader (the Malankara Archdeacon) received episcopal consecration from the Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan of Jerusalem, The Syriac language used in liturgy in India is clearly based on the eastern dialect (i.e. that of the Persian Church). This demonstrates that Syriac was in use well before this period. So in 1599, Malankara Nazranis were Syriac Christians. Be aware that this is not a meaningless Ethnic label, but one of church tradition and history. Whether Syriac was not used before the supposed arrival of the Kananaya in the fourth century is unimportant. What is clear is that Syriac was the liturgical language of the Malankara Church before the arrival of the Portuguese, and that the original liturgical tradition is that of the Church in Persia. It seems very difficult then to argue that the traditional churches in Kerala do not stand in the Syriac tradition. Reference to Herbert and the arrival of Kananaya is insufficient support for such a claim. I understand that you are trying to make some point about the truly independent nature of your church, or defend the Ethnic Purity of the church. Churches do not exist in vacuo, neither should they; ethnicity is NOT what I'm talking about. The evidence for the Syriac tradition is plainly obvious in all of the traditional churches of Kerala, regardless of faction.

My only point about Anglicanism is that the Mar Thoma Church is in communion with the Anglican Communion. About that we are agreed. The infobox you removed, is designed so that it is added to articles on churches in communion with, but not members of, the Anglican Communion. Therefore, it should be there. If you feel that this is wrong, then the infobox should be changed so that it does not include such churches. It is inappropriate action to remove it from just one of these. I think it's quite clear that Mar Thoma VIII (with his nice Syriac title in the eastern dialect) did not suddenly decide to start a seminary, but the inspiration was the continuation of the reforming spirit of Abraham Malpan (whose title is also eastern Syriac). It is of no surprise that the seminary's first principal is an Anglican missionary.

It appears that you are trying to make some statement of independence for your church, and all well and good. However, it would be wholly inaccurate in so doing to deny the prominent role played by both eastern and western Syriac churches and the Anglican church in the history of the Mar Thoma Church. I would very much like to read you history of the Church. Please do respond, as I would dearly like to know what your point is.

— Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crest-standrews.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Crest-standrews.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bahira

Hey Garzo, I know you don't like me and everything, BUT, if we could set aside that for a moment, could you please tell User:Avenger786 to not censor the Syriac (Hugoye) sources on the Bahira article I've listed in Bibliography? He's doing it because he considers them "offensive" because he's a Muslim, and he's been cluttering the article with PBUH and so on. Please don't ignore me, just tell me right away if you don't want to help out. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the talk page. However, you may have already 'burnt your bridges' with this user, and meaningful discussion might be tough to come by. You are right to assert that Syriac sources are important to a balanced article on Baḥira. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Garzo. I hope this can lead to something of a better Misplaced Pages collaboration between me and you in the future. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen

I noticed that in the past you have helped dispel the dubious theory conecting the Egyptian Amun to the English/Greek/Hebrew Amen. If you have the stamina, your help is needed again in the Amen article.66.108.202.26 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the talk page. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I am sorry that things turned personal. I hope that we won't need to turn to to an administrator - already progress is being made. Still, we may ultimately need to turn to an administrator here. For now, thanks for weighing in.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen

I have already submitted this page to an RFC where it was decided that Amen should be referenced as being connected to Egypt and Hebraic religious cultures as one in the same. I don't know what type of authority you have at Misplaced Pages, but clearly you have stepped out of your boundary by blocking my attempts at removing ridiculous and immature statements such as "Because of homophonic resemblance and geographic proximity there is a belief that the Hebrew word Amen is in some way related to the Egyptian deity Amun. Although this etymological theory is considered untenable by academic scholars, it has persisted and is widely repeated on the internet and in print." on that page. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I believe the source, which is a regular encyclopedia, is probably sufficient to add the information somewhere in the article, probably toward the end, as publication in any encyclopedia generally indicates that something isn't too much of a fringe theory by wikipedia standards. However, it might not be entirely unacceptable if there were to be discussion regarding where to place the material, and possibly how much room to give it, in advance. I am however myself watching the page now (with more than a few others), and can at least try to help keep any further disruption there from taking place. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The two users involved have taken the argument to ad hominem attacks against me, accusing me of religious bias. ] (] · ]) has a history of working outside of consensus. The theory of linking 'amen' with 'Amun' is nowhere proven, and, if presented in the article, it should be clear that this is a fringe theory based on circumstantial evidence. Those pushing this theory are wanting the article to affirm a greater link than the evidence or mainstream academia (of which I am a part) support. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That could well be true. For whatever it might be worth, I'm a practicing RC (confirmation name - Thomas Aquinas). But the encyclopedia would seem to be sufficient to indicate that, whether it's proven or not, it is notable enough as per WP:NOTABILITY. I would agree that it isn't proven or even probably provable one way or another, and that the matter certainly should be given no more weight than is due, but that's different than saying it shouldn't be included at all. Regarding attacks on you, that's regretable and may well be cause in and of itself to lock the page for a while so that the tempers can hopefully cool off a little. It might not be a bad idea for someone to start a discussion on the talk page about how much weight to give it in this article, and where to place the material, though. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have argued that, if a text is included in the article about this, it should be a measured one. The problem is that these two users are using that as opportunity to push their point of view that the link is irrefutable. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just find it quite odd that you Gareth took the liberty to clutter up my talk page with old and unrelated Misplaced Pages exchanges. I had absolutely no contribution to these recent edits on the Amen page other than to remove that ridiculous "internet theory" comment. This sir is what prompted my so-called ad-hominem assault. The Amen talk page clearly shows your bias, unscientific, religious rhetoric and unwillingness to accept historical, detailed proof. There is a truck load of scholarly work that equates the New Testament with the Egyptian Sun God and the deity Amen. Lucky Numbers has overwhelmingly proved his case. I just don't see how this can be denied any further. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring old comments to your talk page is just procedure. If I had the bias of which you speak, I wouldn't be working where I am. On the contrary, you and Luckynumbers have been zealously pushing an argument without adequate evidence. What has been presented has been entirely circumstantial, and the link comes down to similarity of spelling. This does not make the case 'overwhelmingly proved' no matter how much more circumstantial evidence is offered. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another personal remark spat out by the anonymous. You have proved yourself not to know what you're talking about. Tolkein? The Oxford lie? Do you know how this stuff sounds? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statements and I respect your opinion and your knowledge on the subject matter. I will continue to pursue a better knowledge of the subject matter and hopefully I can find someone to aid me in my efforts of understanding more about language, religion, and culture. I admit that I got out of line and I really meant no disrespect to you at all. I now see why you do what you do. Would you have any objection to cleaning up the talk page? I think that my previous statements may give someone the wrong idea on the matter. It is up to them to pursue the information for themselves. Anyway, thanks for the insights. God Bless.Lucky (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Syriac people

Why cant we have an article about the syriac (modern aramaic) people in wikipedia. Syriacs are recognized as an ethnic group, and they are not "assyrians" or "chaldeans". They are descendants to the arameans and they should not be counted as "assyrians". VegardNorman (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested on your talkpage to use Western Syriacs as a platform for the people you are talking about, but you seem to just editing out a care. The problem with your idea of making Syriac people the page you want it to be, is that ALL Assyrian Chaldean Syriac are technecally Syriac people (Suraya/Suroyo). Chaldean (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article "Assyrian people" is wrong then.. VegardNorman (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a social construct. Certain aspects of language and culture put down solid pointers, but that is as good as it gets. Most of this people group agree that they have a shared culture and language, albeit with variation within it. Church and tribal divisions have conspired to give us these different labels. Some have a greater use in history than others — 'Assyrian', despite its modern popularity, was not used in its modern manner more than two-hundred years ago. I've tried some suggestions in the past, but the problem is that interested parties are so engaged with one label or other that no neutral overview is possible. Is the Assyrian people article biased? Yes, but it's not too bad. Should you create another one? Please, no. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Should you create another one? Please, no. - Too late; Syriac-Aramean people Chaldean (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Elias had already created all sorts of different Assyrians. I said then that was going too far, but was voted down. So, I can't really care when someone takes it even further. Anyone want to create a page on Southeastern Chaldo-Aramaeans? No? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree all these extra pages like Western Assyrians, Nestorian Assyrians are not helpful to simplfy the subject, and should be redirected to other pages. Nobody has any energy (inlcuding me) left to work on these pages anymore. I'm personally sick of it. Chaldean (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Chaldean! VegardNorman (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What I want to know is that why the subject you are most specialized in (Syriac Christianity) is after 3 years only 2 paragraphs long? I understand you don't want to deal with the other crap, but that page specifically has not been involved in revert wars, POV pushing, etc. Chaldean (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So what is there to do? When I see the article, for example, Names of Syriac Christians, the only thing I see is strong POV-material. Even you have to agree with that, Chaldean? I mean, seriously, all the articles that EliasAlucard wrote about these subjects are biased. Just because you use sources doesn't make the article NPOV. And that's what has tricked alot of people. Btw, Gareth, why Garzo? The TriZ (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to edit Syriac Christianity. Yes, I should expand it. It's one thing to get an article started, but it takes quite a lot of work to round it off completely. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The resaon I asked why you chose the name Garzo is because my family name is Garzo (b'garzo), not the surname, but what our family was called back in turabdin. The TriZ (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't linguists just be linguists anymore?

I was about to add a pretty standard language stub note to Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, but stopped when I saw all the "informed comment" (ahem) on the talk page from the nationalists. No need inviting such "additions". (I add a stub note on any language pages that don't have at least a sound chart and some details on grammar.) I want to add a personal note that I think your set of articles on the Aramaic languages are quite well done. (Taivo (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for your appreciation of the Aramaic articles. They were written a long time ago now, and could do with a a bit of a review. For many of the modern Aramaic languages, I have only written about peculiar features of phonology, vocabulary or grammar that set it apart — the Aramaic language article has a more complete description of common features. However, that is rather vague as it's intended to cover Aramaic of all times and places. Language is often tied up with ethnic identity issues, and they often pour over into the simplest of language descriptions. It's good to see a linguist stepping in. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that has always confused me about the Armaic language cluster is what exactly corresponds to what. There are a bundle of different named varieties in Ethnologue and, derivatively, in ISO 639-3, but these names don't always match the titles of the various Neo-Aramaic grammars published by Harrassowitz in the Viva Semitica (or Vivo?) series, for example. Of course Neo-Aramaic has the added bonus of needing to know the religion of the speakers before knowing whether a variety from X village belongs to language Y or Z.

I also get a little torqued at the Misplaced Pages over-obsession at times with in-line references. I understand the need, but I don't want to have to write "There are three varieties of X language (ref) spoken in West Y, East Y, and South Y (ref) by about 30,000 people (ref)" where the (ref) is exactly the same source. But I've seen "editors" putting "citation needed" markers in just this manner. Cheers (Taivo (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

The field studies of varieties of Neo-Aramaic tend to refer to their subjects by location and religion (mostly Jewish or Christian). Some are more vague than others, referring to a region, like Iraqi Kurdistan, rather than a specific place, like Zakho. The names of articles on the Neo-Aramaic varieties here on Misplaced Pages tend to follow those in Ethnologue. They're a little more colourful than the scholarly names — most of the Jewish ones are varied spellings of the same phrase: Lishan Didan, Lishana Deni and Lishanid Noshan — and two of the Christian ones use ethnonyms: Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. I have trouble remembering which is which of the former, and other users wish to make some nationalistic claim over the latter. Assyrian and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic belong to a compact language spectrum ranging from Urmia, Iran, to Alqosh, Iraq. The Chaldean variety has always been based on the southern varieties, especially due to 17th-century poetry of the School of Alqosh. Most of its speakers are adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church. Speakers of the northern varieties were mostly members of the Church of the East, but lived in remote village communities. The first missionary printing press among them was set up in Urmia, so that dialect gained currency as a standard. However, after the First World War, speakers of north-central varieties (usually called 'Ashiret') were forced to move south onto the Iraqi plain. They ended up speaking a mix of their Ashiret varieties with the standard Urmi variety. Diaspora has only helped make the so-called 'Assyrian Neo-Aramaic' more standardised.

I understand completely what you mean about references. One user might introduce a ton of dodgy references and exclaim he/she's referenced everything properly. Then, in a short language article, I might reference a single book that covers the information in the article, and I get unreferenced tags all over it. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If a specialist like yourself has trouble keeping the Jewish varieties straight, I don't feel so bad anymore ;) (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

User:LuckyNumbers and Amen

Hi Gareth

Wish I could be talking to you about something more positive, but there we go. What I wanted to ask was, how much of a fringe theory is this "Amen is derived from the God's name" stuff? Is there actually anyone with any kind of reputation out there who subscribes to it, or is it pure crackpot stuff? I found enough references to it on the web to show that it's accepted at least as often as the "reptilian aliens rule the world" theories, but is it any better attested than that? I'll watch this page so feel free to reply here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

Garzo...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion of hebrew

Amazing, that a priest, of all people, would delete all mention of the Hebrew name in the Gethsemane/Gat Shemanim article. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Greek and Aramaic are important, Hebrew is neither the root language of the name nor the language of an anciently attested form. The remark about my priesthood is rather rude, and shows a rather odd assumption that you know me. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hebrew is indeed the root language of the name - everything else is a garbled mistranslation. Gat is Hebrew for a press, and Shemanim means oil. If you don't want people to know you are a priest, then don't put it on your user page Rudeness has nothing to do with anything here. I just find it odd that the language of the Bible is deemed inappropriate here, and makes me wonder what your motives are.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your approach to me is brash and rude. Whether I mention I am a priest or not is my business: there was no need for you to mention it in such a rude manner as above. As for the Hebrew, it is not anciently attested as the name. The name is attested in Greek, and its form, especially its ending, overwhelmingly suggests the Aramaic no the Hebrew. If you want to add that the place now has a modern Hebrew name, that's fine, but there is no evidence for a Hebrew name for the place in antiquity. Please don't just "You are wrong", it sounds like a playground disputation. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic script template

Gareth, I have noticed that there is no Aramic script template ]. I was wondering if you knew how to create one. Also, I would appreciate it if you could write the Aramaic script name for Mar Paulos Faraj Rahho. Pshena. Chaldean (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added transliterations too. I believe that 'Paul' in Arabic is spelt بولس rather than بولص. I think his second name should be spelt ܦ̮ܪܔ in Syriac to represent the Arabic, but I can't remember which signs are considered standard among modern Chaldaeans for writing these sounds. I think the breve under the Pe is fairly standard for the 'f' sound, but I'm not sure if the stroke across the middle of the Gamal is used for 'j'. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right about Paoulos in Arabic writing. he Syraic part, perhaps User:334 can answer that question. Chaldean (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

Osroene

Since you edited this article earlier, perhaps, you would be interested in discussion on the talk page. I recently added more references to this article, yet faced another mass revert by a POV pushing contributor. Atabek (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)