This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
Re-posting this. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This article has been a cesspit of some of the most ridiculous ethnic tendentious editing for years and years, from all sides of this sorry mess of an ideological conflict. This needs to stop. I will therefore be applying a new set of administrative rules here, with a zero tolerance approach to tendentious editing:
Any editor making substantial content changes in the article that have the potential of being contentious, without discussing and explaining them on the talkpage beforehand, will be blocked.
Any editor reverting another editor without explaining the need for the revert on the talkpage beforehand (with the exception of cases of plain and obvious vandalism), will be blocked.
Any editor who makes edits in the article that are obviously aimed at giving preferential treatment to one of the ideological parties or terminological preferences involved (pro-"Assyrian", pro-"Aramaean" etc.) or at bolstering up historical claims associated with such preferences, will be blocked.
Any editor misusing the talkpage for any form of argument about which of these ideological positions is "correct" or about his own opinions regarding their ethnic identity, will be blocked. The only thing everybody is expected to use the talkpage for is to discuss how this group and its history are described in high-quality, neutral reliable sources, and how the article should be changed so that it reflects those sources.
Please pay special attention to this last point, as pretty much everybody has been abusing the talkpages for those kind of arguments in the past.
Any such blocks will be imposed immediately, without further individual warnings, for periods no shorter than two weeks on a first offence, and regardless of whether an editor is experienced or new. You have been warned.
That said, the article clearly needs to change, as it is currently quite obviously written from a tendentious perspective. To get the ball rolling, I will myself make a start by entirely removing the "Assyrian continuity" section, which appears to be one of the most tendentious bits and whose sourcing is abysmal. This is a somewhat uncommon thing for an administrator to do, but given the special history of this article and the long-term well-documented inability of its habitual editors to maintain a constructive and encyclopedic editing debate on this topic, I believe it is justified and will not change my status as an uninvolved and neutral administrator. (Which means I also reserve the right to block editors should they reinsert it, as I would consider such an edit a clear violation of principle 4 above. Material about the idea of an "Assyrian continuity" may ultimately be reincluded, if and when the overall NPOV profile of the article has been fixed and a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS for the appropriateness of such material has been established; not earlier.) Fut.Perf.☼ 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Can I get an explanation of why the section "Legends Mythology used as historical evidence to promote notions of Assyrian Continuity" was collapsed?
The explanation given does not make any sense...."another thread veering off into exchange of personal ideological talking points." it could not of possible been the case, since there was only my single post in the section. It could not have been an "exchange" nor "veering off", and the rest of the edit was in complete compliance with the Rules.
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please explain why you allowed this page to revert back to the Politically driven assyrian properganda page you it was earlier. The rules you have put in place, why are they no longer being enforced?Sr 76 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I have a question, should we change the name neo aramaic to syriac and redirect it to Syriac language? I know we speak neo aramaic but its really syriac, west and east? Also saying syriac is more famous in our community and in the world than saying aramaic.....