User talk:Garzo

---

Welcome to my discussion page. Please post new messages to the bottom of the page and use headings when starting new discussion topics.
Please also sign and date your entries by inserting — ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.
Start a new discussion topic.

---

Old discussion topics can be found in the archive.

---

"Christian arabs"

Hi. Could you please stop enforcing the category "Christian arabs" on non arabic Christians living in the middle east? This is wrong. We middle-eastern Christians, though not arabs, have gone through Arabization, and that needs to stop. We are not arabs. We have our own ethnicity, and we shouldn't be forced to be called "Christian arabs". If a Christian European is born in the middle east, should he be called a "Christian arab" because of that reason alone? Please understand, they are Syriac Christians (i.e. of Assyrian ancestry), and most of them speak Aramaic, though a lot of them are forgetting it. As someone who speaks Aramaic, you should respect this fact, and not appease muslims who want to call everyone arabs just because they're in the middle east. We are not closely related to the arabs from Saudiarabia. We have our own ethnicity, please stop forcing upon us some alien arab ethnicity. That's oppression. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:17 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

You removed it from a number of articles, I put it back with good reasons. I think the word 'enforcing' is a bit strong for that. That's the word you started with; you end with 'oppression', another strong word. You are taking this personally — noting the 'we' — and that may not be a good thing. Ethnicity in the Middle East is a very complicated issue, and many Melkites in the Middle East do consider themselves to be Arab. It is not 'Muslim propaganda' that they be called Arab. If anything, it's propaganda to equate Arab with Muslim. There is an important history of Arab Christians, which many Melkites and Rum Orthodox consider to be their heritage. To not let them express that would be, in your words 'oppression'. What exactly is your background? Because it seems that you are doing the usual Assyrian Revisionist thing of extending some idea of ethnicity (this article makes an interesting read) to as many Middle-East Christians as poosible. — Gareth Hughes 10:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Assyrian. I'm not into Assyrian revisionism (if such topic exists). If they are not Arabs, why call them Christian Arabs? In the case of Maronites, it's true that they have some Arab background, but that's very little. Yes, I take this personally. So would you if you would've been called Arab just because you came from a region that had been subjugated by Arabs. In the case of Melkites, they are of Greek ancestry, and perhaps a little bit Assyrian ancestry. Why call them Arabs? Yes, they probably don't speak Greek any longer, but that doesn't make them Arabs. Equating islam with Arabs is not propaganda at all. Islam's very founder was an Arab, and it's indisputable that the majority of all Arabs are muslims. How is that propaganda? Look, let me tell you something about religion in the middle-east: we are ethnoreligious. That means, we marry people of the same faith. Sure, there are some rare cases where muslims and christians marry, but it's far from the de facto standard. That said, the ethnicity has been largely well preserved in the middle-east. Now please, stop calling non-arabs Arabs. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:57 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

If they have Arabic as their first language than they Arabs, if not then they are not. Please refer to Defining who is an Arab for further details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, EliasAlucard is calling Melkites 'of Greek ancestry'. The only real reason anyone can give for that is that some of their ancestors wrote in Greek, which was common in the large cities of the region until the seventh century. As usage of Greek died out, it was replaced by Arabic. For some people, speaking Arabic makes one an Arab — as FayssalF has pointed out. Now, I don't believe that. However, there are records of many Christians from Arabia moving to Syria and Egypt during the eighth century. Many Melkites do consider Arabian Christians to be part of their heritage. I think it would be good to hear what some Melkites think about this. However, I am aware that those who identify as Assyrians, especially those in diaspora, are campaigning to include as many Christians in the Middle East under that flag for political reasons. I think that's quite obvious and difficult to deny. — Gareth Hughes 11:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More ad hominem attacks on my character. Believe me, anyone who isn't Assyrian, I do not wish to call him/her Assyrian. It's not a campaign. If someone is Assyrian, he should be called Assyrian. Period. Being able to speak Arabic does not make you an Arab. Ethnicity isn't defined by the language you speak (though, that is an important part, it's not the crucial way to define ethnicity). For instance, I speak Arabic, still, I am not an Arab. I am Assyrian, and I refuse to deny my ancestry, and I refuse to claim to be something I'm not. Melkites (the very word has Aramaic roots), are not Arabs and shouldn't be called Arabs. Also, you resort to personal attacks and falsely accuse me of "Assyrian revisionism". That's a strong word. Let me tell you something, to claim that all Christians from the middle east are Arabs, that's, if anything, Arab revisionism, and you know it. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

It isn't ad hominem. You brought your own ethnicity into this. I'm pointing out that it isn't subjective. You really have to keep your cool. — Gareth Hughes 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it cool guys. I believe both of you are right. What about "Arabized Syriac Christians"? Elias, please note that neither you nor anyone is sure if all these Christians have not been mixed w/ Arabs. I am saying this because i am well aware of a somehow similar situation in the Maghreb in general and Morocco in particular where many Berbers were mixed w/ Arabs and it became very hard to distinguish a Berber from an Arab in many cases. Many Moroccans refered to as Arabs are of Berber origins in fact. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BCP

Dear Mr. Hughes, I am a little unclear as to why such attention is being paid to the definite article in the headings. That gentleness which characterises good faith seems to be lacking. It may be that you have discovered a WP policy on the matter, but your use of words like 'mess' earlier puzzle me. Roger Arguile 10:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I believe there to be two issues here. The first is outlined in the Manual of Style: 'articles (a, an, and the) are typically avoided, and never occur first'. I certainly do realise that there are a lot of Wikipedia guidelines, many of which I have not read, and so your message is a good reminder that I should point to which guideline I am following as I edit. The second issue is the editing style of Frederick jones (talk · contribs) and my comment on his edits being a 'mess'. I believe that it is fair to say that, although Mr Jones does provide good ellaboration to articles, his edits are full of spelling mistakes, poor grammar and bad punctuation. Less of an issue has been his inclusion of in-line references where an article uses footnotes, which I have moved to footnotes and streamlined. Although, this latter issue is more to do with neatness of style, I do find the abovementioned errors to reflect badly on the quality of the articles concerned. I do not want to discourage Mr Jones from editing as he does add useful material to articles, and so I have felt it better to follow behind tidying up. As far as the articles are concerned, this combination of editing has benefited overall. However, I confess that the repeated tidying of such simple errors has been frustrating at times. I assure you that the good faith remains even if its associated gentleness has sometimes been curbed by frustration. I could believe that Mr Jones has some or other difficulty with typing that would explain the poor quality of the majority of his edits. It is that belief that has led me not to confront him, but to follow his edits with my own. Perhaps, if you think it appropriate, it may be time to discuss the issue with Mr Jones. I think you will find that David Underdown (talk · contribs) has also become somewhat frustrated with his editing. — Gareth Hughes 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I confess to stil being unhappy about the application of the same guidelines for sub-headings as for articles. It makes for a diminution in precision, for which reason I have asked for clarification and explanation in the appropriate article. Really, it sounds nonsense in my ear to write of '1662 prayer book'. The removal of the article in substantive entries is a mere convenience to indexers which scarcely applies within an article and I am surprised that there is any support for it. As for 'mess', I think that, given the deprivation of sight or hearing we do have to be especially gentle. The brutal style we often suffer from,which may be a consequence of US influence or just the confidence of youth is, I believe, to be avoided. That is why I refuse to use nicknames and give people titles. It encourages a reticence which the speed of editing subverts. I wonder whether before slashing and burning my definite articles you might engage is consideration of the arguments. Wp not always delightfully combines peremptory rules with the implicit encouragement - by virute of its system - of irresponsibility. Even consensus can change. Roger Arguile 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the pages of guidelines can seem too much sometimes, and rules are made to be broken. One of the difficult things to get used to with Wikipedia is that what one writes is not one's own: as one is free to edit, so are others free to re-edit. In this light I believe that no 'slashing and burning' has occured. Of course, the detachment we know, of one from the other, behind our computers, makes room for countless of misinterpretations of intent. Such interpretation requires one neither to live across an ocean nor to be in first flush. — Gareth Hughes 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Dialects

Those are orthographies. I'm talking about dialects. Thanks for your answer though.199.126.28.20 13:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An orthography is a system of spelling, and, even though the spellings of some words are different, the differences go a lot deeper than that. Bokmål and Nynorsk are, technically, different varieties of Norwegian. — Gareth Hughes 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't. They do not represent any Norwegian dialect.199.126.28.20 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually used the word 'variety' rather than 'dialect', because the latter does not have a clear meaning in linguistic terminology. If you force the meaning of 'dialect' to mean a traditional, regionally-based variety, then Bokmål and Nynorsk are not such 'dialects'. A standard language is also a fully developed variety, or 'dialect' if you want. However, that's a rather subjective view. It is a fact that Bokmål and Nynorsk are distinct varieties of Norwegian, and that their distinctiveness is not limited to orthography. You may find it useful to read the articles I have linked. — Gareth Hughes 14:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [1]. 75.14.208.224 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's naughtiness afoot. I think it's too complex a throw-away line to say that the Hebrew Bible is 'accepted by Islam'. — Gareth Hughes 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fonts

Gareth, I was asked this question; Shlomo lokh khuna. I was wonderin if you knew why all Syriac texts are displayed in the madnhaya version in my computer? How can i change it? Basima raba - would you know the answer? Chaldean 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends where the fonts are displayed. If it's on the web and the questioner is looking at Unicode, then the browser's preset fonts decide which font is used. I know Firefox tries to find a font that covers the block in question (Syriac block). If it finds a Madnhaya font, then that will be used. You can change the presets if you want Syriac display in a different font. However, it is possible that the website has its own presets for the display. Without a little more information, it is difficult to know what the problem is exactly. — Gareth Hughes 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I have another question. What do you think about changing all the Wiki pages that have the title written in Sureth (example Simele massacre) in the beginning, changed all to (Syriac: ). I say this because we have such a unconsistancy across wiki right now where some are saying Assyrian, Aramaic, Syriac, etc. I think it would make sense if we were consistant in all pages. Chaldean 15:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would take 'Syriac' to apply to 'Classical Syriac': the language of liturgy and older literature. For instance, the word ܦܪܡܬܐ has very clear roots in Classical Syriac, but not usually to mean 'massacre', so it might be reasonable to consider it a Suret word (i.e. Neo-Aramaic) in the context of that article. I think 'Assyrian' by itself should be avoided because of the great difference between Akkadian and Suret. 'Aramaic' is rather vague, so it's better to give an actual variety of Aramaic where possible. However, with ancient place names, it might be difficult to ascertain which variety of Aramaic is invovled. So, I'm not sure if making all references read 'Syriac' would be quite right in all cases. In the case of the Simele Massacre, I could see as good an argument for saying the name is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic as for Syriac. Sometimes it is difficult to say which variety of Aramaic is the source of any name. I'm sorry that that's a bit vague, but you could give me list of articles you wnat me to have a look at. Still, I might have to be a bit vague. — Gareth Hughes 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

Please explain why your repeated reverting of the text of Catholic Church (disambiguation) to your preferred version should not be considered vandalism. You have not offered a single factual objection to the changes you keep reverting. I have been checking the relevant talk page to see if you had something to discuss about the page, but found nothing there. -72.81.136.247 15:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is changing it. You repeatedly add a link to a redirect page the target of which appears on the same line. You also keep adding more subjective words to the choice of name, whereas the original was more neutral, offering an alternative. It is you who has the burden of proof, not me. — Gareth Hughes 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am changing it. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? You are also changing it to a version you prefer. Yes, I am adding a link to the alternative name, making the reference more neutral; you repeatedly remove the link. I added the words "most" and "usually" - and not subjectively. Those words have very objective meanings, and they are factually correct in the way that I have used them. It is you who has the burden of proof for the version you prefer, and you do not have a factual objection to the various versions I have submitted. -72.81.136.247 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking should not be over used, both links go to the same target, so there is no point linking the second one. Where are your objective criteria to show that your wording is correct? David Underdown 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Looks Good To Me Too - Imette's Page

Just saw what you did with Imette's page and it looks good to me too! FYI, I went up to Boston this past week and you may have noticed my adding to a paragraph. Unfortunately, they didn't build the Garden of Hope yet. I understand that the issue is a backwall that has to be built on the property first.--MurderWatcher1 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for all the personal attacks. It's just that I'm very frustrated right now. As you can see, [2] Assyrians are dying in Iraq and no one cares. It's very frustrating. Didn't mean to take it out on you. Anyway, take care. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:21 08 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I understand something of how you feel. I am really concerned with the plight of Christians in Iraq. I've met young men from Mosul who are trying to get assylum in London — the British Government is reluctant to grant assylum to Iraqis because it sees it as an admission of its failure in Iraq. It is a sad situation indeed. I study Syriac full time, and I'm about to start on a translation of some Narsai. As I spend every day reading the literature and history of the people and churches of the Syriac tradition, I have a strong feeling for them. I do take issue with some aspects of the Assyrian identity, as I'm sure you're aware. Nevertheless, this is not some kind of personal vendetta against the people, but I know that pre–twentieth-century Syriac writers understood their identity in quite a different way to modern writers from the tradition. I have trouble reconciling the two, and that's why I question the origin of some of the principles of the Assyrian identity. Again, this is not personal, I want the accounts to be historically accurate. — Gareth Hughes 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your revert of amun

Your revert of the article only reintroduces a spelling error. Just because an edit is made by an unregistered user it does not necessarily have to be vandalism ;) Sakkura 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true. — Gareth Hughes 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

your revert of a map of Aram from an article locating it

I'm sure you can explain why a common source map used in other articles on Wikipedia and bible verses referring to the cites of Aram can't be used in identifying its location which the form you reverted to specifies as unknown and speculates is several hundred miles away from where it is actually located.Rktect 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

. Aram This illustrates the territory of Asher, Dan, Nephtali and Zebulon on the headwaters of the Jordan river connecting to the southern end of the territory of the Nahrin at Kadesh on the Orontes. The people the Egyptians called the Nah-araim or Nahrin are also known as the Mittani and this locates their cities relative to Aram and its cities .Rktect 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have written to you on your talk page about your repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly-sourced sweeping statements into articles. Please stop. — Gareth Hughes 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)