User talk:EliasAlucard/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Please note: Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning. Please create an account or log in if you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion.
huh?
What happened to ur talk page man?Tourskin 06:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Archived. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:58 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Arab vs Semitic!
Arab Christians
Elias yourself a dedicated Assyrianist you should respect other peoples history. I ignored many claims by Assyrianist that the Arabs were just a tribe among the Arameans! Just because a tribe called Aribi were among the Aramena allies. And am pretty sure you have your own identity problems with strong headed opnions vs the Anti Assyrianist Arameans. What I am saying is we shouldtake the "Khalil Jibran" look on Lebanon and use it for the mideast it will make things easier. You have your own mideast I have mine! and thats that. Like I already said you can edit the ancient Semites page anyway you want and I will make sure I fix the Ancient Arab page in a way it distinguishes between Arab and the modern Christian Arameans/Assyrians, Jews (myself I want this to be clear and I emphasize on ethnic Arab identity)--Skatewalk 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- For starters, stop calling me an "Assyrianist". There's is no such thing as "Christian Arabs". They are just Arabized Christians. That is not the same thing. Arab, is a race, just like Japanese is a race. You don't become an Arab, by speaking Arabic. I would like to see you provide source for these DNA test; Assyrians have a unique DNA profile that distinguishes them from all other peoples; Arabs included (source: [1]). Also, you do not redirect articles by editing a #redirect title because by doing so, you disregard the entire history of the article. You move the article when you want to redirect it. Since you're new here on Wikipedia, how about you get yourself acquainted with the welcome note I added on your talk page? As for this article, I agree with Garzo, that it should be merged with the Semites article, or Arab article. Pick which one you want. There's no need for having a separate article about Arabs being ancient and everything. You can fill it up on the Arab or Semites article. Just make sure to source it properly using <ref>URL</ref>. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:32 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Arab Christians dont exist!!
forget the Aramean mixed/Arabized Christian Arabs. Did you hear about the Ghassanids )? Lakhmids? Banu Judham? All these are Qahtani pure Arab tribes that became Christian around the 3rd century AD. Thats the Christian Arabs. Can you please not edit Arab topics, just like I stay away from Assyrian topics -I just read!- (because I really don't know about Assyria as much I know about Arabia and vice versa?), This simple fact about the Arab CHristians just shows how complex is our Arab history. Can we respect each other?--Skatewalk 10:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with respecting you as long as you respect me, which you don't. It just so happens that I know more about Arabic topics than you know about Assyrians. For instance, I speak Arabic. You have to understand, that just because someone is of Semitic origin and speaks Arabic and lives in the Middle East, that does not mean he or she is an Arab. For instance, the Iraqi Arabs, are closer genetically, to Europeans, than they are to the Arabs in Saudi Arabia. The very fact that you use the misnomer "Christian Arabs", is a lack of respect and an insult to me and other non-Arabs, because you don't respect the fact that we aren't Arabs. Also, just in case you didn't know, Arabs, speak a Semitic language, which means you are a Semitic people (though of course, it must be said, that I wish it weren't so). There is no such thing as Christian Arabs. Yes, maybe a few thousand obscure numbers which don't count. Other than that, this "Christian Arabs" label is being applied on non-Arab Christian ethnic groups from the Middle East, 95% of the time: Arab Christians. The Maronites in Lebanon, are not Arabs, doesn't matter if they speak Arabic. For example: http://www.aina.org/releases/20070416140021.htm Do you know how much this pisses me off? Knock it off with calling us Arabs. We are not Arabs, and we don't want to be Arabs. Stop trying to make Arab a universal label for all Semitic peoples. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Genetic differences
- One small point- "Assyrians have a unique DNA profile that distinguishes them from all other peoples." -Technically, there is no racial DNA profile. All humans have interrelated DNA structures. An Assyrian is just as likely to have closely matched DNA with a Mongolian, an Arabian, or an African as another Assyrian. Ursasapien (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please, do you seriously believe that? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Not only do I believe this, but factual scientific evidence bears this fact out. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right, keep telling yourself that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- It's called science. Please don't be afraid of it just because it goes against your sacred opinion. I have no problem with you saying that Assyrians have been a distinct people group for thousands of years, but to say that their DNA is distinct is perposterously wrong! Ursasapien (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not the one saying this; scientists are saying that we Assyrians (and that goes for all Assyrians) have a distinct DNA profile that distinguishes us from all other peoples. Did you even read the source? Also, denying that there is such a thing as races amongst humans, is political correctness, and a typical ridiculous fear of Nazism. To say that there is no genetic difference between a man from China and a man from Africa, is disingenuous stupidity at best. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:37 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I said. What I said, and what is completely verfiable, is that there is more genetic variance among people of a "supposed" race as there is among all humans. I looked at your "source" but it seemed to be a series of article synopses and I could not find the article you were pointing to in particular. I have not heard of any reputable scientists who state that Assyrians are genetically distinct from all other humans. Regardless, it is simply a fact that we are all genetically very close to one another. Cheers, Ursasapien (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, close, but not identical. Try searching for distinct using ctrl+f next time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I said. What I said, and what is completely verfiable, is that there is more genetic variance among people of a "supposed" race as there is among all humans. I looked at your "source" but it seemed to be a series of article synopses and I could not find the article you were pointing to in particular. I have not heard of any reputable scientists who state that Assyrians are genetically distinct from all other humans. Regardless, it is simply a fact that we are all genetically very close to one another. Cheers, Ursasapien (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not the one saying this; scientists are saying that we Assyrians (and that goes for all Assyrians) have a distinct DNA profile that distinguishes us from all other peoples. Did you even read the source? Also, denying that there is such a thing as races amongst humans, is political correctness, and a typical ridiculous fear of Nazism. To say that there is no genetic difference between a man from China and a man from Africa, is disingenuous stupidity at best. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:37 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- It's called science. Please don't be afraid of it just because it goes against your sacred opinion. I have no problem with you saying that Assyrians have been a distinct people group for thousands of years, but to say that their DNA is distinct is perposterously wrong! Ursasapien (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right, keep telling yourself that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Not only do I believe this, but factual scientific evidence bears this fact out. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please, do you seriously believe that? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
No two people's DNA is identical (with the possible exception of some identical twins). Assyrian DNA is not identical, and the article that you pointed me to tells us that, "It is important to understand that this applies to the population as a whole, not to any one individual. Each individual can have a variety of genetic features." The book referenced by the author of the article, The History and Geography of Human Genes makes it clear that we are all genetically very interrelated. In its review of this book, Time said, "[this] landmark global study flattens The Bell Curve, proving that racial differences are only skin deep." The book The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East itsself states that, although modern Assyrians have been a homgenous group for hundreds of years and share a genetic profile, they also show that they are closely related to many other people groups, such as the Iranian, Kurdish, Turkic, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Lebanese people. How about you? Did you read my reference about the World Genome Project? Again, I think you can effectively argue that Assyrians are not Arabs and have been a distinct homogenous people group for hundreds of years. I do not think you can argue that Assyrians are genetically distinct from all other people in the world, and I do not think your source argues this either. Ursasapien (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Short and clear: you are saying that there is no such thing as human races? If yes, I am not going to take anything more of what you're saying, seriously. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:55 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Human "races" are a cultural or social construct. There is simply no scientific or genetic evidence of significant differences. Don't get me wrong, I can understand your anger with saying Assyrians are Arabs (they most certainly are not). However, there are no sub-species of Homosapien. Genetically we are not that divergent. If you are going to make a claim that any group of humans are genetically distinct from any other group of humans, then I have no doubt that you are close minded and would not believe any amount of scientific evidence. Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with modern science, as far as this topic goes, is that it has become very infected with politically correctness. This is of course, understandable. It is a result of Nazi Germany, and just hinting today that there are different races amongst humans, is seen as some kind of instigation to murder all Jews, Africans, Gypsies, etcetera. Of course, there are human races. We don't differ as much as the races between animal species, but yes, there are different human races as well. Obviously, a man from Japan is not of the same race as a man from Africa. The same species, yes, but not the same race. As for us Assyrians, we are a miscegenation of Sumerians and Akkadians, and some other Indo-European and Semitic peoples. Calling us Arabs, is bullshit! — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:14 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with you that modern Assyrians are not Arabs. Iranian people (Persians) are not Arabs either. I might also agree with you that modern science has been greatly affected by political correctness (see global warming). However, when it comes to specific groups of human beings having distinct genes, you don't have a leg to stand on. For thousands of years the concept of race has been used to divide people for socio-cultural or political reasons. The Nazis, as many before them, tried to use science to prove their own prejudices correct. Yes, there is variance of skin color, hair texture, and eye/nose shape among humans. However, when it comes to DNA there is as much variance among a "race" of people then between all people. The man from Africa and the man from Japan are from the same race- the human race. They may have different eyes, ears, noses, skin color, hair texture, culture, and religion, and yet, genetically they may be remarkably similar. This is just a fact, as your own reference proves. Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, DNA isn't all what it's about. There are also other differences, for instance, IQ differences, and other distinctive traits like facial features, height, skull shape, etcetera. Yes, we are all of the same human race, but you know, we are of different subraces. This is just a very taboo subject, and the most convenient thing to do for many people, is to deny that there are different human races. You have to of course, speak in general terms when you talk about a specific group of people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:38 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose my point, all along, was that DNA needs to be left out of the argument. There are significant differences among different groups of people. Some groups of people are very homogenous, like the modern Assyrians. Other groups of people are very heterogenous, like modern Americans. However, no group has been isolated for a significant period of time, as to be genetically distinct. Incidentally, I believe you would have a difficult time showing general distinction between people groups when it comes to IQ. There is just too much variance among groups of people. Jewish people, in general, are not smarter than other Semetic people. Semetic people, in general, are not smarter than non-Semetic people. There are very smart people and very unintelligent people in all "races." Anyway, it seems that we agree on my central point, -There may well be different races of men, but none is "genetically" distinct from any other. Ursasapien (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you have to be a little specific on what kind of Jews you're talking about. Ashkenazi Jews, have proven over and over again, that they have very high IQ results compared with other Jewish ethnic groups. There is a reason for why there is an article titled like this: Ashkenazi intelligence. Africans generally don't compete with Europeans and/or Asians. Semitic peoples are somewhere in the middle. This is of course very controversial, and any modern scientist who says that there is a general IQ level of a certain ethnic group, is immediately labelled as a hateful racist. But hey, what if that is a fact and he's trying to present facts? I think that's unfair. You have to be honest in these kinds of tests, and the truth may hurt sometimes. Censorship isn't my territory, I believe in free speech and I don't subscribe to political correctness. related topic: Race and Intelligence. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:01 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose my point, all along, was that DNA needs to be left out of the argument. There are significant differences among different groups of people. Some groups of people are very homogenous, like the modern Assyrians. Other groups of people are very heterogenous, like modern Americans. However, no group has been isolated for a significant period of time, as to be genetically distinct. Incidentally, I believe you would have a difficult time showing general distinction between people groups when it comes to IQ. There is just too much variance among groups of people. Jewish people, in general, are not smarter than other Semetic people. Semetic people, in general, are not smarter than non-Semetic people. There are very smart people and very unintelligent people in all "races." Anyway, it seems that we agree on my central point, -There may well be different races of men, but none is "genetically" distinct from any other. Ursasapien (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, DNA isn't all what it's about. There are also other differences, for instance, IQ differences, and other distinctive traits like facial features, height, skull shape, etcetera. Yes, we are all of the same human race, but you know, we are of different subraces. This is just a very taboo subject, and the most convenient thing to do for many people, is to deny that there are different human races. You have to of course, speak in general terms when you talk about a specific group of people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:38 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with you that modern Assyrians are not Arabs. Iranian people (Persians) are not Arabs either. I might also agree with you that modern science has been greatly affected by political correctness (see global warming). However, when it comes to specific groups of human beings having distinct genes, you don't have a leg to stand on. For thousands of years the concept of race has been used to divide people for socio-cultural or political reasons. The Nazis, as many before them, tried to use science to prove their own prejudices correct. Yes, there is variance of skin color, hair texture, and eye/nose shape among humans. However, when it comes to DNA there is as much variance among a "race" of people then between all people. The man from Africa and the man from Japan are from the same race- the human race. They may have different eyes, ears, noses, skin color, hair texture, culture, and religion, and yet, genetically they may be remarkably similar. This is just a fact, as your own reference proves. Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with modern science, as far as this topic goes, is that it has become very infected with politically correctness. This is of course, understandable. It is a result of Nazi Germany, and just hinting today that there are different races amongst humans, is seen as some kind of instigation to murder all Jews, Africans, Gypsies, etcetera. Of course, there are human races. We don't differ as much as the races between animal species, but yes, there are different human races as well. Obviously, a man from Japan is not of the same race as a man from Africa. The same species, yes, but not the same race. As for us Assyrians, we are a miscegenation of Sumerians and Akkadians, and some other Indo-European and Semitic peoples. Calling us Arabs, is bullshit! — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:14 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Human "races" are a cultural or social construct. There is simply no scientific or genetic evidence of significant differences. Don't get me wrong, I can understand your anger with saying Assyrians are Arabs (they most certainly are not). However, there are no sub-species of Homosapien. Genetically we are not that divergent. If you are going to make a claim that any group of humans are genetically distinct from any other group of humans, then I have no doubt that you are close minded and would not believe any amount of scientific evidence. Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The article, Race and Intelligence, indicates that the differences between the members of the same group are entirely genetic, but the differences between two groups is environmental. Some would argue that, due to extreme persecution, only the smartest Ashkenazi Jews survived. Basically, Hitler did produce a "super-race," just not the one he intended. However, intelligence is an ambiguous thing in general and is much debated, even among experts. By the way, I totally respect your free speech and your right to your own opinions. I just have an issue when people use unfactual arguments to support their position. I wish the best and happy editing. Ursasapien (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Some would argue that, due to extreme persecution, only the smartest Ashkenazi Jews survived. Basically, Hitler did produce a "super-race," just not the one he intended. — Well, that is an interesting theory and it could very well be so. But that obviously falls under Eugenics (which Hitler also advocated, for his own people), does it not? Anyway, do we agree to disagree? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:19 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I see no disagreements in our positions. We have agreed that there are differences among people groups. We have agreed that we both have the right to our own opinions and to voice said opinions. You have conceded that differences between races is not specifically genetics-based. I see a great deal of agreement and respect between us. Ursasapien (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks for an interesting discussion :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:27 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I see no disagreements in our positions. We have agreed that there are differences among people groups. We have agreed that we both have the right to our own opinions and to voice said opinions. You have conceded that differences between races is not specifically genetics-based. I see a great deal of agreement and respect between us. Ursasapien (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Not All Arab Christians are Maronites
Again Elias Maronites (religion not a race, most of them are Arameans though) they were dominant in Lebanon because they were favored by the French. (only few families among the Maronites are Arabs). Most the Greek Orthodox, Geek Catholics in Lebanon and the Christians of Jordan are pure Ethnic Arabs From (Qahtan). You can read more about it on christian Arab websites.
I respect Assyrians and like them and I never considered them Arabs (except those who chose to be), although I am against stretching the Arab identity thin to include Non Arabs (Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians..etc).
Every race was present/mixed with the Near East population since the days of the Akkadian Empire. The original Arabs themselves are a result of mixing. So I dont believe in DNA, because among our own families we have different looks, eye color, hair...etc. And to clear up the fog I am not an Aramean or even close. I am pure Christian Arab our families came from Yemen 3rd century BC. Read about the Ghassanids (if you care, if not I don't blame you). When I have time I will read more about Assyria (now I just now that its confusing terms and identity between Assyrians and Arameans. I treat both with respect --Skatewalk 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Arab Christians are not the Minority!
See Elias this is the problem, you say that Arab Christians only number thousands! Do you know how massive the population of Kahlan was? (half to two thirds of Saba'a migrated North!) we converted to Christianity in 3rd century AD. The Maronites are only a portion and among them are the Arameans, phoenicians and Ethnic Arabs, not all of the Arab Chritians are Maronites! We are the majority of Christians and most the Jifna Arabs remained Christian doing the math we atleast number 5Million now just from Jifna alone. Our last names still go to the Ghassanids and Hamdanids. Maronites are mostly composed of Aramean immigrants and mixed Arabs, Phoenicians, and even European minorities. They are a sect of mixed people with the Arameans making the bulk population. They are not related to Ethnic Christian Arabs. I am really disappointed that you think Arabs hate Assyrians just because they were kiled in Iraq by their Iraqi compatriots! the Iraqi regime and later insurgency killed everyone with no discirmination (I mean everyone got killed in Iraq!) and I am sorry for your people, but by such statements you alienate us from your cause, not that you care, but If we dont care for you the Europeans will not, just look what they did to the Armenians!--Skatewalk 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Note
[Copied from Talk:Ancient Arabs]
...and I refuse to take such insults as calling my forefathers "Arabs"... Whenever you find yourselves refusing such insults please do never forget to avoid insulting other people as they refuse to be insulted. I hope you don't lose your mind and remain civil when explaining yourselves. You could have said that you refuse the fact your ancestors are being considered as Arabs and everybody would have understood you w/o any big effort. We don't have time to waste dealing w/ incivility. We've had enough in Wikipedia. Thank you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- What was incivility about that? Is it not allowed to express your opinion here on Wikipedia? It's funny, Wikipedians seem to be the most easily offended people in the world. Look, that article, was not accurate, it was not properly sourced, and it was not neutral, and it was written from an Arabocentric perspective. This is not NPOV. Calling my ancestors Arabs, is inaccurate. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:49 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Elias.
- Is it not allowed to express your opinion here on Wikipedia? → Please remain civil when explaining yourselves. It means you have all the rights of the universe to express yourselves. I've just said it above.
- It's funny, Wikipedians seem to be the most easily offended people in the world ← That's accurate but NOT funny at all. I've just experienced that yesterday. [User:Ernst Stravo Blofeld] has just told me this yesterday: "Occasionally I find people very offensive indeed -luckily not directed at me but on user talk pages I have come across. I remember somebody telling my good friend User:John Hill, an experienced editor in relation to his work on the Jat people that he is a useless editor and should leave wikipedia for six months to get his facts straight!!!" Source:User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld expressing themselves
- Look, that article, was not accurate ← Probably right. That's why you express yourselves and communicate w/ others.
- Calling my ancestors Arabs, is inaccurate. ← That's the wisest way to express yourselves. You've just expressed it now in a civil way. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- To merely imply, that my ancestors were Arabs, is an insult, because: it is a lie, historical revisionism, and another way of trying to undermine the Assyrian identity. It doesn't get better, by Arabs slaughtering Assyrians daily in Iraq either. And there are also Arab nationalists, like Saddam Hussein, who tried to suppress our identity.[2] Not only is this an insult from a historical perspective, but it is a lack of respect for a very oppressed people as we speak. There is no incivility to point out that this is an insult. Unless of course, you, he, or she, is an easily self-offended person. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:16 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know but keep up the good work and hope you understand that if me is an easily self-offended person then your attitude is maybe worse. There are a couple of billions of oppressed people out there but only millions can get offended. Probably less can get uncivil. Probably less can get violent. Probably less can kill.
- To merely imply, that my ancestors were Arabs, is an insult, because: it is a lie, historical revisionism, and another way of trying to undermine the Assyrian identity. It doesn't get better, by Arabs slaughtering Assyrians daily in Iraq either. And there are also Arab nationalists, like Saddam Hussein, who tried to suppress our identity.[2] Not only is this an insult from a historical perspective, but it is a lack of respect for a very oppressed people as we speak. There is no incivility to point out that this is an insult. Unless of course, you, he, or she, is an easily self-offended person. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:16 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind that if i was really offended then my attitude toward your behavior would have been different, maybe awful. I am not. I've heard enough as i said. I really don't care. I've acted the same way when a German wiki-warrior was ranting against some Polish and Dutch wikipedians. I am just an admin and as you know i am not editing the articles you edit.
- Let me tell you this hoping i am not offending you but your approach to Wikipedia is totally biased. Bear in mind that i am not an Arab. I am a Berber. A bit oppressed? Maybe but i won't keep thinking that i've been oppressed by Arabs all my life. I can't be thinking all my life of Spanish Reconquistadores treating me so bad and kicking my ass out of Al-Andalus! All Spanish contributors here are my friends and you can verify this at my last thread w/ [User:Mountolive]. I know though that your situation/circumstances are different but we are humans and maybe Wikipedians would think about civility before thinking about the fact that they are being oppressed off-wiki. Wikipedia is just not the right place for a battle. I know you know that of course. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can choose to believe that I am biased. I just cleaned up a biased article. I'm not the one who's biased here. Anyway, let's just shake hands and get this over with. There's really nothing to quarrel about anyway. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:40 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's shake hands. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- *Shakes hands* — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:55 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's shake hands. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can choose to believe that I am biased. I just cleaned up a biased article. I'm not the one who's biased here. Anyway, let's just shake hands and get this over with. There's really nothing to quarrel about anyway. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:40 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Let me tell you this hoping i am not offending you but your approach to Wikipedia is totally biased. Bear in mind that i am not an Arab. I am a Berber. A bit oppressed? Maybe but i won't keep thinking that i've been oppressed by Arabs all my life. I can't be thinking all my life of Spanish Reconquistadores treating me so bad and kicking my ass out of Al-Andalus! All Spanish contributors here are my friends and you can verify this at my last thread w/ [User:Mountolive]. I know though that your situation/circumstances are different but we are humans and maybe Wikipedians would think about civility before thinking about the fact that they are being oppressed off-wiki. Wikipedia is just not the right place for a battle. I know you know that of course. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Elias regarding ancient Arabs
Its a pure historic geographic term of the past, irrelevant to modern Arabism. stop claiming that I am trying to impose Arabism on Assyrians, because the fact the Akkadians came from Arabia. Doesn't mean Assyrians are Arabs! (is that what you want to claim, because the article clearly stated Assyrians are non Arabs, just because the Akkadians had past in Arabia. that doesnt make them Arabs where ever they went, or atleast thats not what I am trying to prove). Dont deny my efforts to reason with you! I was nice all the time and you continued insisting on merging the ancient Arabs with pre Islamic Arabs both two different periods. --Skatewalk 20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Even if the Akkadians came from the Arabian peninsula, that doesn't make them Arabs. Why can you not understand this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:33 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Just like the Celts are part of ancient Italian history. Even if the Celts are not Italian today, Celts are still pat of the ancient Italian history. Now add one more factor, in the Akkadians. With Arabia being their land of origin that makes an important part of Ancient Arab history (remeber the title of the article "Ancient" thats why I didn't want you to merge to recent Arab history (preIslamic Arabia) those are two different periods! So in a study of Ancient Arabia, you have exclude the Akkadians? Does that make sense to you at all!?---Skatewalk 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you want to magically make the Akkadians into Arabs? Why is this so important to you? Why can you not understand, that not all Semitic peoples, are Arabs? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:01 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Just like the Celts are part of ancient Italian history. Even if the Celts are not Italian today, Celts are still pat of the ancient Italian history. Now add one more factor, in the Akkadians. With Arabia being their land of origin that makes an important part of Ancient Arab history (remeber the title of the article "Ancient" thats why I didn't want you to merge to recent Arab history (preIslamic Arabia) those are two different periods! So in a study of Ancient Arabia, you have exclude the Akkadians? Does that make sense to you at all!?---Skatewalk 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its important to me because the Akkadians are part of te ancient Arabian history? they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! Is that very hard to understand? Forget modern Arabism. These Akkadians were bedouins who lived in Arabia. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia![3], [4]--Skatewalk 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its important to me because the Akkadians are part of te ancient Arabian history? — No, they are not. When Arabs as a people began appearing in history, all Akkadians had become Assyrians by that time, together with the Sumerian population. they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! — It wasn't called Arabia at that time, and they did not live with any Arab people, because they were the first Semitic people. Arabs didn't exist at the same time as the Akkadians. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia! — At some point in time, the people that are now Germans and Japanese, probably also had ancestors who lived in Arabia. It doesn't make them Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:02 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Elias can you read what I am writing! I am talking about Arabia as a geographic term. Their is nothing such as Arab race. Dont confuse history with modern Pan-Arabism. The Akkadians are included in the article as part of Arabia! I dont beleive in an Arab race or any of the Pan-Arabist BS. the whole Mideast is Genetic mosiac. However, the article is purely historic and doenst relate to the modern Arab identity. Many tribes left Arabia and settled Africa, South Europe. Nobody is claiming Ethiopians, Sicilians or Spaniards are Arabs!. The Akkadians were vanished early in Mespotamia. Their effect was far more cultural than anything. And Mesopotamia is a region outside of Arabia, thats why the Akkadians are the only group that has an Arab origin, regardless of who they influenced afterwards. Akkadians spoke the same language, same culture and are known, if you know other tribes that lived in Arabia and left please include. I never heard of Ancient Arab tribes that settled Germany or Japan? Their no evidence or documents, but the Akkadians were od obvious Arabian origin--Skatewalk 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't believe in an Arab race, why are you insisting on calling the Akkadians "Arabs"? They did not speak Arabic, they spoke Akkadian. Yes, it resembles Arabic, as do all Semitic languages, since Arabic is also a Semitic language, but Arabic sure as hell isn't the precursor to all Semitic languages. The Akkadians didn't vanish, they mixed with the Sumerians, and their children became Assyrians, and later, from Assyrians, Babylonians (the Assyrians split in two). Look, you are obviously a proud Arab. That is fine. Just don't try to impose the Arabic ethnicity on all Semitic peoples, all right? All Semitic peoples, most likely, originated in one way or the other, from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't mean we are Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:35 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- The are Ancient Arabs because they lived in Arabia! Iam not concerned with their genetic, cultural makeup (although very close to South Arabian anyways, but thats not the subject here). They are part of Ancient Arabia history because they originated form Arabia. Is that hard to understand? I am not a politician, I just want to fix the article!The Akkadians only originated and lived in Ancient Arabia, other Mesopotamian nations (even if Semitic because they were Mesopotamian not Arabian) belong the history of Mesopotamia. --Skatewalk 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Living on the Arabian peninsula, and speaking a Semitic language, thousands of years before Arabs even exist, doesn't make you an ancient Arab, it makes you an ancient Semite. A proto-Semite, if you will. Arab, is not the original Semitic peoples. They are the youngest of all Semitic peoples. Stop cluttering up articles with revisionist Arab propaganda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:10 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- The are Ancient Arabs because they lived in Arabia! Iam not concerned with their genetic, cultural makeup (although very close to South Arabian anyways, but thats not the subject here). They are part of Ancient Arabia history because they originated form Arabia. Is that hard to understand? I am not a politician, I just want to fix the article!The Akkadians only originated and lived in Ancient Arabia, other Mesopotamian nations (even if Semitic because they were Mesopotamian not Arabian) belong the history of Mesopotamia. --Skatewalk 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't believe in an Arab race, why are you insisting on calling the Akkadians "Arabs"? They did not speak Arabic, they spoke Akkadian. Yes, it resembles Arabic, as do all Semitic languages, since Arabic is also a Semitic language, but Arabic sure as hell isn't the precursor to all Semitic languages. The Akkadians didn't vanish, they mixed with the Sumerians, and their children became Assyrians, and later, from Assyrians, Babylonians (the Assyrians split in two). Look, you are obviously a proud Arab. That is fine. Just don't try to impose the Arabic ethnicity on all Semitic peoples, all right? All Semitic peoples, most likely, originated in one way or the other, from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't mean we are Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:35 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Elias can you read what I am writing! I am talking about Arabia as a geographic term. Their is nothing such as Arab race. Dont confuse history with modern Pan-Arabism. The Akkadians are included in the article as part of Arabia! I dont beleive in an Arab race or any of the Pan-Arabist BS. the whole Mideast is Genetic mosiac. However, the article is purely historic and doenst relate to the modern Arab identity. Many tribes left Arabia and settled Africa, South Europe. Nobody is claiming Ethiopians, Sicilians or Spaniards are Arabs!. The Akkadians were vanished early in Mespotamia. Their effect was far more cultural than anything. And Mesopotamia is a region outside of Arabia, thats why the Akkadians are the only group that has an Arab origin, regardless of who they influenced afterwards. Akkadians spoke the same language, same culture and are known, if you know other tribes that lived in Arabia and left please include. I never heard of Ancient Arab tribes that settled Germany or Japan? Their no evidence or documents, but the Akkadians were od obvious Arabian origin--Skatewalk 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its important to me because the Akkadians are part of te ancient Arabian history? — No, they are not. When Arabs as a people began appearing in history, all Akkadians had become Assyrians by that time, together with the Sumerian population. they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! — It wasn't called Arabia at that time, and they did not live with any Arab people, because they were the first Semitic people. Arabs didn't exist at the same time as the Akkadians. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia! — At some point in time, the people that are now Germans and Japanese, probably also had ancestors who lived in Arabia. It doesn't make them Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:02 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
So who are the people of ancient Arabia? it is called the Rabian peninsula not the Semitic peninsula. If you call yourself Semitic thats fine. The article is discussing Ancient Arabia. Its history of Saudi Arabia, do you expect us to forget our history, or just dont mention it?! --Skatewalk 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the history of Saudi Arabia, you are welcome to write about it on Pre-Islamic Arabia. Just don't try to impose an Arabic identity on Proto-Semitic and ancient Semitic peoples, simply because they originated from the same area and spoke a related language. Yes, today, it is called the Arabian peninsula. It wasn't called Arabian at the time of the Akkadians, and they surely didn't regard themselves as Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:58 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Italy, Greece, Egypt, the Near East never were called that in ancient history! PreIslamic Arabia is a shorter period that should not include the Ancient period. It is relevant to the 'asr Al-Jahiliya, the Saudi Wik project agreed on the seperation betwen the two. Elias your accustations are out of place, thats all I can say, show me any edit in my history that relates to modern Arabism? I love history and I can't just let you deny the Akkadian history and origin in Ancient Arabia. Its nothing against you? I didn't even try to menion were the Akkadians came from in the Mesopotamian aticle. I will leav ethat up to you, because I never wanted anything to do with mesopotamia, but look at yourself editing and blaning Ancient Arab history!--Skatewalk 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You might as well call the Akkadians, "Ancient Jews". They had nothing to do with Arabs. Find me one scholar who claims with irrefutable arguments, and evidence, that the Akkadians were "Ancient Arabs". You won't find any. Because anyone in his right mind, is of the opinion that the Akkadians, were NOT Arabs. The Hellenes, and the Romans, are the same people as the modern Greeks and Italians. Akkadians, are not the ancestors of modern Arabs. They are the ancestors of the modern Assyrians. The Akkadians may have originated from the same Semitic peoples that later evolved into Arabs, but they sure as hell weren't Arabs. What part of this don't you understand? — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:49 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Ancient Arabs. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 14:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please, the Arabs are holding hands. Don't give me vandalism warnings. I have several good reasons and he didn't listen and just kept reverting without providing academic sources. Three independent editors have reached a consensus on that article, that it's clearly not written accurately, lacks academic sources, and it's being partially controlled by sockpuppets writing WP:NOR stuff. On top of that, an Arab nationalist is trying to turn every Semitic peoples into Arabs, even though they aren't Arabs. If anyone is vandalising, it's User:Skatewalk, who refuses to discuss on the talk page, and he has broken the WP:3RR rule. Go give him a vandalism warning, and please refrain from your Arabic bias since you are an Arab. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:38 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You still refuse to accept his reference about Akkadians [5] , which seems to be a Reliable sources. and you are breaking the Assume good faith rule even. please calm down and lets work together in a peacful environment Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with that source. In fact, I've even used that source on the Assyrian people article.[6] I will however remove this source, from the Assyrian people article. I only used it because it says the same thing as what other Assyriologists are saying. Either way, that source, doesn't say that the Akkadians were ancient Arabs. It says, they migrated from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't make them Arabs. Yes, most likely, all Semitic peoples, have a common origin. So what? Does that mean that we are Arabs? No, we are Semitic peoples, not Arabic peoples. Is that so hard to understand? There was nothing Arabic with the Akkadians. They didn't have an Arabic culture, and the Akkadian language, surely wouldn't be intelligible by Arabs today. The word "Arab", didn't even exist when the Akkadians rose to prominence. He is just trying to make all Pre-Islamic Semitic peoples into Arabs. He thinks that Semitic languages means Arabic languages. Clearly, this is Arabocentrism. He is an Arabic fanatic. The world doesn't revolve around Arabs. Arabization is lame. Stop imposing Arabic culture on everybody. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:52 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I know you right , but thats still not a good reason to remove a reliable source which related to the subject . this is not an arabization or something like that . My friend you are removing anything comes on your way ,
for example : you have removed the template of the Saudi WikiProject , which includes the history of arabian peninsula in it's tasks.(sorry i just noticed it was redirected) - anyways ,stop removing contents without a good reason. thanks Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- For your information, you are defending a sockpuppet user, and you have insolence to accuse me of vandalism while at the same time, you are defending a sockpuppet. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:13 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I know you right , but thats still not a good reason to remove a reliable source which related to the subject . this is not an arabization or something like that . My friend you are removing anything comes on your way ,
- I don't have a problem with that source. In fact, I've even used that source on the Assyrian people article.[6] I will however remove this source, from the Assyrian people article. I only used it because it says the same thing as what other Assyriologists are saying. Either way, that source, doesn't say that the Akkadians were ancient Arabs. It says, they migrated from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't make them Arabs. Yes, most likely, all Semitic peoples, have a common origin. So what? Does that mean that we are Arabs? No, we are Semitic peoples, not Arabic peoples. Is that so hard to understand? There was nothing Arabic with the Akkadians. They didn't have an Arabic culture, and the Akkadian language, surely wouldn't be intelligible by Arabs today. The word "Arab", didn't even exist when the Akkadians rose to prominence. He is just trying to make all Pre-Islamic Semitic peoples into Arabs. He thinks that Semitic languages means Arabic languages. Clearly, this is Arabocentrism. He is an Arabic fanatic. The world doesn't revolve around Arabs. Arabization is lame. Stop imposing Arabic culture on everybody. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:52 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You still refuse to accept his reference about Akkadians [5] , which seems to be a Reliable sources. and you are breaking the Assume good faith rule even. please calm down and lets work together in a peacful environment Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me!? Just because I exposed your sock puppet User:Dbachmann that don't give you the right to acuse me of being that. And he is protecting the history of Saudi Arabia! because you are denying an ancient period of the history of Arabia, it will only make us focus on this subject. --Skatewalk 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with Dab every single day. He is not my sockpuppet. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:01 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Syriac is not Assyrian
Please take your time to read the following articles: [7] [8] You'll find that your theory is disputed. Don't try to present it as a fact.
One more request: don't try to draw my personal background into this discussion. You don't have the slightest clue. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The "theory" is not disputed. Believe it or not, I have already read what you're linking. Not the least impressed or convinced. Also, you only have John Joseph and Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, and neither of them are neutral on this. There's an entire world of academic scholars from European and American countries, who are unanimous about this. Sure, this is not ad populum, but I take their opinions any day over a fanatic Turk. What is your background, if I may ask? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:23 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Syriac = Aramaean
Have you even taken a look at [9]? These are all sourced, verifiable quotations, proving that for centuries, Syriacs (both Eastern and Western) have been aware of their Aramaean heritage. It's quite impressive. I would be surprised if you could come up with a similar list of quotations proving that Syriacs have considered themselves inheritants of the Assyrian Empire, before the Anglican missionaries came to the area, in the 19th century.
By the way, I don't believe my background is of any relevance. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we Assyrians don't deny that we have Aramaean ancestors. Get over it, we are Assyrians, because they were a lot more in population size than the Aramaeans, and they simply adopted their language after assimilating the Aramaeans, because of its more advanced alphabet compared with cuneiform. Your background is very important in all this. Are you a Syriac Orthodox? If not, what are you? Also, please don't point me to that joke of a site, cite academic scholars, if you want to make a point. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:33 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if you could come up with a similar list of quotations proving that Syriacs have considered themselves inheritants of the Assyrian Empire, before the Anglican missionaries came to the area, in the 19th century. — You have seriously swallowed this conspiracy theory that the "evil spiritually Satanic West" is trying to do away with the "rich Aramaeans heritage" of Syriac Christians, as stated on that horseshit Aram Nahrin site? Unbelievable. Here, read this: [10] at the end, Frye refutes that ridiculous claim. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:55 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Still, you have not come up with a serious refutation of the facts presented on that site. I don't care about the site itself, it's the sources it presents.
- Neither have you been able to present evidence of the so-called Assyrian identity of the Syriac people, before the 19th century, whereas I have pointed out to you sources that equate Syriac with Aramaean. Also, your claim that the Aramaeans have been assimilated by the Assyrians is not supported by any reliable evidence. All you do is continue with your Assyrianist rant, blindly denying what has been written by people from your own tradition, without presenting any concrete counterevidence.
- And by the way, we are discussing the background of the Syriacs here, not those of Wikipedia editors. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tatian and Lucian both identified as Assyrians, and they lived in the borders of modern day Syria. In this article, Richard Nelson Frye, an academic scholar, mentions the assimilation of Aramaean tribes into the Assyrian empire. Simo Parpola, also an academic scholar, and a professor of Assyriology, goes through this in intricate details, here. I don't need to refute anything, they're doing it rather fine on their own, and their studies, is of much more important weight, than your assertions. If we have called ourselves Suraya and/or Suryoyo, that means we have called ourselves Ashuraya. What is it you don't understand about this? How the hell, do you go from Syriac to Aramaean? It is so illogical. Also, why are you refusing to say your background? What are you hiding? Are you a Turk? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Tatian refers to himself as being "born in the land of the Assyrians", that's something different than calling himself an Assyrian. I still have to find a proper citation of Lucian's works, which I haven't seen in Parpola's article, nor in the Wikipedia article. So when it comes to Syriacs who refer to themselves as Aramaeans vs. Assyrians, your score is quite poor in comparison to the Aram-Nahrin website.
- Concering Frye, you're probably aware of John Joseph, who challenges his theory. Also, I've pointed out to you a different source that does not support the Assyrian-Syrian theory. I am printing Parpola's article now , and see what I have to say about that. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- They were not Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:17 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Is that all you can come up with??
- Check out Urhoy. It proves indubitably that Syriacs (also from the Church of the East and the Chaldaean Catholic Church) considered themselves Aramaeans. Also, the Greeks were aware of this. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- That site doesn't prove shit. Cite academic scholars, and don't bother linking me to more "Aram-Nahrin" sites posting articles from that lunatic "Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis." Thank you. Also, let me know what your opinion is of Parpola's stuff. And Tatian and Lucian, identified themselves as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- An academic title is no proof of neutrality. I cited notable people from the community itself. You still haven't come up with a proper citation yet. You just keep repeating yourself by saying that "Tatian and Lucian are Assyrians", without providing any evidence. As I've pointed out before, Tatian just says that he's born "in the land of the Assyrians", and I'm curious about Lucian's self-identification.
- Concerning Parpola: I find his article quite shaky. He does not prove a thing. Based on some 20th-century sociologists who studied assimilation processes, he claims that communities generally assimilate within three generations, but that certain factors (education, oppression) can hamper that process. Using this hypothesis, he suggests that Aramaeans (without mentioning them specifically) must have been assimilated. As "proof" he says, among other things, that the Assyrians used quite harsh methods to obliterate non-Assyrian ethnicities, including their religions, that they resettled population groups throughout the empire, and that many regions had been under Assyrian control for more than three generations. After the fall of the Assyrian Empire, subsequent empire did not bother much to disturb the Assyrian way of life. Hence, he says, Assyrians were able to continue to exist as a separate people, until today.
- I believe it's shaky, because at first, he writes that oppression can be a factor counterproductive for assimilation. First of all, I doubt it is possible and scientifically sound to extrapolate 20th-century foundings on a population group that lived more than 2000 years ago. Besides, if the Assyrians' treatment of newly conquered peoples was so merciless, then why would Aramaeans not have persisted against all odds? He uses this argument at random, and only when it suits his purpose. Also, at the core of his "proof" lies the equation Syriac = Assyrian, with which, as you know, I have a problem, for it's merely a disputed theory. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- That site doesn't prove shit. Cite academic scholars, and don't bother linking me to more "Aram-Nahrin" sites posting articles from that lunatic "Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis." Thank you. Also, let me know what your opinion is of Parpola's stuff. And Tatian and Lucian, identified themselves as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- They were not Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:17 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Tatian and Lucian both identified as Assyrians, and they lived in the borders of modern day Syria. In this article, Richard Nelson Frye, an academic scholar, mentions the assimilation of Aramaean tribes into the Assyrian empire. Simo Parpola, also an academic scholar, and a professor of Assyriology, goes through this in intricate details, here. I don't need to refute anything, they're doing it rather fine on their own, and their studies, is of much more important weight, than your assertions. If we have called ourselves Suraya and/or Suryoyo, that means we have called ourselves Ashuraya. What is it you don't understand about this? How the hell, do you go from Syriac to Aramaean? It is so illogical. Also, why are you refusing to say your background? What are you hiding? Are you a Turk? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if you could come up with a similar list of quotations proving that Syriacs have considered themselves inheritants of the Assyrian Empire, before the Anglican missionaries came to the area, in the 19th century. — You have seriously swallowed this conspiracy theory that the "evil spiritually Satanic West" is trying to do away with the "rich Aramaeans heritage" of Syriac Christians, as stated on that horseshit Aram Nahrin site? Unbelievable. Here, read this: [10] at the end, Frye refutes that ridiculous claim. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:55 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
It is only a "disputed theory" in your own stubborn mind. You should read this. Also written by an Assyriologist that agrees that we are Assyrians. That stone, is basically all the evidence we need. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:39 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Neo-Assyrian Empire
Hey Elias, good idea with Neo-Assyrian Empire. I think we should greatly expand the Ancient Assyrian-related articles, to bring them up to par with other ancient history articles. For example, ancient Rome- and Egypt-related pages are huge! Posh bshena. --Šarukinu 16:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Assyria imho should be a very general article, and the different periods, should cover intricate details of this and that certain period, in their own articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. I was gonna make a "Wars of Neo-Assyria" article but oh well.Ok let me start a campaign box in the article, and see what info I can pour in. Yala azekh wa pulshekh! (lets go and fight)!
Neo-Assyrian Empire 2
Hey man, about the article, I will add references where I can and improve the campaign box by adding relevant links and other battles and or more info. See what I can do, somtimes I am busy / not bothered, other times it looks like I am high and ready to wikify!Tourskin 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes man, patience is a virtue. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:51 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
ref
ok thanks, i didnt know how to consolidate those references. Tourskin 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please upload it on Commons next time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:08 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how. I don't know anything about Commons. Chaldean 08:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, all right, I've done it. I'm converting it to an svg file as we speak (much better). — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Syriac Christianity
Khon you say Syriac Christianity is a religious page, then what do you think the Chaldean dominance is? What do you think the Syriac Orthodox dominance is? I really believe it would be better to be put all in one great page, so that a visitor does not get confused and must go to 10 different articles to get the point of view of everybody's. Chaldean 14:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's confusing. Are you insulting Wikipedia readers' intelligence? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:43 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- No, but having alot of pages here and their just confuses the average reader and make the issue even more complicated. Chaldean 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- You see, this is this is the exact reason why I oppose all these different articles. Now "Chaldeans" is going to be an entire different ethnic page. This is wrong. "Chaldeans" and "Syraic Orthodox people" do not deserve their won page because that would indicate that these people are from different nations. All these articles should be put together. Chaldean 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- If we get down to work properly on these articles, source them with academic stuff, doesn't matter what some few confused Chaldean Catholics will think, in time, most of them will get the picture. All we need is irrefutable academic sources. That's all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:09 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You see, this is this is the exact reason why I oppose all these different articles. Now "Chaldeans" is going to be an entire different ethnic page. This is wrong. "Chaldeans" and "Syraic Orthodox people" do not deserve their won page because that would indicate that these people are from different nations. All these articles should be put together. Chaldean 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, but having alot of pages here and their just confuses the average reader and make the issue even more complicated. Chaldean 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Memnoch the Devil edits
RE: "No shit it's a work of fiction? Stop calling this a heretical work; it's a novel"[11]
I wasn't calling the book heretical. I was defending it against those who might; by giving a reminder that the work is not only a work of fiction, but is very much intended that way. (You'll notice my comments are right below where it mentions that parts of the book are downright blasphemous.) I won't re-add my addition to the page, if you really feel it doesn't belong there. I just wanted to clarify my actions.Cylith 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if that was your intention, then I agree it's a good idea. It's just that you made it sound like it is a heretical novel. That was my problem. Otherwise, I think it's the best damn book I've ever read. Well, one of the best anyway. Probably the best. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:16 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Well I suppose it's my fault for wording things that way. It's somewhat unnatural for me to write as an encyclopedia should sound. I'm much more accustomed to writing conversationally (like now). So I can sometimes muddle things a little when trying to get my point across. Yes, it is a very good novel. I like Rice's portrayal of theistic evolution.Cylith 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's all right, it's okay to do mistakes. No need to apologise for it. I personally loved the part with Veronica's Veil, in the novel. That was great how Anne Rice put it together. A true classic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:36 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Well I suppose it's my fault for wording things that way. It's somewhat unnatural for me to write as an encyclopedia should sound. I'm much more accustomed to writing conversationally (like now). So I can sometimes muddle things a little when trying to get my point across. Yes, it is a very good novel. I like Rice's portrayal of theistic evolution.Cylith 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
A redirect you created is being concidered for discussion
Click here if you want. TheBlazikenMaster 11:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Notability of The Loyalist Party
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Loyalist Party, by Zains (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Loyalist Party seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Loyalist Party, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
RFCU
The code letters you provided on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk are somewhat mutually exclusive, but aside from that, you need to provide diffs to show the 3RR and the pattern of behavior. MSJapan 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:26 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Getting there...you need to identify who's making which edit, and what they are reverting to. MSJapan 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah okay, sure, I'll get into details in a moment. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:50 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Done. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:03 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah okay, sure, I'll get into details in a moment. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:50 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Getting there...you need to identify who's making which edit, and what they are reverting to. MSJapan 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism over Ancient Arabia
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ancient Arabia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 15:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not WP:Vandalism. So Ammar, please tell me, do you think adding POV edits, claiming that Akkadians were Arabs, is a good start? Please, knock this off. If anyone is into vandalism, it's Skatewalk, and you're defending this guy. Here, you should check this out: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk. You are defending this sockpuppet user. Shame on you for your Arabic bias. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:04 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I didnt say Akkadians are arabs , and i respect the POV , but you removed 80% of the page and added unpolite statment . this is a major vandalism , and i know you agree. Try to learn please how to disscuss rather than vadalize . I'm not defending anyone , you guys refuse discussion and references. Whats your proof that he is a sockpuppet user anyways ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop your lies, all right? It was not vandalism and I do not agree with anything you or he says. What I removed, was crappy additions that have no place in that article. Ancient Arabia, is an article about just that, Ancient Arabia. Not about different groups of people, that are barely connected with ancient Arabia. What do Akkadians have to do with Ancient Arabia? They just originated from there, that's all. There is no exact history of Akkadians in Arabia. Calling them Arabs, is blatant POV, and since you respect this POV, you shouldn't be taken seriously. Don't make such snap judgements about who's vandalising. You want to classify Akkadians, as Arabs, becaus of this source? It doesn't even say that they were Arabs. It says, clearly, that they were Semites. Calling them Arabs, is preposterous. Don't be ridiculous. Stop hassling me with this. I did not remove 80% of the page, I just removed unencyclopedic unreferenced content that three editors removed from the Ancient Arabs article, which Skatewalk, reinserted in a different article, trying his luck again. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:40 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Thats still not a good reason to remove everything and write about folowers. you still dont have inverse sources anyways Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop your lies, all right? It was not vandalism and I do not agree with anything you or he says. What I removed, was crappy additions that have no place in that article. Ancient Arabia, is an article about just that, Ancient Arabia. Not about different groups of people, that are barely connected with ancient Arabia. What do Akkadians have to do with Ancient Arabia? They just originated from there, that's all. There is no exact history of Akkadians in Arabia. Calling them Arabs, is blatant POV, and since you respect this POV, you shouldn't be taken seriously. Don't make such snap judgements about who's vandalising. You want to classify Akkadians, as Arabs, becaus of this source? It doesn't even say that they were Arabs. It says, clearly, that they were Semites. Calling them Arabs, is preposterous. Don't be ridiculous. Stop hassling me with this. I did not remove 80% of the page, I just removed unencyclopedic unreferenced content that three editors removed from the Ancient Arabs article, which Skatewalk, reinserted in a different article, trying his luck again. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:40 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I didnt say Akkadians are arabs , and i respect the POV , but you removed 80% of the page and added unpolite statment . this is a major vandalism , and i know you agree. Try to learn please how to disscuss rather than vadalize . I'm not defending anyone , you guys refuse discussion and references. Whats your proof that he is a sockpuppet user anyways ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have one single source, listing them as Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:25 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
They are listed as Ancient Arabians. Even if they were Germanic they will still be listed in the article of ancient Arabia, because they are part on the ancient Arabian history. --Skatewalk 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can't list non-Arabic peoples, as Arabs. This is not WP:ENC. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:46 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism Warning (1) //
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Ancient Arabia, you will be blocked from editing. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are the one who's vandalizing it by adding non-encyclopaedic content. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:25 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I'm undoing your removal of content. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You had better cite academic sources, if you're not going to cite academic sources, we can start a revert war. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:46 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Your have already reached the WP:3RR. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- So have you. Thing is, I'm not the one adding blatant crap into the article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:00 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Your have already reached the WP:3RR. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You had better cite academic sources, if you're not going to cite academic sources, we can start a revert war. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:46 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I'm undoing your removal of content. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism warning (2) //
This is your last warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Ancient Arabia, you will be blocked from editing. . Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I will keep on reverting it, until you stop adding non-encyclopaedic unreferenced content. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:58 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
IrishGuy talk 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
EliasAlucard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been removing non-encyclopaedic content, added by a sock puppet user (User:Skatewalk). The sources he has added, don't say that the people listed in the article, were Arabs. No scholarly sources, no academic sources, and on top of that, Skatewalk, is a sockpuppet. I have reported him here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk. He will get banned in a matter of hourse, indefinitely. his additions, are not wikipedia quality. And that article, is about a geographical region, not an article about Semitic peoples. being a Semite, does not mean you are by default, an Arab. This is blatant POV content.
Decline reason:
Disagreeing with another user is not a justification for edit warring. Content disputes are solved through WP:DR instead. — Sandstein 05:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Here and here you blatantly stated your intention to start an edit war. IrishGuy talk 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter at all. I am removing crappy content. It's not my fault, that sockpuppet users, are adding crap. I am taking responsibility for Wikipedia's high standards. You should unban me, because I'm not the one adding original research, POV-content, and unreferenced material into articles. Have you even checked the sources he cited on that article? I am not lenient on sockpuppet trolls adding un-academic sources. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:40 16 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Tja
Tjenare, läget? Jag är inte hundra på att jag kommer hinna med. Tyvärr är jag så pass upptagen och kommer inte stå mycket till hjälp. Något som jag vill ändra på är: Assyriska/Syrianska folkräkningen. Chaldean tror att han bestämmer och vet bäst, men jag tycker inte som honom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryoye (talk • contribs) 2007-08-16T01:24:49
- Hur många är vi då? Om du har färsk statistik så får du gärna lägga fram källor. Förresten, ett tips är att du börjar signera dina kommentarer. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:07 16 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
ethnicity
see ethnic group:
- An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.
either accept this definition, and stop arguing based on confused national mysticist notions, or come to Talk:Ethnic group and show how this definition is flawed. dab(𒁳) 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see here:
- “Analysis of the Assyrians shows that they have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population. It is important to understand that this applies to the population as a whole, not to any one individual. The study thus does two things: it confirms the uniqueness of the Assyrian population as a whole, and it establishes genetics as a major criterion of a population group, potentially overriding elements such as language, religion, and other social and historical components which were formerly considered to be primary determinants.” [12]
Genealogy, check. Linguistic, we speak the same language, check. Territorial traits, we originate from the same area, check. Religiously, we follow (As)syrian/Syriac Christianity, check. Cultural, we have the exact same culture, check. Ancestry, all Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syraics marry each other, check. Look, as far as ethnicity goes, we are the same people, all right? It's just that some of us, insist, based on ignorance, that we are not Assyrians, for whatever reason. Doesn't mean they're not Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:30 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Shlama/Salam
Hey Elias, let me make a point clear, Assyrians in Iraq particular are respected by Arabs, they allwayso have been, there are disagreements about religion but thats all. There are alot of Assyrians in Iraq living peaceful with Arabs and my friends house in Baghdad are hired by Assyrians, There are no such thing that Arabs are trying to drive Assyrians out. maybe some Islamist trying to do this for political reasons, but such hate between regular people does not have any existence. Cheers — Balu2000 07:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's be honest here, Iraq, or what's left of it, is the original country for the Assyrian people. We are the native people of that area. Yet we are being wiped out in our own country, as you can see here. You think this is a coincidence? No, of course not. Islam is what it is. These "Islamist" are just following Jihad. In fact, they've even demanded the Jizya from Assyrians.[13] You think this is a coincidence? Of course not. They're just following the Qur'an.[14] Now, you can say what you want about this, in order to try to convince me otherwise, but look, I know what Islam is, all right? I know, for a fact, that there's an ongoing genocide on Assyrians in Iraq, because that is how Islam works. Yes, I'm sure there are "peaceful Arabs". Doesn't matter. Most Arabs follow Islam, and they are committing a genocide on Assyrians as we speak, because they are following the example of the "prophet". As for the Assyrian Genocide, what do you think motivated it? Of course, Islam. I have relatives that were killed in this genocide, and those who survived, have told me about how they were forced to convert to Islam, or leave. Or else, death was around the corner. Don't fool yourself, Islam is guilty as sin. I'm not worried though. It's written in the Bible, New Testament: "The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."[15] In time, on the day of judgement, all of you Muslims, will be judged and condemned by Assyrians. For you abandoned God for a murderer and a paedophile. You can kill all Assyrians in this life, but that is your problem in the after life, not ours. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:19 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Don't mention the bible to me, i am sure it has be re-written so many times that a person would go to a psychologic doctor after reading., leave the Quran aside too. I am telling you in a simple way, that Assyrians and Arabs are more likely to be friends they have lived together for a long time, this hate should be to Kurds. They call you guys for "Kurdish Chrisitians" yet they are much better than Arabs?. you are very extreme on this subject. Iraq is one, everyone should live in peace, every religion, It is people like you who should be killed by those "Muslims" this hate may effect when you write in wikipedia too, please check wikipedia policy. — Balu2000 07:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that settles it. Though to be honest, I usually don't edit Arab/Kurdish related topics, and I'm not directing hate towards Arabs (at least not as much as Arabs are hating and murdering Assyrians). this hate should be to Kurds. They call you guys for "Kurdish Chrisitians" yet they are much better than Arabs? — and Arabs call us "Arab Christians". How are you better than the Kurds? It is people like you who should be killed by those "Muslims" — I rest my case. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:14 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You are talking like I am an Assyrian hater. Let me make few points clear. I got a special love for Assyrians, my friends are Assyrians along with the Kurds, I have been in Catholic churches, talking with priests and some are my friends, when a small Assyrian girl did arive in this country as asylum, she lived in my family house, she was alone so we took care of her. Assyrians also respect me for being Arab, they have never said "Go away Arab", "you dirty Arab", though i have been invited to some major Assyrian parties, sometimes we are united by the term "Iraqi". I feel very happy for being with the Assyrians along Kurds. When you are talking this way, its quite shocking. If a group hatred Arabs did this against Assyrians it does not mean, everyone did?. your hate is towards every Arab. — Balu2000 09:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. I don't hate Arabs. However, people — and the world in general — are quite pissed off at Arabs. And that goes with a good reason. You see, Arabs, are probably the most worthless people in the entire world. Did you know, that the women in the Scandinavian countres alone, produce more in science than all Arab men combined? On top of that, Arabs, worthless as they are, only oppress Christian ethnic minorities. Don't fool yourself, and don't try to fool me. If anyone is into hate here, then it's you Arabs. Here's how peaceful you Arabs are:[16] I can feel the Arabic love. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You guys need to stop this simply because you don't accomplish anything by doing it. Learn to work together to create good articles on Wiki. Respect each other as fellow Iraqis - something we share with each other very specially. Elias please stop with this grutch against Arabs and Muslims. Chaldean 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am not an Iraqi, and I don't have a problem with Arabs, as long as they're not killing Assyrians, and stop hating the entire world. I have no problem collaborating with Arabs on Wikipedia, as long as they stick to facts and academic sources, which as you may know by now, User:Skatewalk is not doing, because he has his Arab-agenda, trying to rewrite history and make everything Arabic. Hey Chaldean, don't you think it's quite an insult, that Arabs are killing our people in Iraq as we speak,[17] and on top of that, these Arabist Wikipedians, are trying to label our forefathers as Arabs? Don't you see the insolence in that? They're trying to cover up a genocide or something by doing this. Like, "Assyrians never became extinct, they were Arabs originally and they're still Arabs!" Or something ridiculous like that. It's only a matter of time before they set up an Arabic "Assyrian" state like they did with Syria. Chaldean, don't fool yourself, this is all politics, even on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You guys need to stop this simply because you don't accomplish anything by doing it. Learn to work together to create good articles on Wiki. Respect each other as fellow Iraqis - something we share with each other very specially. Elias please stop with this grutch against Arabs and Muslims. Chaldean 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. I don't hate Arabs. However, people — and the world in general — are quite pissed off at Arabs. And that goes with a good reason. You see, Arabs, are probably the most worthless people in the entire world. Did you know, that the women in the Scandinavian countres alone, produce more in science than all Arab men combined? On top of that, Arabs, worthless as they are, only oppress Christian ethnic minorities. Don't fool yourself, and don't try to fool me. If anyone is into hate here, then it's you Arabs. Here's how peaceful you Arabs are:[16] I can feel the Arabic love. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You are talking like I am an Assyrian hater. Let me make few points clear. I got a special love for Assyrians, my friends are Assyrians along with the Kurds, I have been in Catholic churches, talking with priests and some are my friends, when a small Assyrian girl did arive in this country as asylum, she lived in my family house, she was alone so we took care of her. Assyrians also respect me for being Arab, they have never said "Go away Arab", "you dirty Arab", though i have been invited to some major Assyrian parties, sometimes we are united by the term "Iraqi". I feel very happy for being with the Assyrians along Kurds. When you are talking this way, its quite shocking. If a group hatred Arabs did this against Assyrians it does not mean, everyone did?. your hate is towards every Arab. — Balu2000 09:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that settles it. Though to be honest, I usually don't edit Arab/Kurdish related topics, and I'm not directing hate towards Arabs (at least not as much as Arabs are hating and murdering Assyrians). this hate should be to Kurds. They call you guys for "Kurdish Chrisitians" yet they are much better than Arabs? — and Arabs call us "Arab Christians". How are you better than the Kurds? It is people like you who should be killed by those "Muslims" — I rest my case. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:14 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Don't mention the bible to me, i am sure it has be re-written so many times that a person would go to a psychologic doctor after reading., leave the Quran aside too. I am telling you in a simple way, that Assyrians and Arabs are more likely to be friends they have lived together for a long time, this hate should be to Kurds. They call you guys for "Kurdish Chrisitians" yet they are much better than Arabs?. you are very extreme on this subject. Iraq is one, everyone should live in peace, every religion, It is people like you who should be killed by those "Muslims" this hate may effect when you write in wikipedia too, please check wikipedia policy. — Balu2000 07:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a really sad discussion. I would advise those involved to stop making stereotypical generalizations based on ignorance and hatred and get back to editing before someone gets reported for breaching WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Tiamat 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- The "hatred" isn't coming from me, sir. I'm not the peaceful oozing with love Muslim, who's wishing death upon others. It's very nice of you Muslims/Arabs to play the victims here, by calling it "hate" every time someone criticizes you. I guess that's what you do best, playing the victim, in order to get sympathy. And no, this is neither "ignorance" of Islam, nor is it "stereotyping" of Muslims. Just hardcore politically incorrect facts. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:25 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- My comments were not intended to assign blame, but your response indicates that you do not seem to understand how your comments continue to sound both racist and uncivil. For your information, I am not Muslim, I am a Palestinian Christian citizen of Israel. I'm not "defending" Islam (it needs no such defense) - but I do take issue with your aggressive tone, blankets statements and generalizations. Please read WP:CIVIL again. If you persist in this kind of incitement, I will report you to WP:ANI.Tiamat 10:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, the fact that Balu wishes me death,[18] peaceful as he is, is totally okay with you? I don't see a warning on his talk page. Oh and, there's no racism in telling it like it is. Do you even know what race is? Please do not abuse the meaning of that word to further your agenda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:58 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- My comments were not intended to assign blame, but your response indicates that you do not seem to understand how your comments continue to sound both racist and uncivil. For your information, I am not Muslim, I am a Palestinian Christian citizen of Israel. I'm not "defending" Islam (it needs no such defense) - but I do take issue with your aggressive tone, blankets statements and generalizations. Please read WP:CIVIL again. If you persist in this kind of incitement, I will report you to WP:ANI.Tiamat 10:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to User:Skatewalk regarding comment at WP:ANI
This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Wikipedia is not a battleground for differing ideologies, be they religious, cultural, political or any other belief system. Your representation of Skatewalk in your response above gives me great concern as regards your impartiality toward editors who identify themselves as Arab, which I responded to there. I am further concerned that your username contains the name Dracula (spelled backwards), a character from folklore based on Vlad III the Impaler who was one of historys most famous persecutors of Turks/Arabs. I have no comment on the validity of your concerns regarding the edits by Skatewalk, or the sources referenced, other than to advise you strongly to use NPOV language in your future comments. LessHeard vanU 10:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. First of all, don't make snap judgements about me. Second, you should investigate more of what Skatewalk is up to here on Wikipedia. As for my anagram nick, it's based on Alucard (Castlevania). Can you imagine? I want to kill all Arabs and Turks because I play video games. What a long shot. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:54 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I have struck out my remarks regarding your name - although you may wish to make the reason for choosing it a little clearer on your userpage to avoid future misunderstandings. As for what Skatewalk "is up to"; if you have a content dispute then there are several avenues to explore. Skatewalk used one of them to raise concerns about your editing, and I responded to your inappropriate remark within your reply. I suggest that your casual nonchalance regarding your own conduct is likely to prove unhelpful in your interaction with other editors, and you may want to improve that aspect of your contributions. LessHeard vanU 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I will change my attitude, for the sake of better understanding between other Wikipedians. As for Skatewalk, he has his political agenda. You should check out what the admins who investigated his report on WP:ANB/I wrote about his edits. Oh and by the way, I am categorized on my talk page as Wikipedians who play Castlevania :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:40 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Fine by me. As for Castlevania, I (and likely most other editors) am unfamiliar with it and wouldn't recognise the reference. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have to give you some credit though, for that interesting connection you made between Alucard/Dracula and Turks/Arabs. I never thought of it myself. And most people don't pay attention to the fact that Alucard is Dracula. But seriously, I'm just a huge fan of Castlevania. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:44 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Fine by me. As for Castlevania, I (and likely most other editors) am unfamiliar with it and wouldn't recognise the reference. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I will change my attitude, for the sake of better understanding between other Wikipedians. As for Skatewalk, he has his political agenda. You should check out what the admins who investigated his report on WP:ANB/I wrote about his edits. Oh and by the way, I am categorized on my talk page as Wikipedians who play Castlevania :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:40 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I have struck out my remarks regarding your name - although you may wish to make the reason for choosing it a little clearer on your userpage to avoid future misunderstandings. As for what Skatewalk "is up to"; if you have a content dispute then there are several avenues to explore. Skatewalk used one of them to raise concerns about your editing, and I responded to your inappropriate remark within your reply. I suggest that your casual nonchalance regarding your own conduct is likely to prove unhelpful in your interaction with other editors, and you may want to improve that aspect of your contributions. LessHeard vanU 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Warning: don't edit war
Don't edit war to put the sockpuppet tag back on Balu2000's userpage, please. I don't see any evidence that anybody except you suspect him of being a sock of Nochi, and you're in conflict with Balu. This makes you the wrong person to add the tag. While you're about it, please don't mark all your edits as "minor", it's very misleading. They're not minor. If you have your preferences set to mark the edits in this way by default, please click on your "Preferences" button and make the change under the tab "Editing". Bishonen | talk 13:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
- You don't see any resemblance here:
- They edit the same articles, and especially considering that Nochi AND Balu2000 use this smiley ---> (: ? Also, pay attention of that WikiFairy template. Come on, don't be ridiculous, it's Nochi for sure. I know his behaviour. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:54 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Pat Condell
A tag has been placed on Pat Condell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --== Waycool27 ==-- 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Lebanon under Babylonia
Lol another archive? Its funny and freaky to see nothing! Anyways, I'll see what I can do, I have this book:
Bertman, Stephen (2005). Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. New York: Oxford UP.
Which is kinda cool. I'll add what I can. The thing is, the Neo-Babylonian Empire didn't last nearly as long as the Neo-Assyrian Empire; whilst the Assyrians devastated their way through roughly 300 years of history (910 - 610 BC) the Babylonians managed a rather lame 70 years (610 BC - 540 BC), no offence to the trolls who call themselves Babylonians or what have you lol.
Oh yeah, theres the Neo-Assyrian Empire article. Lol, sorry I'll do my best to help there too!!! (still chillin)Tourskin 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. There is a decent source here you could start with. And I'll be looking for more sources soon. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:36 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
The Hidden Pearl
For your information, I have never cited from The Hidden Pearl. You keep on not reading what I write, and spreading lies about contributors. As long as my additions to articles about the Syriacs are reverted by staunch nationalists and Aramaean haters like you, I'll refrain from doing that.
By the way, you believe The Hidden Pearl is a joke? You think that, after a mere six months of "study", you know the subject better than Prof. Sebastian Brock? I honestly believe you're a joke yourself. Try to learn something about Wikipedia:Civility, before you judge people, and accuse them of all sorts of things. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Benne, all the websites you're citing, publish material by either Megalommatis, or "The Hidden Pearl". Sorry, but that's not acceptable. Megalommatis is so full of his lies, nothing honest can come out of him. As for the Hidden Pearl, what's so factual about it? It's not exactly unbiased. I don't hate "Aramaeans", there just aren't any Aramaeans in existence today, and those who pretend to be, are not Aramaeans. Why should these revisionists be given more credibility than they deserve? It's not about the time. Six months or forty years, doesn't matter. I listen to reasonable, and logical arguments, based on deductions from people who know better than me. I can spot someone lying by just listening to his arguments, and how coherent they are. Those who claim to be "Aramaeans" or "Chaldeans", don't have a solid case. By the way, why do you care about this anyway? You claim that you're neither a Syriac, Turk, or whatever. What's this of importance to you then? Why do you bother trying to prove something, with old, inaccurate lies? What motivates you to keep on doing this? Is it for some "humanitarian ideals", or what is it? Do you know how frustrating this is for me, when my own relatives don't even know their history, and call themselves "Syriac-Aramaeans" based on the crappy websites you spread around? Do you know how much you're hurting our people with these lies? Some of us are actually gullible and swallow everything the Syrian Orthodox Church says about our identity. You should knock this off. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:23 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- You're the one who's spreading lies here. I have never cited Megalommatis, but you keep mentioning him in an attempt to discredit me. I have given you plenty of sources, and you keep coming up with the same stuff. The only straw you cling on to, is that Syria=Assyria theory. Even if it is etymologically related (which I highly doubt, as you're well aware by now), that doesn't prove a darn thing. If you read Palpola's article thoroughly, you'll see that he doesn't have any proper evidence for the current existence of the ancient Assyrians, nor for the disappearance of the Aramaeans as a separate ethnic group. He also comes up with the Syria=Assyria thing, and with some American research that suggests that people assimilate within three generations. I suspect him of wishful thinking, because he doesn't want to study a civilisation that is finito.
- If you have read the links I've provided you with, you have seen that throughout the history of the Syriacs, it has been acknowledged that the Suryāye are the same as the ancient Aramaeans, that those whom the Greeks called Syrians, call themselves Aramaeans. It is all over the place, both in Greek sources, as well as in Flavius Josephus, and in the works of German Semitic scholars. The fact that Michael the Syrian supposedly writes that the Syrians are actually Assyrians, doesn't change that fact. I still have to look into that citation, but compared with the numerous statements that Syrians equals Aramaeans, it doesn't convince me a bit.
- I'm very well aware of the frustration you feel, because it's all over you. You sound like a little child who doesn't get it its way. Once people disagree with your stance, you start accusing them of spreading lies, of trying to cause disunion among your people, and spreading lies yourself. Try to comment on content, for a while, instead of attempting to attack contributors. Grow up ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Look man, you can say what you want, at the end of the day, we go by academic scholars here, not Aramaean revisionists called Benne. You have a problem with the sources we're citing? Find better ones. Not outdaded sources from the 18th century before modern research on this had advanced. I have never cited Megalommatis, but you keep mentioning him in an attempt to discredit me. — You keep on linking to websites that have his work all over the place. The only straw you cling on to, is that Syria=Assyria theory. Even if it is etymologically related (which I highly doubt, as you're well aware by now), that doesn't prove a darn thing. — It proves just about everything. Your credibility falls right here. Syria does not mean Aram. Yes, it is located on the ancient place of the Aramaeans, but it does not mean Aram. And most of the Syriacs who say they are Aramaeans don't even come from the "Aram" area. They're from Turkey, Iraq, etcetera. By just looking at the name, you can see that it means Assyria. It's super-obvious. When you deny that Syria means Assyria, it's like saying the sky isn't blue in daylight, but rather black. That's how stupid it is. It's not a "theory", it's a fact. And for crying out loud, Assyrians haven't identified as Aramaeans for 2000 years. We, we have been aware of that we speak Aramaic, and maybe a few said that they were Aramaeans because of this; in the span of 2000 years, that is inevitable. But all in all, we did not identify as Aramaeans, and you should stop spreading lies about this. Also, it's frustrating, not because you disagree with my opinion, but because you have a political agenda, and it's false on all accounts, trying to erase our real identity. To some extent, you're succeeding with it. That's what pisses me off. How would you feel if people came and tried to do away with your ethnic identity, based on revisionism? You haven't worked on any article here on Wikipedia, your entire account is 100% Aramaean revisionism. There are no historical documents of an Aramaean people, for the past 2000 years. But there are plenty of documents throughout history, of Assyrians. Why do you think the language is called Syriac and NOT Aramaic? Because we are Assyrians who adopted the Aramaic language. As for the Greeks, they knew that those who spoke Aramaic, called themselves Assyrians. Stop twisting facts. Benne, you shouldn't act like you know more about this, than Simo Parpola, H.F.W. Saggs, and other Assyriologists, who have studied our cultures, for decades, based on a few Aramaeanist revisionist websites you've read. I take any day of the week, academic scholars of European descent, over some confused Arameanists with a political agenda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:00 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, Benne, you should look this up a little closer: A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscriptions ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:56 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Look man, you can say what you want, at the end of the day, we go by academic scholars here, not Aramaean revisionists called Benne. You have a problem with the sources we're citing? Find better ones. Not outdaded sources from the 18th century before modern research on this had advanced. I have never cited Megalommatis, but you keep mentioning him in an attempt to discredit me. — You keep on linking to websites that have his work all over the place. The only straw you cling on to, is that Syria=Assyria theory. Even if it is etymologically related (which I highly doubt, as you're well aware by now), that doesn't prove a darn thing. — It proves just about everything. Your credibility falls right here. Syria does not mean Aram. Yes, it is located on the ancient place of the Aramaeans, but it does not mean Aram. And most of the Syriacs who say they are Aramaeans don't even come from the "Aram" area. They're from Turkey, Iraq, etcetera. By just looking at the name, you can see that it means Assyria. It's super-obvious. When you deny that Syria means Assyria, it's like saying the sky isn't blue in daylight, but rather black. That's how stupid it is. It's not a "theory", it's a fact. And for crying out loud, Assyrians haven't identified as Aramaeans for 2000 years. We, we have been aware of that we speak Aramaic, and maybe a few said that they were Aramaeans because of this; in the span of 2000 years, that is inevitable. But all in all, we did not identify as Aramaeans, and you should stop spreading lies about this. Also, it's frustrating, not because you disagree with my opinion, but because you have a political agenda, and it's false on all accounts, trying to erase our real identity. To some extent, you're succeeding with it. That's what pisses me off. How would you feel if people came and tried to do away with your ethnic identity, based on revisionism? You haven't worked on any article here on Wikipedia, your entire account is 100% Aramaean revisionism. There are no historical documents of an Aramaean people, for the past 2000 years. But there are plenty of documents throughout history, of Assyrians. Why do you think the language is called Syriac and NOT Aramaic? Because we are Assyrians who adopted the Aramaic language. As for the Greeks, they knew that those who spoke Aramaic, called themselves Assyrians. Stop twisting facts. Benne, you shouldn't act like you know more about this, than Simo Parpola, H.F.W. Saggs, and other Assyriologists, who have studied our cultures, for decades, based on a few Aramaeanist revisionist websites you've read. I take any day of the week, academic scholars of European descent, over some confused Arameanists with a political agenda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:00 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Archiving active debates
Hello. Please cease immediately from archiving active, or very recent, debates, or you will be blocked from editing. Many thanks in advance. El_C 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Stop threatening with blocks. That's lame. The debate isn't active. No one disagreed with it. End of discussion, time to move on to the next discussion. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:44 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not threatening, I'm warning. And we do not clear same-day article talk pages, it dosne't work like that. Wait a few weeks, at least. El_C 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at least leave Archive 8 as it is right now. It's just an archive. Deal? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- No "deals." If that's how you're treating other article talk pages, we got a serious problem. El_C 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- What is your rationale for removing discussions on archived talk pages? That is like vandalism to me, if you're just removing it without valid reason. If anyone is causing trouble here, then it's absolutely you, for removing stuff without a given reason. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:54 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Any further reverts and you will be blocked without further warning. El_C 12:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC]
- Okay Mr. tough guy. Just keep on threatening with the good old block, when you've run out of arguments. What a winner you are. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:54 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- We do not archive discussions after a day, it just isn't done, anywhere. El_C 12:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you are such a godlike powerful admin because you can block users. All jokes aside, dab removed lots of debates from an archive, and so did you, without any reason. No, your reasons do not count, because it's still an archive. And the debate was over. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:59 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Talk pages are not archived when debates are over, but rather, when they become too lengthy. El_C 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- And you don't remove discussion from them. Admit it, you've done something wrong here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:05 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C 13:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- And you don't remove discussion from them. Admit it, you've done something wrong here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:05 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Talk pages are not archived when debates are over, but rather, when they become too lengthy. El_C 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you are such a godlike powerful admin because you can block users. All jokes aside, dab removed lots of debates from an archive, and so did you, without any reason. No, your reasons do not count, because it's still an archive. And the debate was over. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:59 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- We do not archive discussions after a day, it just isn't done, anywhere. El_C 12:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay Mr. tough guy. Just keep on threatening with the good old block, when you've run out of arguments. What a winner you are. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:54 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Any further reverts and you will be blocked without further warning. El_C 12:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC]
- What is your rationale for removing discussions on archived talk pages? That is like vandalism to me, if you're just removing it without valid reason. If anyone is causing trouble here, then it's absolutely you, for removing stuff without a given reason. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:54 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- No "deals." If that's how you're treating other article talk pages, we got a serious problem. El_C 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at least leave Archive 8 as it is right now. It's just an archive. Deal? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not threatening, I'm warning. And we do not clear same-day article talk pages, it dosne't work like that. Wait a few weeks, at least. El_C 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude , its no problem at all. In fact it flatters me that you ask. Sure I have lots to add I hope. I have a book which should provide enough information to keep it. Let me know of any other stubs and i will see what I can do!Tourskin 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Let's expand this article and make Dab shut up about his damn merging obsession :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:36 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Damn too late. Sorry was busy there but now Iam back I will add so much to it damn it!!Tourskin 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, you moved it to where? Let me see where it is.Tourskin 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed now, it's just dab being a pain in the ass as usual. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:02 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)