Talk:List of Chaldean villages

Iraq Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

	Iraq portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fork

No need to protect. The page is a fork. The new user King of Babylonia is new in Wikipedia and I understand that he don't know what's been discussed but Taivo have already explained that to him. Redirect. Shmayo (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fork Shmayo because it has a different scope to the List of Assyrian settlements article. That article doesn't include Maronite towns either. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maronites have their own article and are not a part of the ethnic article (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people). It's excatly the same content, no need to find excuses to keep it. All Syriac Orthodox, Chaldean Catholic and Nestorian villages are listed. It's clearly a fork. Shmayo (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not a fork. It clearly lists the Chaldean towns/villages. What Shmayo is ignoring/misrepresenting is the fact that the article of Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people does not exist. It is a redirect to another article whose neutrality is clearly questioned; moreover, the article has a misleading title that many users are trying to rename. I suggest that admins should keep this page protected. Admins should also remove the misleading/false information stated in the article titled List of Assyrian settlements. That article simply includes the Chaldean towns/villages listed in this article under another misleading name.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there isn't a solid basis for whimsical demands that everything Chaldean must be submerged under Assyrian. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This people ethnic article is Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Just because it's named Assyrian people after the comon name doesn't meen forks can be created. When it actully is the same people, how can it not be a fork? The "List of Assyrian settlements"-article isn't just for Nestorian villages, it's for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people's villages (do read the content in the article!). And, Iraq, you're talking about a different thing. Talk:Assyrian people is open for you if you disagree, but do not make edits before things are discussed here and at Talk:Assyrian people. Shmayo (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, these people are three separate ethnic groups (as the slashes indicate). the name "Assyrian" is not the common name as you're trying to imply. If you read the discussion on that article, you'll see the name is unwanted and about to be removed. Nevertheless, Assyrians have the right to list their villages in their article named List of Assyrian settlements; however, they don't have the right to include the list of Chaldean villages under that article. The title of that page clearly says it is a list of Assyrian Villages, it is inappropriate to list other villages (that belong to another faction) under that article. Let me give you an example to make it easier for you to understand the situation: If you create an article named "List of German Town", it would be inappropriate to list "French" towns in that article. The article of List of Assyrian settlements is actually forking on this article. I don't know how to make it simpler for you to understand, Shmayo. If this isn't clear to you, then obviously you're not using logic to present your point, which means you're pushing for your own POV. Instead of POV and warring, you should present constructive attitude. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if Chaldeans were not included in the Assyrian people article unless the name is changed to A/C/S people or Syriac people. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. If you read discussions here you'll see that most agree on that it's the same people. And the people have one ethnic page, ethnic fork page have been removed. Read earlier discussion and you'll see it's the common name. They compared with other names and the Assyrian was much more used. So of course it's not that page forking anything. This is a new page forking the old already existing one. The people is one, if that's what's been agreed then do not edit against that on other pages, talk in the ethnic page if you have anything against it. Shmayo (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ܥܝܪܐܩ, write your comments under please. Talk:Assyrian people is the right place for that, not here. Shmayo (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo, you don't seem to be getting it. Saying they are one group is your POV. Clearly, many users disagree with you. If that page is listing false information, then it doesn't matter if it was created earlier. It still presents false information. The article you keep referring to where you claim the name "Assyrian" represents all is, as I have mentioned 1000 times before, unneutral and clearly marked with the unneutrality tag. If your claim that the name was much used is correct, it still doesn't give you the right to use it in other articles. This was clearly discussed in Tel Isqof.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]