User talk:Sinharib99: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Sinharib99, good luck, and have fun. --Shinerunner (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. El on ka 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinharib, you are making many very controversial changes to the Church of the East article, but without citing sources. Neither are you participating at the article's discussion change. If this behavior continues, you may risk having your account access blocked. Please, desist from these changes, and engage in discussion instead? Thanks, --El on ka 23:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Church of the East. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. El on ka 23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem here is that i am not disputing anything that is externally and impartially sourced.

Regarding the Church of The East, it is actually NOT Nestorian, and predates it, thats not my opinion, its fact.

You are edit warring

You are edit warring at Languages of Iraq. Your continued attempts at reinserting ridiculous and naive linguistic information may result in a block on your editing privileges. (Taivo (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Try looking at the link, as opposed to dismissing it just because it comes from Assyrian website. Dismissing its valitity on that basis is tantamount to calling the Assyrian website liars.

Also, i mentioned Akkadian names still used, they ARE; Sargon, Sinharib, Dadashu, Naramsin etc

Akkadian and Neo-Aramaic

It's very simple. There is no evidence that any Akkadian words exist in Neo-Aramaic. You have not a single reliable source. You have a pro-Assyrian, highly POV website. That's not a reliable scientific source. (Taivo (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Actually there IS evidence, instead of dismissing the link just because it is Assyrian, why not actually LOOK at it and check the words listed?

You need to read Wikipedia's instructions on what constitutes a reliable source. That website is not a scientific source at all and I highly doubt that any linguist would buy the "evidence". (Taivo (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Really? Well check out the studies done by prof Simo Parpola, and as i say, if you look at the words, you will see many are the same.

In addition, what is wrong with using the terms Assyrian and Mandic? The only two races in Iraq speaking Aramaic are Assyrians (aka Chalddo-Assyrians) and Mandeans, and the dialects are called Assyrian and Mandean by their speakers.

Just check the wording http://www.christiansofiraq.com/assyria1.html

Words such as Brotherhood, today we say Akhuta, in the past it was Akhutu.

As Aramaic gradually replaced Akkadian, it is natural that some Akkadian words were adopted into eastern Aramaic.

Both Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Mandaic are Neo-Aramaic varieties, but not the only ones. Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, for example, is another Neo-Aramaic variety of Iraq and that doesn't include the Jewish Neo-Aramaic varieties. The cover term for these Neo-Aramaic forms is "Neo-Aramaic". Since the article Languages of Iraq is about linguistics, it doesn't matter what the ethnic groups or religious groups call themselves. It's what the languages are and what linguists call them. You also don't have any scientific sources for the claim that Akkadian is found in modern Neo-Aramaic. (Taivo (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I just looked at the article again and both Mandaic and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic are listed separately in different places. You don't have an argument. (Taivo (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

They are "dialects" not seperate languages,much like the differing dialects of French. Also, the term "chaldean" is a modern term, applied to Assyriand who converted to Catholicism, it has no historical basis at all.

Jewish dialects are no longer spoken in Iraq, the only two dialects are those of the Assyrian (or Chaldo Assyrian) people, and some acknowledgement should be given to this, likewise Mandic, which is a recognised dialect.

Also, what "scientific" evidence is needed regarding Akkadian words in modern Assyrio-Aramaic, if the words are used, then they are used. And they clearly ARE used.

Very little study has been made into the relation between modern Assyrians and the ancient, except by Simo Parpola, who by the way is Finnish, not Assyrian.

Also, you deleted mention of names still used, when clearly, Akkadian personal names ARE still used.

regarding Sumerian, check the origins of the word Alcohol, it IS Sumerian, Guhlu.....Ancient Iraq by George Roux. The term Chaldean has only been added to that particular dialect over the last few hundred years, and by no means all its speakers are chaldean catholics. A better term for all the dialects still spoken in and around Iraq would be MAesopotamian Aramaic.

Read WP:RS if you have any questions about what a reliable source is. In summary, the best sources are printed books by academic presses. The Akkadian/Assyrian Neo-Aramaic connection is WP:FRINGE and mentioning it violates WP:UNDUE, especially since there are no reliable sources that mention it. If you're going to mention Akkadian as a "Language of Iraq", then you also have to mention the Jewish Neo-Aramaic varieties as well. Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is a demonstrably different (and recognized) variety of Neo-Aramaic, just as Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Mandaic are. If you are of the opinion that Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is not a recognized variety, then you are unfamiliar with the linguistic literature on Aramaic varieties. ISO 639-3 recognizes it quite clearly. And personal name usage doesn't count. If it did, then you could make an argument that Modern English preserves Ancient Hebrew because so many English names are John, Saul, Samuel, David, Sarah, Ruth, etc. Names mean very, very little. (Taivo (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I didnt say ots not a recognised variety, i said theb term applied to it is misleading.

Regarding personal names, it is very different to comparing the use of "christian-hebraic" names worldwide to one specific group (chaldo-Assyrians) using Akkadian personal names, because Akkadian personal names are almost exclusively used by only one group of people.

Ive no problem with mentioning Jewish Aramaic at all, all i was trying to do is point out that the Aramaic dialects in Iraq today are spoken exclusively by two ethnic groups Assyrians (or Chaldo Assyrians as the Iraqi government clasifies them) and Mandeans. I dont see anything wrong with that really. Chaldo Assyrians speak a number of closely related dialects, Mandeans speak another.

Simo Parpola links the transfer from Akkadian to Eastern Aramaic to modern Assyrio-Chaldean Aramaic dialects in his works.

"Chaldean Neo-Aramaic", "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic", and "Mandaic" are the recognized international standard names (ISO 639-3) for these three varieties of Neo-Aramaic. You're just going to have to live with that fact. And the fact that there is only one person who thinks there is a connection between Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Akkadian is the very definition of a fringe theory and therefore subject to the restrictions of Wikipedia's policy on putting undue weight on a fringe theory. You really need to read Wikipedia's policies--WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. (Taivo (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well thats not just one person, its a respected Assyriologist, Assyrian writers and linguists say the same, but because they are Assyrian they for some reason dont count....thats like saying an Englishman cannot contribute regarding Shakespeare because he will doubtless be partial!

Also, where are the studies that refute the presence of Akkadian words in modern dialects of Aramaic?

regarding Mandic, i agree it should be listed seperately, i never said it shouldnt, its a distinct dialect spoken by a distinct ethno-religious group.

I also agree that there are various dialects of Assyrian-Chaldean Aramaic, my point is that having no mention of the fact that these dialects are spoken by a single ethnic group (the Assyrians, or Chaldo-Assyrians) can lead readers to believe that they are seperate peoples. Mentioning this can do no harm surely?

This article is not about "ethnic groups", it is about languages. They are separate issues completely. If you want to list ethnic groups then go to the article "Ethnic groups of Iraq". And it is not required that the majority of scholars prove that a single scholar is wrong. The single scholar has obviously not been able to convince the majority of scholars of his position. You are having a hard time understanding the nature of science if you think that the majority must prove their point before treating the minority as a minority. You seem to be saying that since one person says, "I think this", then it is so. That's not the case in science. (Taivo (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, i do not have a hard time accepting the nature of science thanks! How do you know that the scholar has not convinced the majority? Where is the body of work that refutes those that link influence or continuation? If just 3 people argue a point, but no one produces a scholarly or scientific study that opposes it, then it IS the majority point.

Actually, if one person produces a paper that everyone ignores because it is so fringe, then no need for a rebuttal is necessary. Once the majority of Aramaic scholars accept the alleged Akkadian connection, then you will have a point. Otherwise, it is WP:FRINGE and subject to the restrictions of WP:UNDUE. For example, neither the Akkadian chapter nor the Aramaic chapter of the 2004 Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages mentions any connection between the two whatsoever. If the leading scholars in those fields don't see fit to either mention or acknowledge a connection, then the scientific world has rejected the hypothesis. (Taivo (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Theresa Rassam

A tag has been placed on Theresa Rassam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MaxEspinho (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 Actually, i do not have a hard time accepting the nature of science thanks! How do you know that the scholar has not convinced the majority? Where is the body of work that refutes those that link influence or continuation? If just 3 people argue a point, but no one produces a scholarly or scientific study that opposes it, then it IS the majority point.
 :::::::Actually, if one person produces a paper that everyone ''ignores'' because it is so fringe, then no need for a rebuttal is necessary.  Once the majority of Aramaic scholars accept the alleged Akkadian connection, then you will have a point.  Otherwise, it is [[WP:FRINGE]] and subject to the restrictions of [[WP:UNDUE]].  For example, neither the Akkadian chapter nor the Aramaic chapter of the 2004 ''Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages'' mentions any connection between the two whatsoever.  If the leading scholars in those fields don't see fit to either mention or acknowledge a connection, then the scientific world has rejected the hypothesis.  ([[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC))
+==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Theresa Rassam]]==
+[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:Theresa Rassam]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]], as well as our subject-specific [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notability guideline for biographies]]. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0|Article Wizard]].
+If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Theresa Rassam|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[Talk:Theresa Rassam|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these admins]] to request that they  [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content|userfy]] the page or have a copy emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-bio-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:MaxEspinho|MaxEspinho]] ([[User talk:MaxEspinho|talk]]) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)