User talk:Garzo/archive/2006-05-23-2006-11-23

---

Replacement article for the Assyrian people page under Identity

Assyrian people are not all, or may not be, 100% ethnically Assyrian and may be descended of one or more of the following: the Assyrians and/or the people that they conquered, and/or of the people that conquered them. With the ancient people, there really would be no way to prove the lineage unless one was to unearth many ancient graves, examine and carbon date the remains, compare the DNA of the different remains, and then come up with a comparative analisys of the ancient peoples' DNA to that of the modern-day people. With the latter day arrivals of conquerors it is possible that they may have had some influence as well, for at first a lot of the anscestors of the modern-day Arabs, Kurds, Mongols, Persians, and Turks were originally Christian and/or converts, and the area they ruled remained predominantly Christian with Syriac as the lingua franca up until the Islamic conquests. Many may have been assimilated into the Syriac Christian culture. The ancient Assyrian empire had a policy of deporting inhabitants from their natural environments and relocating them to urban areas of the empire in order to assimilate them into Assyro-Babylonian culture, which in turn caused a loss, or to the least of that extent, a merger of cultures, in turn somewhat destroying their own sense of national identity. That tactic was borrowed and applied by the Persians, and by many empires that followed, including the United States, with its former policy against Native Americans of relocating them to Reservations. Ironically, this has been the fate of the modern-day people. The Ba'ath parties of Iraq, Syria, and to a lesser extent, Syria's influence and interference in Lebanese affairs, were adament in replacing all ethnic identities with an Arab Nationalistic identity.

That is the replacement I have come up with that User:Chaldean keeps reverting. Please moderate.Peter Agga

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Smart Man

You are smart man but I ask you not to be rude but why believe in God? With all knowledge you that have why believe you in something with no scientific backink.شيطان

However, I am not smart enough to understand what you are trying to say. — Gareth Hughes 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bus uncle

I am trying to figure out how to transcribe the "uncle bus" into IPA. Do you think you can help out? --HappyCamper 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you mean the English IPA of Bus Uncle (Hong Kong English?) or the pronunciation of 巴士阿叔 (for which Jyutping would be more appropriate). The former is /ʌŋkl̩ bʌs/ in Received Pronunciation. — Gareth Hughes 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jyutping is baa1 si6 aa3 suk1, I believe. — Gareth Hughes 10:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. I had ba1 si6 a3 suk1. But it was sadly removed from the article...thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 22:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Long a in Syriac

Shlomo Gareth,

In many articles where Syriac words are transcribed, I noticed that for indicating a long a, both a macron and a circumflex is used, sometimes even within a single word, as in Ap̄rêm Sûryāyâ. Is that with a reason? I thought there were only two a sounds in Syriac, short and long. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You sometimes see circumflexes, sometimes macrons and sometimes a mixture. Where there's a mixture the source transliterates different vowels differently — especially for e and a vowels, the circumflex usually indicates that they are supported by 'ālaph (viz. Brock's Skeleton Grammar and Nöldeke's Compendious Grammar). — Gareth Hughes 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ṭawdi ğalabe, melfono ... :-) --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of long a's and short a's: (use this alphabet reference)

Mârun Ĵšoi Mšĵxa, Malka d'Hudâje û bra d'Âlaha סרגון יוחנא

Karbala

Garth, can you please settle the dispute in Karbala. Chaldean 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at it. The problem is that the supporting evidence for both points of view is not present — it is not sufficient to point to a website that simply says that something is true — we could do with the primary sources. — Gareth Hughes 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Garth, who are we to say who is right and who is wrong? The only thing a encyclopedia can do is state all the possibilities out there for the reader to decide. Chaldean 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD Banner

Please remove the afd banner from Aramaic speakers and the article that its proposed to merge with. If you read Benne's reason for it, you'll see why. He placed the banner and now he's stating that it should be renamed Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syrians. Jesus Christ, who would type that. He was defeated in renaming the Assyrian page that so now he's pushing it on something else.סרגון יוחנא

commons:Image:Kariye.jpg

I just wanted to let you know that I've tagged this image as having no licence since the corresponding image in tr: seemed to be similarly tagged. -- Paddu 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the uploader, Kullanıcı:Math34, has provided quite a number of untagged images, and has been contacted about them. This image looks like a personal photograph, and may well be the work of the uploader. However, if Math34 doesn't verify this, the image will have to be deleted. It will be a pity to loose this one. — Gareth Hughes 08:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have enough reasons to believe it was a personal photo released under the GFDL, you could upload the image to en: and tag it as {{GFDL-presumed}}. -- Paddu 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Gareth, I just wanted to say thank your for backing me up on the commercial links the anon-user has been adding. Solidarity is always good. Have a good day, and thanks again :) Carl.bunderson 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting these additions. Because of its high volume of traffic, Wikipedia can be an attractive place for people to post links to their sites. Unless it's a really good site, simply remove the link from the article and post template:spam on the talk page of the person who posted it. If they think it's valid, they can always write back to you. — Gareth Hughes 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know how to use the templates before. Carl.bunderson 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I'll join in. — Gareth Hughes 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Phrygian Mode correction

Hey, thanks for clearing up the confusion on the relation between Phrygian and Dorian. It's much easier to understand now. --Yellow Archer 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a problem. It is difficult to get across how the names of the modes used by the ancient Greeks were applied by mediaeval scholars to different modes. Hence Greek Phrygian is different from modern Phrygian. — Gareth Hughes 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Virge-ine?

In your recording of Pange Lingua Gloriosi, on verse 2, the words "Ex intacta virgine" are mispronounced I think. In no traditional rendition of latin that i've ever heard is it pronounced such, excepting the English Latin common in the church of england. In all church latin however, I think it is correctly pronounced "Veerge" not "Virge" on the first syllable. I hope you know what I mean. Maybe you could do another recording? I would do one, but my microphone sucks.

--Kamatsu 12:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: I use a unstressed vowel in my pronunciation of virgine. That was probably due to the pronunciation of the English word virgin. Although there are no exact standards of Latin pronunciation, I agree with you that the first vowel is better rendered as an close front unrounded vowel. However, I am not going to be able to produce another recording in the near future. Please, have a go, if you can do it. — Gareth Hughes 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can dig up.. I'm head cantor of a Cathedral Choir so it shouldn't be too hard to locate a microphone.. I could even do it with intonation and alternation as is commonly done as vespers services with the rest of my gregorian schola. Ta --Kamatsu 12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of qur'ān

Would you be so kind as to take a look at the paragraph about the etymology of qur'ān and the discussion about it? Thanks. ----Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this one up, Benne. I've added a little comment. I think Nöldeke is a reasonable source, but I think mention of Luxenberg should be slight as he is still controversial. I've added some thoughts to te grammar on the talk page. Of course, lexical roots in Semitic languages produce verbs and nouns and adjectives, so the noun-like quality of the Syriac derivation is not really that much different from the verbal noun in Arabic. It is just that classical Syriac grammars only recognise the infinitive as a verbal noun. — Gareth Hughes 11:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar for hard work and dilignence on the Anglicanism WikiProject

Garzo, I'm awarding you this barnstar in recognition of, and gratitude for the hard work you have put in creating and revising Anglican-related articles since the Anglicanism WikiProject was inaugurated. Well done!! Fishhead64 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Fishhead, the project page helped to realise how many Anglican-related articles needed work. Thank you for setting up the project. I shall treasure the barnstar. May your Ordinary Time be blessed! — Gareth Hughes 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Needed

Hello. My name is Myles. I know this man named Michael D. Wolok, who had some issues with an administrator known as User:Lethe. Mr. Wolok was trying to edit a Many Worlds Interpretation article. When I got Lethe's side of the story, he admitted to editing the article. This man needs mediation, and I doubt that the 100 advocates and mediators he asked for are going to assist! --scareslamfist 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to Michael D. Wolok (talk • contribs) editing Many-worlds interpretation (edit|talk|links|history|watch). Is that right? — Gareth Hughes 15:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. scareslamfist 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Near East warfare taskforce

I see you’re a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Might you be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Ancient Near East warfare task force, which will include wars of Ancient Egypt such as Battle of Megiddo? See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ancient Near East taskforce? Neddyseagoon 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed!

Hi Garzo, I appear to need your help. Can you email me at [email protected]

I had the darnest time trying to edit your talk page. I am an AOL user, and Lucky 6.9 had my IP blocked just when I wanted to edit your talk page.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

Michael D. Wolok 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You can e-mail me at this address. Please make sure to give a full account of the problem and how you think the matter can be resolved. — Gareth Hughes 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gareth,

I clicked on the link you provided to send you email. I spent several hours composing my email to you. When I hit the send or save button, I received the following error message:

570 User Identification Failed This Web page could not be opened. A connection to the page could not be made. Click the Reload or Refresh button to try again. If the problem persists, exit the service, then sign back on. You may also need to shut down other programs and restart your computer.

Do you a have a normal email address?

Michael D. Wolok 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've justed tested the interface, it's working properly. Are you using AOL? If so, their absurd rotation of IP addresses may be the problem. You can e-mail me at garzohugo, followed by the at sign, at gmail, followed by a dot, and a com. — Gareth Hughes 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sound of the day

You expressed interest in WP:FSC, and as that didn't go anywhere, I think this might function as a workable intermediate step to building a "sound community" on Wikipedia.--Pharos 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism

By "a combination of good edits and nonsense," I assume you mean Vaquero - that wasn't my edit. I'm trying to be a good Anglican and find a mediating position, but he is being rather persistent. Fishhead64 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I posted that on user talk:Vaquero100 and directed it to him. After his scathing attack on Anglicans on the Anglicanism article yesterday, I'm afraid I reacted when he dumped a nonsense link into the article today. I can't believe that he feels so insecure when faced by a church that is so significantly smaller than his own. — Gareth Hughes 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In this respect, a comment he posted on my talk page is rather revealing of his perceptions. I've spoken about this with RC friends and acquaintances of mine, to check my own perceptions, and have not found Vaquero's insecurity about naming, etc., confirmed. Fishhead64 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

MBTI & Political Compass

Gareth, I just happened to notice (quite ironically, given what I've had posted on my user page) that you've taken both MBTI and the Political Compass. I just finished two new userboxes that you might be interested in playing around with: User:The_Thadman/Userbox/MBTI and User:The_Thadman/Userbox/PolCompass. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 02:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve: I've put them up on my user page now too. — Gareth Hughes 11:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Welsh church services

Hello Gareth,

Do you happen to know to what extent church services are conducted in Welsh in the Church in Wales? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Church in Wales/Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru is officially bilingual. You can find Welsh-language services all over West Wales (especially in the Diocese of St David's and the Diocese of Bangor), and a few in other places (Eglwys Dewi Sant in Cardiff is prominent Welsh-speaking church). Some churches will have separate Welsh and English services, and others will have bilingual services where both languages are used. Even in fully Welsh-speaking churches sermons in Welsh are quite rare. — Gareth Hughes 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And even in a (bassically) English language service, you may find the odd Welsh prayer dropped in. I've been to service in Llandaff Cathedral where the Dean has switched into Welsh in the middle of the final blessing. David Underdown 08:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the nice new article on the Southern Cone. Do you also play around with pictures? List of Presiding Bishops in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America has a nice gallery that I wanted to include in the article de:Presiding Bishop, but because they are not on Commons, I couldn't.--Bhuck 13:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alaha

What's wrong with the POV on the Alaha article?סרגון יוחנא

Wikipedia:Sound of the day

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I've put on your excellent recordiing of Ein' Feste Burg for today's Wikipedia:Sound of the day, a new project. Thanks.--Pharos 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Diocese

Hi, Fr. Hughes. The fact is I was trying to create some semblance of uniformity among the diocesam articles. In some countries, like the UK, the articles were simply Diocese of X, whereas in the States, it was Episcopal Diocese of X. I thought we should pick one and stick to it, and because the American format seemed less POV (there may be, for example, some Roman Catholic dioceses with the same names of some Anglican dioceses) I chose that one. I'm fine with either, though, as long as there is some sort of consensus. I already received a query from people who had the Sydney page on their watchlist b/c it was totally out of line with naming conventions ("Sydney Anglicans"?!). Carolynparrishfan 02:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that it is important that when two or more churches call their diocese or bishop by the same title that it is importan to disambiguate between them fairly. The historical situation in England and Wales, however, is that only four of each of the Anglican and Roman Catholic dioceses have the same name. In Liverpool, the simple solution is that we have the Archdiocese of Liverpool, which is Catholic, and the Diocese of Liverpool, which is Anglican (we have the same situation with the Archdiocese of Southwark/Diocese of Southwark and Archdiocese of Birmingham/Diocese of Birmingham). Things break down with the Diocese of Portsmouth, which is the name of the article on Anglican diocese, whereas the older, Catholic diocese is at Catholic diocese of Portsmouth — I thing this is a clear case for disambiguation. I noticed that all Church in Wales dioceses were under Diocese of X except the Anglican Diocese of Saint David's.I found this strange because no Catholic diocese has the same name as an English one in Wales — the Diocese of Menevia is the Catholic diocese nearest to St David's. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism for a wider consensus. — Gareth Hughes 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for a bit of help

Gareth, I'm having some problems with anons messing with Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, and with the current state of things, I'm not sure what edits have survived and I could really use another set of eyes to look over things and tell me I'm not crazy :-) Thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 21:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Diocese of Brechin

Hello. Sorry if you were unsatisfied with my comments. My basic response to your question is that the medieval/early modern diocese is more important and, as far as the time is concerned, the medieval/early modern diocese is ecumenical in character, pre-dating the revolt of the English church against Rome. To have Diocese of Brechin as Diocese of Brechin (medieval) but the Anglican diocese not disambiguated seems a little POV, especially given the minor role of the Scottish episcopal church in modern Scottish society, where Anglicanism is tiny compared with Presbyterianism and Catholicism. The historical Diocese of Brechin is a historical institution relating to the heritage of the entire christian community of Scotland. Seems to me to lack historical perspective, at least from my point of view as a medievalist. If you strongly favor the form Diocese of X (Episcopalian), go for it and move it; if you do, move also Bishop of Brechin (Anglican) to the same format. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. I take your point on the comparatively small role played by the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Looking at a list of Bishops of Brechin, it actually looks like there was almost no gap between the pre-Reformation bishops and Episcopalian ones. Of course, the Church of Scotland took over religious jurisdiction and built heritage, but the line of bishops clearly passes to the SEC. — Gareth Hughes 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On the page Bishop of Brechin (Anglican), the bishops list starts only in the 19th century. Do you have access to a larger list? I take it you are suggesting a merge, yes? Is there actually a direct line of historical continuity here? I'm not sure what kinda precedent, for wikipedia I mean, that would set. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am suggesting a merger, just noting that there is some continuity. At the Reformation, bishops continued to be consecrated for titles, even if they did not take up the jurisdiction of their sees. Our article on Bishop of Brechin breaks off with John Sinclair. Neither he nor his predecessor seem to have been consecrated. The list of bishops in Crockford's Clerical Directory then shows Alexander Campbell as the next bishop, in 1566, but notes that he was bishop in title alone. Then there is the gap, until Andrew Lamb is Bishop of Brechin in 1610. The list then continues to 1695 without gap, when the see was united with Edinburgh. In 1709, a new Bishop of Brechin, John Falconar, is appointed, and the list continues without break to the current day. Thus, there is only really a gap of 44 years in the lineage from pre-Reformation bishops to SEC bishops, and Alexander Campbell, who is considered not to be a Roman Catholic bishop, received the see in title at least before that 44-year gap. On the other hand, the Diocese of Dunkeld, which claims the heritage of the pre-Reformation diocese, was only refounded in 1878 (according to GCatholic and Wikipedia). I wonder how it is that the modern Diocese of Dunkeld can claim the heritage of the old diocese where the Episcopalian Dicoese of Brechin cannot. I also note that there was no gap in the succession of Bishops of Dunkeld from the pre-Reformation line into the SEC line, unlike the three centuries of Roman Catholic absense. I suggest that our articles on Scottish dioceses and bishops are showing Catholic bias. — Gareth Hughes 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the Catholic Church, for wiki's purposes continuity can easily be traced because both were subject to the same institution, the Patriarchate of Rome; so both the ancient bishopric of Dunkeld, although not necessarily subject to any influence from Rome at first, was for most of its history firmly a bishopric of the Roman Patriarchate; the modern Bishopric, although based at Dundee, is subject to the same institution. As to why Brechin breaks off at John Sinclair, this is because I was following the lists of John Dowden, Bishop of Edinburgh (whose article you might wanna improve ;) ). Dowden does stress he wasn't consecrated, but he is nevertheless the last bishop in the list. I don't know much about the reformation period, but if you can show historical continuity, say with the support of the Scottish or Anglo-Scottish government, then there might be good reason to merge the articles, so long as the modern bishopric and diocese aren't made to obscure the medieval bishopric. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with bishops' lists for Scotland is that the SEC continued the titles of the episcopacy, as moderate reformers were supported by England and Scottish royalists, but the establishment, jurisdiction and built heritage passed to the Church of Scotland, supported by the Scottish Parliament. The authority of the Pope was revoked by Parliament in 1560, and papal control of the Scottish dioceses ended and the episcopate was abolished. In 1572, the reformed episcopate was restored to the Scottish church, but papal authority was not restored, and bishops were simply appointed and not consecrated. In 1592, presbyterianism was established in Scotland, but bishops continued to sit in Parliament and be appointed (though only in title and without jurisdiction). In 1610, the episcopacy was reintroduced, but, after Charles I tried to introduce his prayer book in Scotland, the episcopacy was abolished again in 1638. With the restoration of Charles II, the episcopate was re-established in 1660. However, for refusing to lay aside their Jacobite oaths, William of Orange once more established presbyterian government in 1689. The 1712 Act of Toleration allowed Episcopalian congregations in Scotland to worship using the English liturgy. However, the toleration was quicly followed by penal laws aimed at limiting the effectiveness of Episcopalian ministry. As bishops died, new bishops could not be enthroned, but were simply consecrated and appointed to regional ministry. However, they retained their diocesan titles throughout. This led to a strong sense of collegiality among SEC bishops, and the beginning of the office of Primus. In 1792, penal-law restrictions on the SEC were revoked, and the situation is as stands today. The continuation of the lines of bishops in Scotland is not as clear as in England. In England, the moderates gained the upper hand, and Anglicans continued to occupy all offices of the pre-Reformation church (in title, property and establishment). In Scotland, the episcopal titles were continued by the SEC. Only the Diocese of Edinburgh was a new creation. To say that the modern Diocese of Dunkeld is the rightful successor to the pre-Reformation dioceses of Dunkeld and Brechin denies the fact that these titles continued in the three-hundred-year absense of a Catholic episcopate in the SEC. — Gareth Hughes 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Campaign against the Catholic Church

I have only found one group of people on WP who are consistently anti-Catholic: Anglicans. It is interesting that Anglicans, as liberal and accepting as you are of all kinds of people, persist in your ancient and legendary hatred of the Catholic Church so that you have to hound Catholics and hunt down our name to irradicate it. All we want is to be left alone. I would be glad to leave the Anglican page alone, if you all would just leave the Catholic Church be. But you can't resist any opportunity to put us down. Shame on you!!--Vaquero100 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The only person I see ranting is you. You are making inflammatory edits to pages on Anglican subjects. I have posted on your talk page about your misuse of AWB to make wholescale name changes without community consensus — you are acting alone and in bad faith. — Gareth Hughes 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat. I will remind you that it is Anglicans who have attempted to change the name of the Catholic Church. You and your fellows have consistantly blocked attempts by Catholics to refer to our Church by its actual name. No authority has the right to change the name of the the Church, not even WP. --Vaquero100 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not mistake this for a threat: this is an issue about names of articles on Wikipedia. Here the name of the article is Roman Catholic Church. If you don't like it campaign for it to be changed, but do not try to it by the back door. You are using automated software to change a name without consent, and that is vandalism. I am not threatening you, I am warning you that the moment you do that again you will be blocked. Fair warning. — Gareth Hughes 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think I am the only one, you should do some reading. This arguement has been going on for months. And it is a cabal of your Anglican friends who have driven one Catholic after another to complete frustration. Many Catholics have voiced their opinions. And the Anglicans just don't care. You people are obsessed with the Catholic Church. Be happy with who you are and stop trying to bring the Catholic Church down!!!--Vaquero100 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need software to do what is just and right.--Vaquero100 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that you Anglicans never own up to your bigotry. With the exception of Philip Jenkins an Episcopalian who probably began his research in his own parish. What is wrong with you??--Vaquero100 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop ranting nonsense on my talk page. — Gareth Hughes 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglican "tolerance" has its limits

The main ideological campaigners behind the new anti-Catholicism are feminist and homosexualist. The agenda is bigger than simple homosexuality or feminism, and the issues are more complex than just equal rights for minority groups, but inasmuch as these two groups are at the forefront of the new wave of anti-Catholic prejudice I wondered what effect it would have on ecumenical relations. If non-Catholic churches are increasingly dominated by the feminist and homosexualist campaigners could we see the anti-Catholic spirit that marks secular feminism and homosexualism infect church groups as well?

Jenkins answered, ‘Most mainline Protestant churches ordain women, and some, like the Anglican Church, are ready to ordain gay clergy and bishops. This distinction has led to some nasty attacks on the Catholics here, from well-known figures like Newark's former Episcopal (Anglican) bishop John Spong. Ecumenism will likely suffer as the two traditions grow further apart. Having said that, though, Catholics are probably closer than they have ever been to evangelicals, who are very numerous and strong here, since evangelicals respect the strict Catholic moral teachings, and have formed close tactical alliances over pro-life issues.’

Jenkins’ book points like the prophet’s finger, to a possible future. Given the Church of England’s endorsement of feminism and homosexuality will we see those now benign elements turn nasty? As Anglican theological and moral drift continues will our ecumenical future lie more with the Evangelicals than with our traditional partners—the Anglicans? Will feminists and homosexuals gain increasing influence in the Anglican Church? If they do, will the Anglicans’ patronising and polite attitude towards Catholics shift into something not quite so pleasant? They say everything in America crosses the Atlantic in about five years. Let’s hope this is one export that is never granted a license. [1]

I can especially identify with this Dwight Longnecker's experience. He is an American living in England. As a former Anglican "priest" and now a Catholic, he knows plenty about "the Anglicans' patronizing and polite attitude towards Catholics."

I was raised on Anglican smugness. My Father is an Anglican and I grew up in both the Anglican and Catholic Churches. I know far too much about that smugness to expect Anglicans to own up to their prejudices. But, the truth has to be told. You should read the entire article--even better, the book. --Vaquero100 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

However, it is you who is peppering my talk page with insults against my faith — something I would never dare do to you. You seem to forget the comparative size of our two communions, and the number times our orders have been declared invalid. So, it looks like you're paranoid. There are likely more Catholic editors here than Anglicans, and yet you think there is some secret conclave of Anglicans plotting to take over. Face the facts: you are on your own personal campaign here. — Gareth Hughes 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As you say, facts are facts. Anglicans such as Fishhead and others have been lurking around the Catholic Church page for months driving away Catholics who stand up for the Church's name. Why are you so bitter against the Catholic Church. You got all our property, slew hundreds of our priests, oppressed our people for centuries. Can't you at least now let us have our Church's name? --Vaquero100 18:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not bitter against Catholics at all. I work in an ecumenical partnership with Catholics — it works because no one gets quite as hot headed as you are getting. I do not have your property and I did not kill your priests — there was enough robbery and blood on both sides during the Reformation. You may also notice that I am tackling you on issues of civility and disruptive editing. You are attacking me with insults about my church. I think you better stop before you loose your self-control. — Gareth Hughes 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not insulting your Church. I am pointing out something that clearly makes you uncomfortable. Actually, I am pointing out something that is probably in yourself. You have a need to suppress the Catholic Church. That is sad. But more than that, it is unjust, it is cruel and un-Christian. --Vaquero100 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not find Catholic-Anglican relations uncomfortable at all: as I have already stated, I have good friendships with charitable Catholics. Just take a look at yourself: you are the one who is ranting (I define that as the writing of lengthy polemics against my beliefs) about anti-Catholicism and making changes without the consensus of others. On the hand, I let my edits stand for themselves — I try to work with others, and have others (not just ANglicans either) who support me on this. I make no attack against the Catholic Church, I simply stand up to your bullying. Also, above you have just accused me of being un-Christian. I think you better stop there. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. I regard your last statement to be such. I shall file a complaint if you continue to argue ad hominem rather than objectively. — Gareth Hughes 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sargonious

Hello Gareth,

Would you be so kind as to check out the following edit and edit summary [2] by Sargonious? He continues to remove the information about the various ethnonyms, which he says to have summarised. This is all done without proper talk page discussion or even edit summaries. Thanks. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Benne. I've given him a warning, but he repeatedly goes beyond the limit. As he's already had a block for disruptive behaviour, it seems reasonable to give another block if he continues with this attitude. — Gareth Hughes 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He had continued with this attitude for the past 3 months, please ban him already from editing that page. He himself has ruined it. Chaldean 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I realise that he can be eratic and disruptive. — Gareth Hughes 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please point out something wrong with the Identity section under Assyrians. I wrote it then Testarosa butchers it and you complain about me. Jesus Christ, go look yourself. The article I wrote is completely factual. Testarosa goes and mangles it and you complain about me reverting it. And as far as my comments on Benne. He's been blocked himself quite a few times for reverting article because he didn't agree with them. Just say no to Hypocricy.סרגון יוחנא

And as far as my comments on Benne. He's been blocked himself quite a few times for reverting article because he didn't agree with them. This is not true! I have never been blocked. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

these edits were obviously made by Sargon, what are you going to do about him Gareth? Chaldean 04:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any evidence that those edits were made by Sargonious. I recently blocked an IP address that he regularly uses because of his repeated taunting of Benne. The IP address in question is clearly a troublemaker, and I have written a warning to its talk page that the next time the user engages in disruptive behaviour they will be blocked. — Gareth Hughes 11:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglican rosary guy

I lengthened the rosary spamdal's block to a month since the previous block of one week had no effect. User:Angr 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And may the Blessed Virgin have mercy upon us! — Gareth Hughes 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Thomas (Apostle)

I have reverted to my additions on Thomas, after taking in mind your suggestions. I well understand it might not be the place for this discussion, but since it brings up the question of the actual relationship between Jesus and Thomas, the question that is of paramount importance, and I think, behind several heresies, including A and N, that I have inserted it here. I know the differences and knew them, so I made it clear in the note why I think they are similar and stem from the actual nature of Jesus's family.....

The fact that Shakespeare and Marlowe both turn out to have similar opinions on it are important and this interpretation of Comedy of Error will, I hope, prove fruitful. Harold Bloom and I have corresponded about my interpretation and I'm happy to report he agrees with me. Bloom's the biggest gun on the range.

I like that picture of you. We seem to have something in common, that include a positive sense of life. I was ordained at Cambridge by the Bishop of Berkeley and bought my first collar in the little shop up the street from Corpus Christi, where I was giving a paper on Marlowe....

I'm a heretic who espouses the radical notion that the Bible is no longer necessary and, worse, that it is divisive and derisive. I advocate the Christian belief that the Word has been written into all of our hearts since the time of Jesus, as promised in Jeremiah. Thus all of us have a direct interpersonal relationship with God, a God of love, who has forgiven us of our sins. The death of Jesus was "staged" to teach that external interventions from on high were over. The Jews are still waiting on another one. The period of the Old Testament records the Jews relationship with an absentee dysfunctional father figure, who communicated unclearly and who ranted and raged when the Jews didn't do what It thought they should have done. That dysfunctional absentee Father has been replaced, for Christians, with the benign God of love, who has forgiven us and who urges us all towards love and peace, whispering to each of us that we can be better and that we have been forgiven our past sins. Is this "transformation theology?" As a philosopher type I'd long been an atheist. The entire God thing seems stupid and senseless. Particularly Christianity. I mean what would the neighbors say if some irate father down the block had turned his only son over to a mob so they could crucify him unjustly, just so the old man could forgive them? Talk about moral dysfunctionalism! It sounds more like something the Dark One cooked up. But if we consider this simply ascribed dogma and take note that all children must pass through the point where their parents are willing to intervene in their lives and from that point own carry their own crosses, live their own lives and die their own deaths, then the lesson is that the Jews were children and that we aren't.

I like that lesson better than teaching us that if we want to forgive a buck of jerks just let the crucify your children first and then make peace with them.

If I'm right, its why Jesus and the apostles didn't keep notes or records.

They knew what was going to happen. After Jesus died, the Word was going to be written into our hearts.

I tell those I preach for/to/with??? that there is a phone ringing inside all of us. Belief allows us to answer it. If by mischance the voice says, "kill that guy or rape that woman..." its either a wrong number or the wrong god. One of the connections now hardwired into our hearts is to the God of love. We don't need the Bible. We don't need ink that's printed on paper. We don't need stories about a bunch of ignorant, barefooted camel jockeys who lived somewhere else between 6 and 2 thousand years ago and spoke some sort of languages the rest of us can barely grasp. Fools who believed bats were bird, that the moon was a light, that the rain water came from a lake over the clouds, that the world was flat, had four corners and that the circumference of a circle was three times its radius or diameter and not pi. Fools who believed some dude survived inside the belly of a whale, and that some other guy raised a couple of people from the dead. Actually if you look at the text, Jesus says to the distraught father, "Your daughter isn't dead, she was only sleeping." So I don't see how that counts as a miracle. Unless Jesus lied.

Speaking of ancient languages, ever notice how many scholars of Hebrew, Arabic, ect., are left handed? Did you know that the amino acids that make up the proteins of life are all left handed? In nature it is a fifty-fifty proposition which way the chains will form. To have all of ours turn out to be left handed smacks of a creative process...

But the sad news is it is easy to see that life has been on its own for a long, long time.

Just take a cherry tree. Are you trying to tell me the God who ignited the stars and set the planets in their orbs and you created living things from inanimate objects, couldn't figure out how to make them shorter? I mean we're all small creatures. What are the cherries doing thirty feet up in the air?

In one of the gnostic text it is written, "that the spirit should animate matter is amazing, but that mater should animate the spirit, impossible." I teach that in my biology classes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Baker, Ph.D. (abd) (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 June 2006. (Moved from user page)

New Diocese Infobox

Hi Garzo, thanks for the message about the new diocese infobox template, it looks really good. I never could figure out how those ParserFunctions worked myself! Nice one. Andeggs 07:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's OK with you, can I start implementing the version with ParserFunctions? I'll make sure that it is backward compatable with all current calls to either templates, so that articles will not have to be changed. — Gareth Hughes 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, go for it. Andeggs 11:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: A Mighty Fortress Is Our God

Hi, thank you for correcting my spelling error, but how can we fix a spelling error when it is the title of an image. Could we move the image to a corrected name?--Drboisclair 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! There is no easy way to rename images. The best thing to do is to upload the image under the new name, and get the old one deleted. If you're the original uploader, then it's better if you do the new upload. This makes sure that you're identified with the image if anyone has any questions about it. I'll be happy to delete the old image when you're done if you want. — Gareth Hughes 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry and thanks

Srdjan Vesic 23:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Trouble in Mi’kmaq-land

I'd be grateful if you'd look in on the dispute at Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and its talk page. Evertype 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian people Identity section.

I previously stated that Testarosa mangled the article. Chaldean keeps reverting it back to that poorly written mess that was changed without any discussion. I went and altered the one I previously wrote with some of the ideas introduced by Testarosa so that Chaldean wouldn't revert it. I don't think reverting it back to Testarosa's version is a good idea. It's absolute garbage the way it's written.סרגון יוחנא

Unsubstantiated anonymous POV tags on Afshar experiment article

Dear Garzo, Please kindly take a quick look at the edit history of the Afshar experiment page. You will sadly find a number of anonymous vandals repeatedly placing POV tags without merit after reverts by me and Dr. Arthur Rubin. I would appreciate if you could take the appropriate action. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For something, which however, as of 2006-05-04, neither a description of the experiment, nor any discussion of its theoretical interpretation, has been published in a refereed physics journal, the article is rather long and the criticism is but hidden, but I'm thinking it's within limits. Nevertheless, while not prohibited by policy, User:Afshar editing Afshar_experiment may get some negative feelings. Anyway, the difficult questions should be asked at WikiProject_Physics#Afshar_POV. --Pjacobi 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Dear Garzo and Pjacobi, Michael C. Price has taken it upon himself to rewrite history by incorporate erroneous information. I have requested him a number of times Neutrality to produce valid references for his assertions, with the proper quotation and journal reference. He has not done so. Instead he has simply gone ahead and changed the article. His view is certainly not NPOV and I (like any other Wikipedian) have a right within wiki policies to ensure that the article is NPOV based on current literature. Maybe you could persuade him to offer the proper references or stop espousing personal views as the "popular" or "mainstream" ones. The elvel of personal attacks on me (including my user page) is simply unacceptable and I hope one of you wold put a ban on my user page by anonymous ill-wishers. Thank you very much for you understanding and cooperation.-- Prof. Afshar 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Awkward question/request

Garzo, do you know where the name(s) of the language(s) that appear in the left-hand side of some articles (interwiki links) can be changed? I ask this only because I've been searching for a while and I can't find it and you're familiar with the Syriac alphabet.

For Aramaic/Syriac, when the arc: tag is used, the word ܕܥܒܪܸܝܛ ('Ivrit; meaning "Hebrew") appears. --334 23:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I have a problem with the arc domain from the beginning. Over two years ago someone set the interwiki to say ܕܥܒܪܝܛ. I pointed out the mistake at arc:talk:ܦܐܬܐ ܪܫܝܐ back then, but no one's bothered to sort it out. It seems that the Aramaic domain has been taken over for Modern Assyrian, which really should be under its own domain. There must be a file somewhere that sets the text for interwiki links. I'll see if I can change it. — Gareth Hughes 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with a WikiMedia developer, the only people with sufficient access to make such a change. The immediate response was for evidence that the suggested change is correct. I have supplied the evidence, but I have yet to receive a reply or notice that the change has been made. I'll follow this up again. — Gareth Hughes 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hymn" in Aramaic

Dear Mr. Gareth,

If you'll take a moment to take a look at the root word for "faith" in Aramaic, you'll see for yourself that the first four letters are, phonetically, "hymn."

Do you see this now?

--66.69.219.9 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Reference the last word in Matthew 6:30 ("oh ye of little faith" <-- sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Υμνος is a Greek word (see Liddell-Scott). In no dialect of Aramaic is a word from the root אמן/ܐܡܢ used to mean 'hymn', 'song' or anything like it. — Gareth Hughes 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(Ahem) I say again: phonetically, the first four letters, in Aramaic of faith are Hē-Yōdh-Mīm-Nūn ... i.e., "h-y-m-n". That's literal...not interpretive...and, frankly, not capable of being refuted. I stand by my citation, but am flexible on the accompanying description as being "literal." --66.69.219.9 17:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say that the Greek word derives from an Aramaic word which never has the same meaning. This is abosolute nonsense, please stop adding your own amateur philology to articles. It really isn't clever. — Gareth Hughes 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, please stop being petulant and puerile. Slow down and read what I'm saying, which is quite honest, observant and rather straightforward. If it helps, look at the Hebrew...hymn is direct there, and quite related to the Aramaic. Get well soon. --66.69.219.9 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Jesus spoke to the masses in Aramaic...not Greek. If you dispute this historical fact, I can understand why/how your reasoning has gone aground on this. In other words, see Matthew 6:30 of the Peshitta --66.69.219.9 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What qualification have you to say this stuff? The last word in the verse you mention means 'faith' not a 'song of praise'. I have stated full reasoning on your talk page. You have offered no documentary evidence linking a Greek word meaning 'song of praise' with an Aramaic word meaning 'faith'. My qualification: I am a Syriac researcher at Oxford University. How about you, anonymous? — Gareth Hughes 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a child of God. Thanks for asking. --66.69.219.9 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Without any qualifications in Greek or Aramaic, otherwise you would say wouldn't you? — Gareth Hughes 17:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the simple fact that we're even having this conversation would speak otherwise. And, unlike yourself, perhaps, I do not take being a 'child of God' lightly. --66.69.219.9 17:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't hold faith to be of little value: to the contrary. However, I do hold spending hours reading Aramaic and Greek texts each day as giving me some inside knowledge here. I have asked you how you know your claim to be true and you have virtually just told me that divine revelation is the key. — Gareth Hughes 21:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple: I read "The Book" in Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew. And if I were you, I wouldn't be so flippant about my, your, or anyone else's "divine revelation," as you put it. I've certainly made no such claims, and find it fairly appalling to find a priest, no less, trying to humiliate someone on such (fraudulent) grounds. --66.69.219.9 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What? DO you think I don't read the Bible in those languages? Your citation proves no link between 'hymn' and 'haimānuthā', except that hey sound alike. This is not good enough, especially when no scholar has ever written about the link between them. You must stop mocking me. Especially when you prefer to hide your identity. You have a right to remain anonymous, but not to mock those who prefer to be open about who they are. Actually the fraud is an unevidenced speculation in etymology just like yours. — Gareth Hughes 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you struggled in school? There is no speculation...I am citing a source document in a very literal fashion, with zero interpretation/spin/"leaven". --66.69.219.9 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Stop the personal attack. All the Bible verse shows is that the Aramaic word for 'faith' is haimānuthā. The link to 'hymn' is via partial phonetic coincidence that nowhere is documented as meaningful. That last bit is pure speculation and plainly wrong. Yes, you are citing a source, but it does nothing to support your argument that haimānuthā and hymn are related. So, it's meaningless evidence. If you showed me some real evidence, I would be interested in the merits of your claim, but you have done nothing to prove it. Your only line is attack me personally when I question your argument: this is the mark of one who is wrong but cannot see it. — Gareth Hughes 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And your responses...which began the insults...have all clearly been overwrought and emotional rather than taking the multiple instances of evidence -- citations from a source document, the Peshitta -- at face value. Me thinks the pot is calling the kettle black...again. --66.69.219.9 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence isn't evidence. If you think I'm emotional, it's because you are not making sense. The Bible verse proves nothing. Partial phonetic similarities prove nothing. You have proved nothing, but insist that your interpretation stands and you cannot see the massive hole in your methodology. Try replying without taunts and insults that you pepper every reply with. Also, try showing me the etymological link between haimānuthā and hymn step by step (even throw in a reference if you can). What you have shown me so far is a Bible verse that confirms that a word is a piece of Aramaic vocabulary and related it to a phonetically similar word with a different meaning in a different language. To make a valid argument, you have to be able to show steps in between this. This is what academics do to proove their theries, and this is what you must do if you are to be taken seriously. So, give the academic approach a try, and we can talk. Keep insulting me, and I'll ask that you get blocked again (as shown in your block log). — Gareth Hughes 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, please...please...get another admin involved in this. For reasons known only to you, you are not being objective on this matter. --66.69.219.9 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not my job. If you want to get someone else involved, you have to ask them. Then they will read you methodology and find it lacking, and read your insults and find you disruptive. Go, find an admin and see where it gets you. I have also contacted two admins who are linguistics experts, but who are currently offline. I have done this just in case you cannot get anyone you like. — Gareth Hughes 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in trying to "stack the deck", so get whoever you would like, but please do get some help. You're not being objective. --66.69.219.9 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

<Smile> I have additional proof for you -- there are only 3 words in the entire Aramaic New Testament in which the text string "h-y-m-n" appears: "faith", "belief" and..."hymnalist." The Aramaic word for "hymnalist" in the Greek is "Eunuch" (Mediterranean hymnalists were clearly eunuchs in many cases, which also makes a great deal more sense of Matthew 19:12 -- i.e., the Roman Catholics may have their policy regarding priest celibacy completely mis-based on a misinterpretation of the Greek). You can read the Peshitta and see for yourself. Sleep tight...and sorry to have caused you such discord earlier...honest. --66.69.219.9 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"He who has ears, let him hear." --66.69.219.9 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the Aramaic word mhaimnā suffers from the same lack of evidence as your previous theory. Although mhaimnā is etymologically linked to haimānuthā and amēn, none of these words is in any way linked with the Greek word hymnos. You may also like to reflect on the quality of the Greek vowel upsilon, as it has never had consonantal character of Aramaic yodh. Although either may be transliterated by y into th Latin alphabet, their phonetic quality has never been at all similar. — Gareth Hughes 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me get in on this. Slotha is prayer which is harmonic and a basically a hymn. Song is Zmarta. Haymanutha means belief. There are Greek words in modern Aramaic such as purtuqalla which means Orange.סרגון יוחנא

example: Zmara Zmerreh kha zmarta. Qasha merreh msalakh slotha d'marun. Awen wshmaya nethqadash...סרגון יוחנא

In case you didn't understand. There is no link between the two words other than "phonetic coincidence" as the dude said... Mhaimenen means I believe. Haymunta means thought or consideration... etc. the list goes on. Song is Zmarta and Prayer/Hymn is Slotha. Msalu means pray in the plural form. Msalukh means let us pray... etc.User:Sargonious

Those who are blind cannot see and thus must be forgiven for their limitations, but, if it is helpful, and to put your opinion of this being a "coincidence" in perspective, here are the gentle facts from the Gospels of the New Testament in Aramaic]:

Matthew: 15,052 words, 61,426 characters

Mark: 9,474 words, 38,413 characters

Luke: 16,386 words, 66,279 characters

John: 13,118 words, 50,558 characters

Total: 54,030 words, 216,676 characters

Let the reader who can see judge for themselves just how likely of a coincidence it is for the Aramaic letters "h-y-m-n" (Hē-Yōdh-Mīm-Nūn) -- out of all of the Gospels of the New Testament -- to appear only in the 195 instances of the words for "faith," "belief," and "hymnalist."

In closing, a brief, related story regarding spiritual blindness and Pharisee mentality:

"Jesus heard that they had thrown him (a blind man) out, and when he found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshipped him.

"Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

"Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"

"Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim that you can see, your guilt remains."

Food for thought this Sunday morning. --66.69.219.9 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No more coincidence than in the English language where the only words in any literature that begin with the letter "f" and end in the letters "uck" fall within a common expletive and the word "firetruck." This is no "proof" :-) My friend, seeing that you seem to "believe in" one of my favorite Rabbis, ask yourself what would Jesus do? Not this. He wouldn't vandalize a talk page on Wikipedia over the Peshitta, of all thing. Not to mention that your word counts are off on principle: There are differences between Peshitta manuscripts, negligible compaired to the Greek manuscripts, yes, but signifigant enough to seriously mess with your count. :-) Take five, step back, take a deep breath and then look over the conversation here: Every Wikipedia user who has contributed to this thread who has at least a working knowledge of Aramaic is disagreeing with you:

• I've studied ancient dialects of Aramaic for nearly 6 or 7 years now.
• Sargonius as far I as know, fluent in modern Assyrian Aramaic.
• Gareth works for a prestigious University and probably counts his sheep at night in "khad treyn tlotha" :-)

This really isn't helping your case by badgering poor Gareth here. On the contrary: It's probaby working against you. So I sincerely ask, please, calm things down. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone's interested, you've just found an admin...the anon is not only clearly lacking in anything even remotely approaching academic support, but is also trumpeting a claim with which I am, much to my chagrin, well familiar...one which has no scholarly basis whatsoever, but which is popular in evangelical christian circles. Not one single solitary respectable linguist including Christian theologians among them supports this ludicrous notion. If the anon persists in inserting this rubbish into article space, let me know, and I'll start following more closely. The repetitious insertion of utter crap into WP articles is more than sufficient grounds for blocks all the way up to "indefinite", including "infinite". Tomer^talk 07:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article in the news today. My. What. A. Shock.: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/103/32/12203 --66.69.219.9 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the article you link to at all. — Gareth Hughes 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are priests of the Anglican church rather fond of insulting fellow Christians...? How...odd. --66.69.219.9 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And behind your anonymity, you feel secure to insult me and harangue me about your misguided theories. If you even once presented some kind of evidence to support your theories, I could discuss with it you. I'm glad to see that you are no longer inserting your imaginings into article and passing them off as some kind of revealed truth. The last article you posted for me does not support your approach either. The word eisegesis means to read an interpretation into something; it's a key fallacy of journalists. You're not a journalist, are you? — Gareth Hughes 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

منصورہ

Hello Gareth,

While working on interwiki links, I noticed there are a number of articles titled "(Al-)Mansura(h)":

• Al Mansurah (Egypt) -- Mansoura redirects here
• Al-Mansura (Palestine)
• Mansura (Pakistan, also mentioning the place in Egypt)
• Mansura, Louisiana

The French-language Wikipedia has the following articles:

• fr:Mansourah (Égypte)
• fr:El-Mansoura (Tunesia)
• fr:La Mansoura (Tunisie)
• fr:Mansourah (disambig)

As far as I know, these places are all written منصورہ in Arabic. I think the pages should be disambiguated, but since my grasp of Arabic doesn't extend much further than its alphabet, I am not quite sure how to do this (should it with or without Al? should the dash be included?). Do you have an idea? Thanks a lot in advance. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Benne. Thank you for unearthing this need for disambiguation. I think that Mansura is usually spelled with a ta marbuta as its final letter: منصورة (manṣūrä). This comes frot the root نصر (naṣara) meaning 'help' or 'make victorious' (interestingly, in derived form II it means 'Christianize'). Therefore, منصور (manṣūr) means 'helped', 'supported', 'victorious'. The place name is the feminine version of this, perhaps representing the old accusative (with locative meaning). In Arabic, many place names begin with the definite article. Sometimes the article is kept in trasliteration and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's transliterated as Al and sometimes it's El. The word itself could be transliterated as Mansura, Mansoura, Mansoora, Mansurah, Mansourah, Mansoorah, Mansureh, Mansoureh, Mansooreh. It would make sense to have all of these alternatives, with and without alternatives of definite article, linking to a disambiguation page. However, the Egyptian Mansurah is by far the most important of these, so it might take precedence over the disambig. I'll see if I can tidy it up a little. — Gareth Hughes 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've set up Al Mansurah, the article on the Egyptian city, as the main page with all other spellings pointing to it. At the top of that page is a link to Al Mansurah (disambiguation) that lists the different places with that name. I hope that looks OK to you. — Gareth Hughes 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a great job. Actually I was only hoping for some suggestions, but you did all the work. Thank you very much. Best regards, Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

• Dear Gareth, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.

The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Information About the Akkadian Language

Hello Gareth,

Recently, I have translated the Akkadian article into Hebrew and was asked to title the columns of the verb table. My knowledge of this field being little, I would like to ask you to help me in this matter. Thank you, Maorseven 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

The first two columns (beginning 'I.1' and 'G' respectively) are two different schemes for labelling Akkadian verbal roots. The first is found in more traditional grammars, while the second owes more to German scholarship on comparative Semitics. The third column is an example based on the root 'PRS' meaning 'decide, distinguish, separate'. The fourth column is for explanatory notes, and the fifth shows relationships with verbal roots in other Semitic languages. Get back to me if you need any more information on this. — Gareth Hughes 12:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatra

What is your problem man? have you read the UNISCO page http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=277 Hatra is fully Arab read this for example:http://www.atlastours.net/iraq/hatra.html use google.com to increase your information about Hatra, what you have done is called vandalism stop it.

Look at your edit: diff. You have not added any information, but removed it for no reason. You seem to be reverting the article without looking at what you are doing. Your first edit — diff — makes sense, but your subsequent ones do not. I urge you to look at what you are doing before you start mindlessly reverting and calling others vandals. I don't take kindly to being called a vandal when I plainly am not. Do not revert the article again. If you do, will you get a 24-hour block. I have placed the message on your own talk page. Now, calm down and make your case on the article's talk page. — Gareth Hughes 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm

you must know that hatra is fully arab kingdom and we do not have to mention parthians, parthians only conquered hatra and they never played any rule in the kingdom why to mention them???? READ WHAT UNISCO SAYS http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=277 use google before reverting i have the right to remove none important and irrelevant information, what i wrote does not need even a source because it is a general information and can be found easily in a simple search, do you agree we add france to the german empire just because hitlers army conquered it?! just tell me every thing is as clear as the sun, explain why have you reverted my edit i want to understand?!?!?!?

how come we do not mention the builders of this city what is this article about?!?! MARVEL 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read what the UNESCO article says and understand it. I have added more about the history of the city to the article. The Parthian Empire is mentioned because a user who is interested in Parthian history added factual information. You also can add factual information to the article, but don't rip out other peoples' work. Also, your edits made the picture overlarge, and you kept reverting back to it. Hatra does have an important place in the history of Arab settlements in the Fertile Crescent, but it is more complicated than simply stating that Hatra is an Arab city. If you read your own sources, you will see that its history is more complex. No doubt the golden age of Hatra was as an Arab city state on a major trading route, and was the first of a chain of such cities to come under Arab leadership. You talk about your rights, but with them comes the responsibility of working with other users and trying to write clear and encyclopaedic articles in good English. -- Gareth Hughes 13:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to notify you that MARVEL (talk · contribs) has just created another user-name Odenatus (talk · contribs) to evade 3RR on Hatra. I also suspect that both these users are the sockpuppets of an old problematic user, but I am reserving judgment on that for now. --ManiF 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check Sanatruq (talk · contribs), it is yet another user-name created by the same guy. --ManiF 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this is quite clearly the same person using sockpuppets. The user seems to change account whenever the heat is on another account. I'll take this forward if you are in agreement. — Gareth Hughes 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add your comments to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MARVEL. — Gareth Hughes 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Judas Iscariot External Links

Hi Gareth,

Why not have a link to "Flight of the Feathered Serpent" on the Judas page? It seems like a relevant link, considering the book is mentioned in the article body as well.

Are there selection criteria for links I'm not aware of?

--JustinMN 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Justin. The guidelines for external links from Wikipedia articles can be viewed at WP:EL. In the 'links to be avoided' section, it mentions bookstore sites. Basically, the link you provided was to the browse inside section of a bookseller's site. The link provides a few pages of text of a book that is mentioned in the article. The mention is a single line in the Judas in art and literature section of the article Judas Iscariot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The book in question is by Armando Cosani, and neither the book nor its author have so far been considered notable enough to receive their own articles. Perhaps if the link was not to a bookseller, was to the full text of the book or was to a notable work of literature, then the link would be useful. The link to the Flight of the Feathered Serpent is clearly not as relevant to the subject of the article as the other links there, and the few pages of the book available to browse do not make much sense or use in themselves. I wonder what your rationale for including the link was. — Gareth Hughes 21:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gareth. Thanks for your reply. There is, unfortunately, no full-text version of the book available online. I own a copy of the book and find it a valuable resource on the figure of Judas, and as a spiritual text, which certainly motivated my including it on the page. It's not really a fictional work, but more an interesting biographical/historical/religious hybrid. In particular, however, I think the book has an especial relevance to the present, as its content agrees with and anticipates to a large degree the recently released "Gospel of Judas", although it was originally written quite a while before the Gospel was even re-discovered. I consider this good grounds for inclusion.

As an administrator, I suppose you make the final call if you disagree? Perhaps then I could create a wiki page on the book and then link it internally.

Regards, --JustinMN 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmose I Under Peer Review

I want to ask for your critical input on the Ahmose I article I and another editor have been contributing to recently. He's place it up for peer review and I would particularly welcome any comments you may have on this article, in particular any holes you may see in it, or areas you think need more material. I don't think we are aiming for Featured Article status just yet, but we're at the point were any useful criticism from someone with more than a passing interest in the subject would be appreciated.

Cheers! Captmondo 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tatian

Hi Garzo, I did not know that Tatian was known by so many as "[Tatian the Assyrian]". Is it ok to move the page from Tatian to Tatian the Assyrian? Thanks Chaldean 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

However, he is usually referred to simply as Tatian. Only one major author used the style Tatian the Assyrian for him, and that accounts for the number of Google hits that name receives. However, look at the search for Tatian. It provides far more hits, and they are clearly about the same man. In fact, some Greek sources refer to him as being Syrian, but this is just part of the general confusion of terms in this area. Tatian was probably born somewhere in northeast Mesopotamia, and I have theorized that Classical Syriac may not have been his native tongue, but a local Eastern Middle Aramaic variety. Seeing as Tatian's name usually stands without clarification, and he is not confused with other people of the same name, I do not see any need to disambiguate. — Gareth Hughes 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine. Do you know why he has Greek name thou? Surely because thats what the Greks called him, but what was his original name? Their seems not to be that much info about him other then the book he wrote for the Greeks. Chaldean 17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to have been quite an efficient purge of the Diatessaron in the east, so much so that little evidence of it remains. Certainly, both Aphrahat and Ephrem the Syrian both used it (although it is alos clear that they used Separate Gospels too). The purge of the Diatessaron and the alleged heresy of Tatian has led to him being virtually expunged from the history of the church. All that's left is little pieces of evidence in fragments and letters by opponenets of Tatian and the Diatessaron. I don't think I have ever read of Tatian being called anything different. However, this shouldn't suprise us, as many eastern Christians in the first few centuries had Greek names to demonstrate that they were not pagans. — Gareth Hughes 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Urmia

Greetings Garzo, I recently had to make some adjustments to the Urmia page by preventing recent members and unregistered users to make alterations to the text. Do you suppose I could do anything else to protect the content of the article?As you may have noticed, the page has recently been subject to constant vandalism by pro-Turkic users with changing IP addresses. Regards,

Shahram12 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the vandalism has been annoying, but by adding the template you haven't protected the page (except by making people think you have). I could set up the semi-protection for you, but that might be counter-productive. Semi-protection stops lots of new and unregistered users from editing a page. Even though the biased edting of Urmia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been annoying, it might be the best solution to keep reverting by hand. Protection is really a defeat: it acknowledges that we cannot deal with the vandalism. I shall take down the semi-protection notice as it is misleading if the page is not protected. If the vandalism becomes severe, I can protect the article. — Gareth Hughes 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your response. Certainly, my resortion to the template attests to my frustration. Apparently, I didn't notice that this task can only be carried out by the admins. Thanks for your clarification and guidane. I am learning as I go along. - Shahram12 13:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find the policy and advice at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. — Gareth Hughes 13:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing my Level 1 headings. My bad - I must have misread something in the welcome pack. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because level-one headings are used for article titles. You can see most style issues presented in WP:MOS. Have fun! — Gareth Hughes 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly that is the reason. I now see that article titles are HTML <H1> the same as =First heading=. ==Second heading== comes out as <H2> which is what I wanted. I was just in too much of a hurry to notice. Have a good weekend. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lock my user page

Please lock my user talk page, since you won't permit me to blank it. Mateo SA | talk 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your user page has been deleted, but I am not permitted to delete, protect or blank your user talk page. The relevant guidelines can be read here. — Gareth Hughes 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rop tú mo baile

Hi Gareth, I just heard Image:Rop tu mo baile.ogg -- it sounds great, but your pronunciation is a little off in places. Basically you make some spelling pronunciations deriving from pronouncing words as they would be pronounced in Modern Irish if Modern Irish spelling were the same as Old Irish spelling. (For example you pronounce cride [kʲrʲidʲə] but in Old Irish it was [kʲrʲiðʲe], and for nime you say [nʲimʲə] instead of [nʲiṽe].) If you ever feel like doing a re-recording, send me the words and I'll send you back an IPA transcription. User:Angr 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a "little off" I would imagine! My Irish is really quite bad, and I'm not entirely sure why I had a go at recording the hymn. If you think I could do a better job, I would be glad to rerecord it with your transcription. But, wait! Surely your singing voice would be of far more encyclopaedic value! — Gareth Hughes 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your singing voice, and I haven't the faintest idea how to go about making an .ogg recording. Also, I don't have the words. User:Angr 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The most effective free audio software I've found is Audacity. The text is available online on the UCC servers. — Gareth Hughes 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem and the Quran

Hello Mr. Garzo. Why did you delete the words about the fact the Quran never mentions Jerusalem? It's very important fact some muslims try to hide. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.23.37 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 July 2006.

I reverted your edit because I feel it is over-simplistic. Most Muslims would refute your suggestion that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur'an by pointing to 17:1. Although that verse mentions only al-Masğid al-Aqṣā and not the name of the place, it is understood. This interpretation is backed up by early hadith texts, especially in the collections of al-Bukhari. Thus, although your statement is superficially correct, it glosses over certain issues of interpretation. — Gareth Hughes 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jordan

I just wanted to point out that some of the information you provided concerning the Jordanian Royal Family is incorrect. I have corrected this information.

Her Royal Highness Princess Muna al-Hussein did convert to Islam upon her marriage. The information you provided that she did not convert is incorrect. I, further, listed the relevant articles of the Jordanian Constitution that clarify that Princess Muna must have been a Muslim or her son would not now be His Majesty The King of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Princess Muna was not named Queen of Jordan due to the public uproar over her nationality. This had nothing to do with her conversion.

Please, refrain from reinserting this incorrect information into the enclyclopedia. I am happy to provide you with the address of King Abddualla or Princess Muna's offices so that you can verify this information for yourself or provide you with online resources.

Please, also note that King Hussein's first wife became HRH Princess Dina Abdul-Hamid upon her divorce not merely Princess Dina.

Also, note that all children born of a legitimate wife of a decendant of any King of Jordan in the male line bear the style of Royal Highness with the title of Prince/ss.

Furthermore, HM Queen Noor al-Hussein was born Lisa Halaby. She was not named Elizabeth. This incorrect information is often included in online resources. You can easily verify this by visiting Queen Noor's offical website or by contacting her office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queen Brandissima (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 August 2006.

Thank you for your interest in this subject. Please be aware that there are a number of problems with your approach. Although you are quite sure of your facts, you have edited in such a way as to break links to relevant articles. If you want to chage the text of an active (blue) link, use a piped link. If you change the wording of a link, and it changes colour from blue to red, you are pointing the reader to a blank page, which is obviously unhelpful. Also, you seem to want to use all sorts of honorifics, but the Manual of Style and naming conventions have agreed that they shall not be used — do not use HRH in article titles. Therefore, I ask you to edit articles following this advice. If you find factual errors in articles, please make your changes verifiable by presenting your sources. You may also like to inform other editors by using the talk pages. — Gareth Hughes 23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is far less helpful to provide inaccurate information.

I have used "all sorts of horifics" because they are the proper way to refer to these individuals. To leave off the factual title such as HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) or HM (His/Her Majesty) you are leaving out a valuabale piece of information and failing to correctly identify the person. This is more of a hinderance to those seeking factual information than it is helpful.

I did provide the sources of my information in the links section. However, you removed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queen Brandissima (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 August 2006.

Newcomers quite regularly have difficulty working out how to edit articles properly. If your edits are reverted, it is usually because you did something you did not intend to do: break links or not follow the house style for Wikipedia. Don't take this personally, try to see what was wrong with your approach to editing.

Please make sure that when you make a link in an article that it links with the correct article. Your recent edits have been responsible for breaking links to relevant articles. For instance, when you change Haya bint Hussein (blue = active) to HRH Princess Haya bint Hussein (red = empty), can you see what happens? You have removed a link between articles: this is an extremely unhelpful thing to do to an encyclopaedia. Again, I remind you that it Wikipedia guidelines are against the use of honorifics in article titles. If you want to change the text of a link use a piped link: [[name of article on Wikipedia|text you want to appear]]. I hope that is clear. Please will you go through the articles you have edited and make sure that any red links and made to point to the appropriate article again (make them blue). If you don't do this, the articles will have to be repaired by reverting your edits, and some of your information will be deleted. So, please do try to help the articles link correctly to other articles again. — Gareth Hughes 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I include styles of address HRH/HM/HSH, ect.. only where they are part of the LEGAL title of the person. For example, there is no such person as Princess Muna there is only Her Royal Highness Princess Muna al-Hussein. I use the appropriate style of address when it is part of a persons legal form of address. These styles of address are part of the person's title and should always be included. Failure to use the style of address with a given title is inappropriate and not in accord with protocal. The styles of HRH and HM where already listed as part of the article titles before I edited the information.

I will go thru and correct the links and make sure they link. All the the person's mentioned do not have links readers were only being directed to empty pages originally.

I shall try to provide accurate information for those who do not have listings some time this week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queen Brandissima (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 August 2006.

Thank you for your work ensuring that all links are working again, and for your contributions. — Gareth Hughes 11:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Syriac is really an endangered language

I added the Category:Endangered Languages in the Syriac Language page because it is seriously in danger of becoming extinct ,not Iraq and Syria where it seems to be thriving as a living language, but in Turkey (where it is heading to certain extinction) and among Syriac communities as a mother language in Europe and North America as they are supplanted by the dominant official languages of these countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.255.230.227 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 August 2006.

Your first edit to the article was this. Seeing as you blanked out content like this to a handful of articles I presume you be vandalising them. If you did this by accident, you must be more careful. — Gareth Hughes 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian_people/, I've started work on a replacement article for the Assyrian page. I want to work on this step by step to ensure neutrality and factual accuracy.Malik Abdel Rahman Al-Rahim

Category:British_Anglicans

Hi Gareth, would you please help by looking at and comment on the CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_31#Category:British_Anglicans. I feel I didn't made the point clear, (a) why I want to delete this category (or signifantly change its inclusion criteria) and (b) that's nothing specific anti-Anglican about this. I just started with this one, but this initiative would apply to moderately large number of categories. --Pjacobi 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism as Protestant

I've read the article on Anglicanism, and I find I disagree. Correcting where I disagree with that article would be complicated and difficult, while moving Anglicanism into a subcategory of Protestant in the other article is simple enough. The basic issue is that, while the Church of England had a weird origin, and Henry VIII certainly cannot be categorized as a Protestant, the Church of England after his death very rapidly became Protestant. Those more "Catholic" churchmen of Henry's reign, like Gardiner, served Mary and returned to the real Catholic Church, and cannot be considered forebears of the Church of England as it developed. The Elizabeth settlement created a church which was universally considered Protestant. Elizabeth was considered the leading Protestant monarch, and the doctrines (39 Articles) and practices (Prayer Book) were also considered Protestant. The accession of James VI, a Scottish Calvinist, caused no eyebrows to be raised in either country - the Scots obviously did not think that their king had become the head of a non-Protestant church, and Abbott, his Archbishop, was himself a Calvinist, as had many of Elizabeth's Archbishops been. The Puritan tendency in the Church tended to see Laud and the Arminians as quasi-Catholics, but this is certainly not how they viewed themselves, nor can the "High Church Tories" of the late 17th and 18th centuries be considered as anything but Protestant. The whole political struggle of the late 17th century is entirely incomprehensible if one cleaves to the idea that the Church of England was not a protestant church. Why else does the High Church party end up abandoning James, and supporting, firstly, the Dutch Calvinist William, and secondly, the German Lutheran George?

The first time anybody starts to conceive of the Church of England as anything but Protestant is the Oxford Movement. And it is indeed true that the High Church movement that arose out of Oxford has tried to claim that Anglicanism is not Protestant (or, at least, to de-emphasize it). But High Church has never been more than a faction within the Church, and just about everybody else in the world (Low Church Anglicans, probably, for the most part, Broad Church Anglicans, other Protestants, Catholics, the Orthodox, the non-Christian, the non-religious) have accepted Anglicanism as a more or less Protestant movement. Note that the Episcopal church in the United States was founded under the name "Protestant Episcopal Church," which is the name they are called in the 11th edition of Britannica. It seems to me that to separate the Anglicans from Protestantism is essentially to endorse the minority, High Church, view, at the expense of the views of everybody else who has always seen the CoE and its daughter churches as protestant. This is a violation of NPOV policy. john k 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have responded with a citation from an Anglican catechism at Talk:List of Christian denominations. Anglicans generally reject the label 'Protestant' today. Your historical learning is in good order, but it should not be used to apply labels to people who strongly reject them. It is a historian's fallacy to believe that things stay where you put them. As the Oxford Movement helped the church to regain what is today seen as its Catholic heritage, it also helped to define a church that no longer sees itself as Protestant. I think it is rather heavy handed to call this 'a violation of NPOV policy', whereas it would certainly show bias to label a group of people with a label they reject. — Gareth Hughes 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded over at the other page, as well, but to exclude Anglicanism from Protestantism is to due an injustice not only to the Low Chuch movement, which pretty clearly considers Anglicanism to be a form of Protestantism (and would anybody deny that the Church of Ireland is Protestant? Once you come upon Anglicanism in a country full of real Catholics it becomes much harder to assert these Oxford Movement derived intellectual theories), but also to the general use and understanding of the term "Protestantism" by most people in the world, who have always used it as a term inclusive of Anglicanism. Furthermore, the article itself does not say the article is organized along lines of self-identity, but on "historical" and "doctrinal" bases. Doctrinally, the CoE is clearly Protestant, and practically Calvinist in many ways. Historically, we both agree that it is protestant. I don't see how the intellectual theorizing of a relatively small number of high churchmen over the last 150 years can subvert a) the historical origins of the movement; b) the strongly protestant identity of a large group within the church itself; and c) the general understanding of the word "protestant" in English over the past several centuries as including Anglicanism. john k 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

www.richarddooling.com

Dear Garzo:

How so spam?

My entry on the Python Programming Language is to a useful introduction to the language that is also referenced on the Python wiki page:

http://wiki.python.org/moin/BeginnersGuide/Download

It receives about 5000 visits a week after being on Digg and Delicious etc. It was made in the same spirit as Alan Gauld's Intro to Programming which it references.

Most programmers talk over the heads of new users, so I made the introduction for newbies. Why is it spam? I make no money from from Python or anybody else, because it is an open source software.

If I have misunderstood the wiki guidelines, I apologize.

BartlebyScrivener

All of your edits have been either to www.richarddooling.com or to books authored by Richard Dooling. By itself, you addition of an external link at Python programming language to a Python page on www.richarddooling.com seems innocuous. However, when links to the same site is also added to a wide range of other article, and you make no attempt to add to the content of Wikipedia article, you are obviously editing in such a way as to increase exposure for your site. This is spamming. — Gareth Hughes 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Will read guidelines. Apologies. Love wikipedia. Thanks for your help.

bs

Anglicanism project worklist

Hi Gareth, I've started putting together a worklist/assessment page for the project which is currently located at User:Wine Guy/Sandbox. It is still in its infancy, but I'd very much like to get your feedback before I move it into the project space, and I've also asked Fishhead64 to have a look. I'm creating this partially in response to a request from the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team to identify "key articles", and it also seems a handy way to organise and identify articles which are important to the subject. Once I get a reasonable start (the next day or two), I'll move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism/Assessment, unless you feel there's a better place for it. I hope you'll have a chance to look over what's there so far and drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for your help. Cheers! --Wine Guy Talk 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Wine Guy! I think this looks really good. Of course, we need to get a substantial core of those who havejoined the Anglicanism project to help identify and improve articles. We need a system to direct out collaborations towards certain goals. I think you should make this live in the project space as soon as possible, and let's use that page's talk page to discuss further implementation. — Gareth Hughes 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm just going to tweak it a bit more (format and headings mainly) to make for a reasonable point of departure. Unfortunately I probably won't be able to get to it tonight, but I will take it to the project space tomorrow so that the real work can begin. Cheers! --Wine Guy Talk 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism/Assessment. I look forward to your thoughts on where to take it from here. Thanks again! --Wine Guy Talk 00:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

need help

if you know good arabic language, i need help. First i am searching meaning of "بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم". in old arabic language el rahman means something related with the Sun. I heard this from an 56 year old man. He sad i Classical Arabic language its something comeing from Sun. I know that Al rahman means the most gracious, Al rahim means the most merciful. But in arabic and turkish language its also related with uterus. Rahman seems like Sun. The Sun gives light to every one like most gracious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrolog (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 August 2006.

That's the Basmala, which begins al-Fatiha and the Qur'an. The last two words are built on the root ر-ح-م, which has the root meaning of 'mercy'. The word رحم, which is built on the same root, means 'womb/uterus'. This is an ancient root in the Semitic languages, and the connexion between 'mercy' and 'womb' is also seen in the other languages of the group. However, at no stage in the history of Semitic languages did this root have anything to do with the sun. Ancient Semitic peoples did worship Shamash, but the root ر-ح-م has nothing to do with the solar cult. — Gareth Hughes 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel

Stop adding weird lies. The UN and the EU, both decidedly not pro-Israeli organizations, have concluded that the soldiers were kidnapped from inside Israel. --Daniel575 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I made this edit. I made it because an editor with very few edits removed referenced material without explanation. As you can see from my edit summary, I simply ask that it be discussed, which it is. I simply am against unexplained deletions. Please, calm down. — Gareth Hughes 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chaldean Archbishop of Siirt

Gareth, Mar Addai died in 1916, not 1915. Check out the page Alqosh, it has a long letter by him. My grandfather used to tell me stories about him, and yes he always ended the story about how his historic collection were burned after the tragedy. I remember once reading about it too in a local newspaper in Ankawa. I wished I saved it now. But I will keep my eyes open in my next trip (not until next year unfortunatly) on any info about the myrder. Chaldean 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, one thing I also wanted to talk to you about is possibly deleting the Assyrian tribe template. I really appreciate all the hard work the user A2uraya has put on wikipedia about Assyrians, but the template is not needed right now since we have no information about any tribe except one or two. The links only go to the towns and villages which do not talk about the tribes. What do you think Chaldean 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I wanted to ask you is do you think it would be appropriate to create a page called "Assyria" in terms of the region of Assyrian towns and villags. Because we have many links such as Alqosh starting with a "Alqosh or Alqush is one of the most famous Assyrian villages " where the "Assyrian village" is linked to the page Assyrians. I know A2uraya did something a while back ago, but made it look like a country (which is of course is not NPOV) and used the country template. I think a page like Kurdistan would be appropriate. What do you think. Chaldean 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And Gareth, this - Nochiya Tribe - is exactly how I think Assyrian people page should look like. Chaldean 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, what do you think of my suggestions? Chaldean 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaldean. I have found some evidence that some manuscripts from the bishop's library in Siirt did survive. There are a few manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale de France that seem to be survivors of the Siirt library.

The Assyrian tribes template could simply be made dormant (de-linked from articles with a note saying why that's been done) until you feel that you can include more complete articles on the tribes. The Nochiya Tribe article looks good. Being a syriacist, the only thing I noticed was that, in the ethnic groups template, the header says Nochiyayeh, but the script underneath says Nochiya — you need an extra yud zlami-pshuqi before the final alap. I agree with you that it would be good to have an article about the geographic homeland of Assyrians. However, it would be have to be carefully and named. You are right in suggesting the article Kurdistan as a good model, as it has avoided all sorts of attacks by those who suggest that it infringes the sovereignty of other nations. Also, even though modern Assyrians celebrate descent from the ancient Assyrians, we need to keep the articles seperate, as they are talking about two very different historical periods. Perhaps it would be good to have an article an article on Assyrian homeland that could be linked from the Assyria article in a dablink. — Gareth Hughes 11:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, would it be NPOV if we moved the article Assyria to Ancient Assyria, and have Assyria as a page for "Assyrian homeland" of today? (kinda like the pages Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece). Chaldean 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We have to ask ourselves what most people will expect when they load an article called 'Greece' or 'Assyria'. In the case of 'Greece', people may be searching for the well-known modern country, or they may be searching for information on ancient Greece. The decision has been to favour the former, as it is the name of a modern country, and its use as such is not disputed (the same reasoning could be made for Egypt and ancient Egypt). We have a similar situation with 'Assyria', but its modern status is not as clear or strong (due to obvious conflicting territorial claims with established political entities and Kurdistan) as that of Greece (or Egypt). In fact, I would reckon that most people would be expecting something on ancient Assyria if they loaded an article called 'Assyria'. I would imagine that Assyriologists would complain loudly if 'Assyria' was dedicated to the modern Assyrian homeland. Thus, I would suggest that at the most we could ask to make 'Assyria' a disambiguation page that points to both 'Ancient Assyria' (or 'Assyrian Empire') and 'Assyrian homeland'. A less messy change would simply be to place the words "For the homeland of the modern Assyrian people, see Assyrian homeland" right at the top of the Assyria article. I just don't think other will 'buy' the idea of 'Assyria' being the article on the modern Assyrian homeland, and I wouldn't want to push it. Shlam lakh! — Gareth Hughes 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I will try to start working on it, but I despritly want to instead start working on a page like History of the Assyrians (like History of the Kurds) Its amazing that still no page is dedicate to talk about the history of our people to this day. Chaldean 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, the page Alqosh is in pretty bad shape due to recent edits. Some parts just dont make sense, some parts have been repeated twice or three times, and some parts are just plain POV. If you do have time, can you please copy-edit it and improve the article? Thank you. Chaldean 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like it's been written by someone who hasn't a good grasp of English and reads a bit like a local tourist brochure. The article is completely written from an Assyrian perspective, rather than describing the town in a more general light. I consider Alqosh to be the most important place in the history of Neo-Aramaic literature, but little is said about this. I think it might be good to replace the long, rambling introduction with something slightly more straightforward and informative. — Gareth Hughes 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hmduklogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hmduklogo.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a logo, so I've added the appropriate template and rationale. — Gareth Hughes 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

MARVEL

Lion-Rider (talk · contribs) and Thunder-Bird (talk · contribs) are both sock-puppets of banned User:MARVEL. Can you please semi-protect Hatra so that new users and anonymous IPs can't disrupt it. --ManiF 01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Albanian Orthodox Church

I have no idea why u did it, but the page appears as Nuk ka Fe Orthodokse ne shqiperi ata jan Grek on my watchlist, but redirect to Albanian Orthodox Church... Would u mind taking a look at it again? --Hectorian 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been repairing a raft of vandalistic page moves made by Nano84 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Everything should be exactly back to where it should be now, but it may take your watchlist a while to update. — Gareth Hughes 17:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. btw, i did not mean 'why', but 'how u did it' before (sometimes not been a natine english-speaker can be messy...). Regards --Hectorian 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That user earlier moved a whole lot of pages to inappropriate names (a few were far more inappropriate than this). A page move creates a redirect page in the place you moved from, so you need to be able to delete the redirect page (and therefore be an admin) in order to move the correct page back. This, of course, creates a new redirect page. When a page is moved, everyone who has that page on their watchlist will automatically get the new page on their watchlist, and that's why you got the new move pages on your watchlist. I think I'll delete Nuk ka Fe Orthodokse ne shqiperi ata jan Grek, even though I can't read Albanian, as it isn't the official name of the church in Albanian. — Gareth Hughes 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen

The changes that i am making on Gisele's page are to correct the wrong gramatic of the article. Plus, what i am adding isn't unreal, and i am giving you the sources. Every time that i make a change somebody edits my article. It's becoming really tiring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andnanso (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 August 2006.

Considering that gramatic is not a word in English, it seems highly unlikely that you are correcting the grammar of the article. Other users have complained that you are using copyrighted photographs in the article, and that you have been adding inaccurate claims. I simply came along to add some notes on pronunciation, and see that you have removed them three times without explanation. Try and play by the rules. — Gareth Hughes 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your rv on Gisele Bündchen. Andnanso is becoming a real problem on this article. For almost a week now he keeps vandalizing the page. I spent a fair amount of time getting the introduction and first couple of sections into better encyclopaedic language and he keeps changing it. I've left a welcome on his talk page, but he clearly is not reading any guidelines. I'd appreciate your keeping watch on the page and with several of us we can avoid getting into a 3RR ourselves. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Pronunciations

Go raibh míle maith agat as ucht do chabhair ó thaobh cursaí foghríochta de san alt Macaoimh. Or, Thank you very much for your help regarding pronunciation on the article Macaoimh. IPA has never been my friend! Stevecull 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for so many thanks. We've got a decent article on Irish orthography, which means, if you can spell an Irish word, you can transcribe it in IPA too. It works for most words with modern spellings. — Gareth Hughes 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, thanks. Stevecull 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on Al-

Hi. I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article above, and expanding it further, or adding any sources appropriate for our English Wikipedia. I've already built it from a one-sentence stub using the sum total of my knowledge on the subject. Specifically, someone raised questions about the etymology of Semitic definite articles that I just couldn't answer. So I'm trying to recruit other Wikipedians with Arabic/linguistic expertise, such as yourself. Thanks very much! -Fsotrain09 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a bit of a rewrite. I hope that helps. — Gareth Hughes 10:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Instruments of Unity

The name "Instruments of Unity" was dropped at ACC-13 in line with the recommendations of the Windsor Report in favour of "Instruments of Communion". "Instruments of Unity" ins not their name anymore ... I'm not entirely sure how to enter my name, but I'll try and you are free to contact me at the Anglican Communion Office if you wish. I am the Deputy Secretary General. 146.216.2.99 11:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Gregory Cameron

Cuba

I'm sorry - Cuba is not recognised as a Province by the Anglican Communion. It is a non-provinical jurisdiction under a metropolitical council as you describe, but is not numbered among the Provinces, not entitled to full representation at ACC, or at the Primates' Meeting. Best wishes, Gregory Cameron 146.216.2.99 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Gregory Cameron

Thank you, Gregory. I had changed Instruments of Communion back to Instruments of Unity before, but have since realised that recent publications use 'Communion'. I was unsure about the status of Cuba. The Anglican Communion site lists Cuba among the extra-provincials, but omits that label (all others are labelled as extra-provincial). Cuba's own site makes no mention of being an extra-provincial jurisdiction of the Abp of Canterbury, but mentions the metropolitan council and future plans for a Province of the Caribbean. So, is it just that Cuba is extra-provincial but not under the direct authority of Canterbury? Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity

So what if I created a comprehensive and neutral web site on Assyria, Syriac Christians, published it, and referenced an article to it. Me being the author, couldn't I creat a page listing me as an author?King Legit

No. You might want to read the Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines to find out why. Even if you have done something really amazing (building a website probably doesn't cut it), it still is not a good idea to write an article about yourself. If you're so famous, someone else will do it forward for you. That, of course, isn't an invitation to create another account to write about yourself with. — Gareth Hughes 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. I'll work on that after an Assyriology degree. What's going on with the Assyrian people page. When can it be replaced? How much work do you think is need on the future page?15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Assyrian_dna.gif

This is being nominated for it. The source is right on the picture and this is used on many websites. Why is requesting a deletion?King Legit

You might want to ask the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. If the image is under copyright to someone, that person has to give permission that it be licensed for use on Wikipedia. If you simply found this on a website or in a book, you do not have the right to reproduce it here. — Gareth Hughes 21:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Suryoyo and Suryaya

Hi Gareth, I recently was the one that added "Assyrian" to the Syriac Orthodox Church page. I don't believe that the Syriacs don't like to be called "Assyrians" since in Syriac (both western and eastern dialects) the appellations Assyrian and Syriac are synonymous (e.g. western-Suryoyo, eastern-Suryaya). I am an Eastern Assyrian who speaks Neo-Aramaic and the appellation that we go by is "Suryaye." Among the Syriacs, they refer to themselves as "Suryoye". Here is an Assyrian (Syriac) website where there is no difference between Assyrian or Syriac.

http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/

12.134.15.89 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)George [email protected] 08/12/06

Hi George. Applying the term 'Assyrian' to Syriac Orthodox is extremely controversial: some embrace it, others detest it. You could show me all sorts of websites that supportthe pro-Assyrian stance, but it is not the complete picture. Adding the word 'Assyrian' all over the place is controversial and unnecessary. Please, stop it. — Gareth Hughes 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, seeing the "Assyrian People" shows both sides of the issue, " People who consider themselves as Assyrians are usually followers of one of the aforementioned churches, but not all members of them consider themselves as Assyrians, ethnic and national identities being intertwined with religious ones, a heritage of the millet system."(Assyrian People). I'm sorry for my error. Thank you for showing both sides of the issue. And thank you for your response.

12.134.15.89 18:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)George

Jiluwayeh page

Hi Gareth, One other thing, I added some info to the Jilu/Jiluwayeh page and I was wondering well, :) if you can check it out and give me feedback on the page in general. How's the information on it and everything? I would like to improve it. Any suggestions, comments, or concerns?

12.134.15.89 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)George [email protected]

Hi George. The Jilu article has a lot of good information in it. It is a little messy, and could do with tidying up. I'm not sure about the 'physical appearance' section: it seems to try to catagorize Jiluwaye by some kind of amateur racial stereotyping. The article could say something about where most Jiluwaye live today. I'm interested in the section on the Jiluwaya dialect. I have more experience in what is called General Urmian, and am not sure what to make of this representation of Jiluwaya. Is this pure Jiluwaya (spoken by older Jiluwaye), or is it a more modern koine? — Gareth Hughes 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts

It would be nice (and avoid waste of time) if you could take a little time to understand the edits of another user before reveting them.

I am referring to:

1. Osroene: the Roman Empire was created around 31 BC. There is no possibility that year 117 could be mistaken for 117 BC. Even the ignorant reader would understand that it is not 117 BC, just because "BC" is missing;
2. Arameans: this article uses AD/BC format for most of the text, apart a portion in the first half that uses CE/BCE. Do you really think it is useful to have both formats in the same text?

--FoxyProxy 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you removed information without discussion. I understand your point about dating within the Roman Empire fully. However, in 117 BC, Osrhoene did exist as a province of the Seleucid Empire, and Roman imperialistic ambition did exist then too. The more information you give, the better: I don't think anyone could say that inclusion of era notation here is harmful. Please go and put it back to how it was. The problem with the article on Arameans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is that it material from Aramaic language, written by me with BCE/CE eras, has been included in an article that uses BC/AD. I agree with you that the article should use BC/AD eras throughout. It would have been helpful if you used the edit summary to mention this first of all. — Gareth Hughes 11:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Osroene: I won't change the caption. As it is now, it reads "Roman province of Osroene, 120, higlighted within the Roman Empire". No possibility to confuse 117 with 117 BC, no possibility to confuse Roman Empire with Seleucid Empire. Also, the text currently reads "Osroene was absorbed into the Roman Empire in 114 as a semi-autonomous vassal state", again with no possibility to confuse 114 with 114 BC, and no possibility to confuse Roman Empire with Seleucid Empire.
2. Arameans: The absence of a meaningful edit summary does not allow your sloppy editing.

--FoxyProxy 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You, obviously, are now the boss around here. — Gareth Hughes 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't discuss about content, better not discussing at all.--FoxyProxy 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR and sock-puppetry

Hi there, can you please review this report User_talk:R._Koot#3RR_volitions_by_Islami, R._Koot is also aware of these obvious violations, but since he's involved in one of the article, he can't use his administrative powers to blockIslami (talk · contribs) who has been using 63.166.226.115 (talk · contribs) to evade 3RR on several articles. --ManiF 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it looks as if this user is using a registered account and an IP account to perpetrate 3RR, but seems to have gone quiet for the moment. I'll keep an eye on it. — Gareth Hughes 18:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Iota subscriptum

Hello Gareth, In the Chora Church article, the full name of the church includes two iota subscripta. Shouldn't this be reflected in the transcription? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Benne! I don't usually transliterate iota subscripts because they are not pronounced, but are an anachronistic representation of the loss of diphthongization in long vowels. I suppose, if the purpose of the transliteration is to represent every detail of the originating script, the iota subscripts could be represented by subscript 'i's — _i. However, just looking at a couple of examples of Greek transliteration schemes that are in books around me suggests that the subscript is generally ignored. — Gareth Hughes 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Avestan language

I think that Avestan doesn't use implosives or "post-uvular nasal". They are not mentioned in Avestan alphabet section on www.avesta.org, nor do they occur in any other Iranian language

Your comments should be addressed to Talk:Avestan language. You are having problems editing pages. It appears that your browser is cutting out part of the text. This error can sometimes be caused by the Google Toolbar, and may occur with other software configurations. This is the reason your edits are being reverted. — Gareth Hughes 13:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian culture

I feel that the article is absolute garbage. I recently did an edit on Assyrian people/future page in the culture section that sounds a lot better. I would like to hear what you think should be done in regards to the subsections. Do you think I should take the bulk of that section and replace the actual article? I've done a lot with the future page. I would appreciate some help from someone. Chaldean wrote the section on language and I revised it a bit but other than that I haven't had too much help. Could you assist or gather a group of people like you did with that miniproject a while ago? I'd appreciate it. Sargon

Shlama Gareth, [this article] might interest you. Chaldean 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bshaina! Taudi saggi, hanau basima! Thank you for the article link. It's lovely to see the pictures, as I met both bishops recently and visited the churches . Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So... back to my main concern: what do you think of the Culture subsection on the future page? I think it's more comprehensive than the article plus I could elaborate further and go indepth on the day to day life of an average Assyrian.King Legit

Syriacs

Shlomo Gareth,

Would you be so kind as to give a reaction to my suggestion for (re)starting a project with the purpose of co-ordinating the articles related to the Suryāye? I think the subject is too complex to be dealt with on a single-article basis. There are just too many articles involved. I believe this problem has been lingering on for too long now, and needs to be solved in a way that involves people coming from and/or having experience with the various (sub)cultures involved.

A Syriac Christianity portal would be nice, I think. This could in my opinion co-exist with overlapping portals dealing with the modern Assyrians, Aramaeans, and the Aramaic language. But first we need to set up a structure that allows contributors to place the articles concerned in a wider context.

I hope this approach would prevent statements like "Modern Assyrian language is called Syriac in English" (on the so-called future page) from remaining unnoticed.

Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement is 100% accurate. The language spoken by Assyrians are modern dialects of Syriac aka Neo-Aramaic. I don't what Assyrians have don't to this person but his tone is VERY ANTI-ASSYRIAN.King Legit

I don't appreciate people shouting accusations on my talk page, especially when they're not about me! I think we have too little material yet to need a portal for it all. We could use Syriac Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a 'hub' article to link into the others, or create a new article to act as the hub. It should, in either case, be a place where there is a general description of the complicating factors around ethnicity in the Middle East, and some description about how peoples who are traditionally Christian and traditionally use the Syriac language describe themselves. — Gareth Hughes 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There might not be enough material for a portal yet, but how about a project? I suggest renaming that project Syriac Christianity.

I'd also like to have an article Syriacs again, which could mention the various definitions of Suryāye/Syriacs, just as the Assyrian people page should do (cf. the German-language article on modern Assyrians). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I requested a move for the miniproject to a new project Syriac Christianity. Please see Talk:Syriacs/miniproject#Requested_move--Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Modern Assyrian language is called Syriac in English" - Benne what problem do you have with this statement? Chaldean 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly opppose to a "Syriacs" page, as it tries to put groups under a different name. It makes it look like as if "Syriacs" is an ethnicity or something. Chaldean 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are people in this world who define themselves, whether ethnically or whatever, as Syriac. They call themselves Suryoye and point to a long history of being called such. They point out that 'Atorāyē' was originally used to describe Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Nineveh/Assur district. As for the name of the language, ܣܘܪܝܝܐ is the most important spelling over all regions of all periods, and the proper English version of that word is 'Syriac'. — Gareth Hughes 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

whether ethnically or whatever, as Syriac. - and when they say that, they mean they are "Christian". Suraya = Christian. Suraya = Syriac in English. So "Syriac Christianity" makes perfect sense. Not "Syriacs". Chaldean 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that argument is not going to work with someone who studies the history of the language. Of course, the most important Syriac word for 'Christian' is ܡܫܝܚܝܐ. There are other words, but they are not as important as that one. The word ܣܘܪܝܐ can be vocalised as 'Suria' (where it is used in texts to refer to the Levant as ܣܘܪܝܐ ܓܘܝܬܐ — Suria Gawāytā — and to Mesopotamia as ܣܘܪܝܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ — Suria Barāytā). When it is vocalised as 'Surāyā', it is a debased form of ܣܘܪܝܝܐ — 'Suryāyā' — which has the basic meaning of 'Syrian' or 'Syriac'. Its translation as 'Christian' is a late, minor, mediaeval connotation, which stands against ܐܪܡܝܐ — 'Armāyā' — which shifted in meaning from 'Aramaean' to 'pagan'. All of this is there in the history and manuscripts, and it is only for political reasons that people today want to simplify the rich heritage of the past into one, monochrome strand. — Gareth Hughes 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Payne Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary doesn't mention "Christian" as a possible meaning for ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, and considers ܣܘܪܝܐ an "unusual spelling" of the same word. In Syriac class, I was taught that the word for "Christian" is ܟܪܝܣܛܝܢܐ (or ܡܫܝܚܝܐ indeed). How should I understand this? Could it be that ܣܘܪܝܝܐ began to mean "Christian" in a context where Syriacs were the only Christians? Cf. the mediaeval connotation of the word Turk, which often was used as a synonym for Muslim. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it: the ܐܪܡܝܐ/ܣܘܪܝܝܐ dichotomy used these two virtual synonyms to divide the Aramaic-speaking peoples into Christian and non-Christian groups. However, the fact is that, before this occurred, the two were ethnonyms, one with a pure Semitic root and the other with a Hellenistic one. — Gareth Hughes 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Benne, you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. Kristyana isn't ARAMAIC. It's derived from Latin/Greek. MSHEEKHAYA means Messianic aka Christian, in Aramaic. Souraya is also used interchangebly for a Christian just as the Greek vs Turk scenario. No one in modern times (up until the huge worldwide diaspora) in the middle east used Armaya or Ormoyo, Athuraya/Othuroyo on the other hand has been used for ages as has Suraya/Suroyo... and so forth. I've lived in Iran and Iraq. Have cousins in Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon. Where you get your info, I don't know, most likely from people in the diaspora who want to start a new identity... like Sarhad Jammo... you most likely won't know who he is but I'm sure Chaldean does.King Legit

another thing, why do you have so much clout... you seem to be THE ONLY ONE disputing the term Assyrian. I don't care if you took a Syriac class or two. That means absolutely NOTHING. I took French I and II and World History. I'm not going to claim I know more about it that someone native to the language or country. That would be absolutely foolish. Everyone knows history is dictated by the people who wrote it aka the victors of wars and those in power. Yet your side of the story isn't even that, your just anti-Assyrian. That's what you present to wikipedia is Anti-Assyrianism.King Legit

I am not even going to respond to this ridiculous rant of yours. I thought I'd asked Gareth a question, not you. If you have something to ask me, let's not use his, but my talk page. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, I was not talking about historically, I'm talking about today. Today, if someone in Iraq or Turkey tell you they are Suraya, what they are trying to imply is that they are Christian, not "ethnic Suraya" Chaldean 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First to Sargonious: I have already said that I don't like to read that kind of thing on my talk page. Benne has demonstrated that he knows Syriac. You might want to look at Acts 11.26 (PDF link) in the Peshitta for the use of 'Khrisṭyānē'. Second to Chaldean: there are people who call themselves 'Suryoye'. Almost all of them belong to the West Syriac tradition, and hardly any are from Iraq or Iran, or in the same areas of the US diaspora that those of the East Syriac tradition are in. They use this word to define themselves, they use it as their ethnonym. We've been through this so many times before. There are plenty of Christians who speak Syriac, at least traditionally, who do not call themselves 'Assyrian'. What point is there trying to make their long-standing choice disappear like this? Now, you'll probably call me anti-Assyrian again. I've called anti-everything by people here on Wikipedia: all it means is that I don't support their views. Just take it on board that there are people who for centuries have called themsleves 'Syriacs' and not 'Assyrians'. — Gareth Hughes 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I try my best to not call you and Benne anti Assyrian, but how can I not question your motives when you and him stand out compared to the general public opinion like [this] and [this] .

Gareth, can you please keep an eye on Arab Christians. Look at there argument in the talk page. Arab nationalist are trying to boost there numbers, claiming there are 800,000 Christian arabs in Iraq. Chaldean 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User iso15924

IMO your template knowledge could be helpful at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Writing systems#User iso15924 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care for ISO 15924, as there is insufficient openness and feedback in the registration system. I haven't been doing templates for a while, and it takes a little time to get back in the saddle with parser functions. You could use a switch sub-template like Infobox Language, but parser functions allow you to encode the variations in directly (albeit, perhaps not so easy to modify). — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Syriacs 2

I have implemented the new strategy devised on the Assyrian people talk page. Syrian, Syrians both now redirect to Syriacs which is no longer redirected to Assyrians. It is now a disambig page.King Legit 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Syriac by W. M. Thackston

I understand this book but it's written really funny. I don't mean in Syriac. I mean the way the book is written it's very sloppy. I also noticed that not everything is pronounced right and the Latin character system for Syriac stinks. What good books are there written in English on the Syriac language... I would actually prefer a dictionary more than a book on grammar. I know how to speak the language fine, I would like to learn a lot more words though. I've actually come up with a word for comptuer based on the Aramaic word for count. From mani I've come up with "manetha."סרגון יוחנא

Thackston is probably the most popular Syriac grammar in the US. In the UK, Theodore Robinson's Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar is more popular. Thackston is written in Estrangela throughout, and is designed for reading older manuscripts. Robinson is written in pointed Serto. Thackston's transliteration is quite normal. You'll probably be surprised that there is a distinction between khet (ܚ) and softened kap (ܟܟ), but this was the case in classical Syriac, and still is the case in many modern pronunciations. You're probably also unsure of the different vowel values, but he's using pretty well documented classical Syriac pronunciation. I quite like John Healey's First Studies in Syriac. I think it has been reprinted by Gorgias Press in the US: it has handwriting in all three flavours of Syriac, and some nice chunks of text at the back for translation exercises. I like your word for computer. I think Abrohom Huro came up with something similar in his Tawldotho, but I can't find it now. — Gareth Hughes 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found the Tawldotho entry. Nuro offers either ܟܘܡܦܝܬܪ (kumpyuter) or ܚܫܘܒܬܐ (ḥāšuḇtā). I prefer the latter. It's based on the word ܚܫܘܒܘܬܐ (ḥāšuḇuṯā, which occurs in mediaeval literature for 'arithmetic' or 'computation'. Its formation is based on what Nöldeke calls the nomen agentis — Gareth Hughes 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, can you please stop Sargon from writing what he thinks is right. He is trying to control the whole Assyrian page as if he is the sole author of the article. He writes things I have never heard of my life. Chaldean 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Referrences on the Assyrian people page

The referrences are misbehaving. They're doubling at times and some aren't appearing propperly. Do you know how to fix them?סרגון יוחנא 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ipa-N

you may be interested in

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Need someone familar with topic....

Hi Garzo,

I posted a humble request here for someone whose skill set and interests may resemble yours... Thanks! --Ling.Nut 02:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Encountering the Suryoye of Turkey

Hi

hope that everything is ok and that you are still active in working with syriacs.

I just wanted to say that i noticed that you were in a travel group in turkey August, 2005. With Beth mardutho.

http://bethmardutho.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol9No2/HV9N2TRSaintLaurent.html

I hope that you can see things from the perspectiv of syriacs/suryoye. And i hope that you enjoyed your staying there. The sad thing is that we didnt meet in turkey. I think we missed eachother in couple of days. I would have loved to discussed many things with you and Dr. Kiraz.

by the way My name is Michael and I have been studying suryoyo people for many years now.

God bless you

best regards Michael

Thanks, Michael, it doesn't seem a year now since I was on the Turo. It is a pity we didn't meet there. As you can see from the travelogue, we divided our time between the Turo and other important sites in the region. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to know about the trip. -- Gareth Hughes 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete My User Page

I quit Wikipedia. User:Sargonious

delete Peter Agga, Jihad Jones, and Yessou El Maseekh Satan The Savior is not mine.

Can you delete them or what?סרגון יוחנא

You put a notice on each of your user accounts (you're only supposed to have one really) that they are now inactive, and then you stop editing Wikipedia. Your user talk pages and their archives will not be deleted, as they are a record of your interaction with the community. However, you seem still to be editing Wikipedia, so you clearly are not intending to leave. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind about leaving completely. This place seems to be a visual narcotic for me. Too much information is never enough. I'm not concentrating on it anymore as now I see the Assyrian page is much better than before. I'll just make corrections on it and related pages every now and then.King Legit 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Everton F.C.

Hi Garzo,

I have reverted your grammar changes to Everton F.C. as the earlier incarnation is correct under British English. See the discussion on the Manchester City F.C. talk page for a good summary. If there were any edits in there that were unrelated to plurality then I would encourage you to recreate them. Thanks. ⁂veila# 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand the grammar issue. I admit to getting carried away. I think I saw the opening line was 'Everton are a club' and it snowballed from there! — Gareth Hughes 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MARVEL

Hi

Can you plase take a look at User:MARVEL's latest edits, he was banned for a month because of suck-puppetry and evading/violating 3RR, and he's already broken 3RR on Hatra upon his return. --ManiF 05:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arabic names

A year or so ago you were kind enough to weigh in and offer your expertise on Arabic names. Can I ask you to weigh in again?

During the last year I have been adding articles to the wikipedia on the Guantanamo detainees. I have done my best to write them from a NPOV, using verifiable, authoritative sources. When the DoD was forced, by court order, to release 6,000 pages of transcripts I started adding articles about those detainees, based on those transcripts.

About once a month someone nominates one for deletion, claiming they aren't notable. Frankly, I get the feeling that these efforts are really prompted, possibly unconsciously, by a desire to prune the wikipedia of material that does not reflect well on the USA - without regard to how well documented that material is, or whether it conforms to NPOV. The eleventh nominator announced his intention that Shaker Aamer should be a test case, and if it failed {afd} he would nominate all the articles on Guantanamo detainees for deletion. The fourteenth nominator also announced his intention that his nomination should be a test case -- for all the articles on Guantanamo detainees that hadn't been expanded beyond stub status.

It is hard to assume good faith from these nominators. When they complain about an article, and then I expand it, during the {afd} so their complaints are satisfied, they don't withdraw or revise their nominations.

When I expanded the most recent one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, I found that the USA had put another Muhamad Al Juhani, Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani, on their most wanted list, in January 2002. Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani was removed from the most wanted list, sometime in 2002.

Personally, I consider it likely that the two transliterations, Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani refer to the same individual.

I am not an expert on Arabic or Arabic names. But I am doing my best to learn about them. I think it was a mistake for us to follow the example of the Washington Post and the DoD and separate Arabic names into traditional European lastname, firstname order. I noticed that the DoD seemed to be having terrible problems managing their roster of prisoner's names at Guantanamo. They released an official list of all the prisoners whose cases were heard by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, on April 20 2006. And they released an official list of all the prisoners who had been held, in military custody, at Guantanamo, on May 15 2006. Given that they were released just 25 days apart one would have hoped they would have been transliterated the same way on both lists. They weren't. Approximately 20-30% of the names are transliterated differently on the two lists. Many of them were simple typos. Many of them differed only in that the names had extra components. But some of them were quite different.

Anyhow, the most recent nominator disputes that Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani are similar. He labels my noticing the DoD difficulty in using consistent transliterations "original research". Although he doesn't precisely say so, he implies that there is no possiblity the two transliterations could describe the same individual.

I found a page on the Saudi embassy's web-site where a Saudi official referred to the terrorist "Muhammad Al Juhani". It seems obvious, to me, that, if the two transliterations refer to two separate individuals, that this could refer to either the Muhamad Al Juhani held in Guantanamo, or the Muhammad Al Juhani who was on the most wanted list.

I put the addition to the article. The guy who nominated the article for deletion removed it, called it "fluff".

He has been complaining about me on WP:AN/I, and, frankly, mischaracterizing my statements.

Could you weigh in? Muhamad Al Juhani could refer to both Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani, couldn't it? I'll understand if you don't wish to be drawn in to another dispute.

Cordially,

Geo Swan

P.S. I don't think of myself as a disputatious person. I think it is the topic, not my personality, that gets me drawn into these disputes.

I've been away from my terminal for about a week, so get back to me if you still want help with this. Two Al-Juhanis is possible, they may be related, or not at all. When full names are given without kunya, the personal name appears first: I would greet these individuals as Muhammad and Khalid respectively. Khalid is clearly the son of a Muhammad — his father is probably not the same person as the first Muhammad al-Juhani. It would be wrong to treat 'Al-Juhani' as a surname in the European sense of the word. Criticising your attempt to understand who is who as 'original research' is silly game of process that some editors try to pull. — Gareth Hughes 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC),

Greetings,

I am going to ask you to offer an opinion on another question related to how the wikipedia articles try to address the tricky questions around mapping Arabic names.

I made a mistake, I think when I first started creating articles about guys with Arabic names, to try to follow the example of the US DoD, and the Washington Post, to try to figure out what the surname and family name of these individuals were, and have lists of Arabic names, or wikipedia categories containing mainly Arabic names, sorted as if we uninitiated English speakers could figure out the sort order that made sense.

I recently started a dozen or so new categories to help organzize the 400 or so articles about Guantanamo detainees. After reading so many of the documents the DoD has released about them I can see what terrible confusion the DoD experienced simply managing their identities. I put a note on the categories requesting other contributors to leave the articles in these new categories sorted on the default sort order, on their first character, and not take special steps to try to figure out a European style surname to sort them on.

When I saw another wikipedia contributor changing the sort order of some of them I left them a note asking them to discuss it with me first.

One of those awkward misunderstandings took place. I wondered why he or she wasn't replying. And he or she too must have been wondering, because they did reply, but accidentally put their reply on User:Geo Swan, not User Talk:Geo Swan, so I didn't see their reply until a day after they gave up on waiting for me to reply, and spent half a dozen hours, or a dozen hours, changing the sort order on all the rest of the categorizations in these articles.

Anyhow, in their courteous note to me they cited the Arabic names article, and said they thought it described how to figure out the "family name" portion of an Arabic name. And I have replied that I think that what the article describes as a "family name" is less like a European surname, and more like a clan name from an old-style Scottish clan, where the leader of a clan, like MacDonald might have people with a whole bunch of surnames being members of their clan.

1. In your opinion, does it make sense for those of us who are just beginners at figuring out Arabic names to specify a new sort order for those names?
2. If so, do you think it makes sense to use what the Arabic names article calls the "family name"?
3. Any pointers to other places us uninitiated can learn more about Arabic names? I strongly suspect that resolving questions about Arabic names isn't the main thing you want your wikipedia contributions to revovle around.

Ah, and let me thank you for the help on Arabic names you have provided in the past.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to say that the discussion is taking place at User:Geo Swan#Arabic names / Extrajudicial detainees. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan!

There are a number of complicating factors here. One factor is that Arabic names are used by varying degree by Muslims throughout the world, whether they are Arab or not. Further to this, among Arabs there is much deviation from what might be regarded as a classical Arab naming practice. In this regard, some people with Arabic elements in their names may have a European-style surname. In classical Arab names, the nisba does function somewhat like a clan name or a Roman nomen. In most Arabic-speaking countries, it is considered acceptable to address someone politely using their given name (ism). This is also true of Turkey, where a man called Mehmet would be addressed as Mehmet Bey (I suppose equivalent with Mr Mehmet). I think it would make more sense to list these people under the natural order of their names, rather than trying to find a surname equivalent. — Gareth Hughes 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Geo Swan 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lesslie Newbigin

I added a couple of 'public domain' bishop portraits to User:Garzo/moretea for your enjoyment, one just brand new, uploaded yesterday by a priest who met and photographed the late bishop. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alqosh

Gareth, can you please stop the person that is terrorising the Alqosh page? Chaldean 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Code-switching

As you seems to be a linguistic expert, perhaps this article could be of intrest to you. As it stans now, I feel like it's a mess, perhaps you could fix it? My self isn't so educated in the area. _→AzaToth 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Esoteric syntax

Hi Gareth, since you have experience with esoteric template syntax from your work at Template:Infobox Language, could you stop by Template:Ethnologue and edit it so that it has an optional label parameter that will default to {{PAGENAME}} if left blank? At first it had an obligatory label parameter that in most cases would be the article name, now it automatically gives the PAGENAME even if you don't want it to. I think it should be more flexible, but I don't know how to edit it accordingly. Thanks! —Angr 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! — Gareth Hughes 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr. That was exactly what I wanted! —Angr 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shlam Elokh Garzo!

Garzo, it's been a while since I last asked you a question but this time it's about Dab. He's vandalizing the Assyrian people page. We've all pretty much agreed on the current form of the Assyrian people page and he's making outrageous and unilatteral changes to it. Him and Chaldean are constantly reverting each other's edits and it's not Chaldean that's at fault. He's merely reverting Dab's nonsense. Could you please intervene?סרגון יוחנא

It looks like Dbachmann is giving the current academic consensus rather than the Assyrianist propoganda — vandalism: pot and kettle? — Gareth Hughes 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What Assyrian propoganda. I'm not affiliated with any establishment.סרגון יוחנא 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this tactic... I've used it before myself...

IranZaminBozorg is a blatant sock/meat puppet of Dab.סרגון יוחנא 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trouble on Afshar Experiment page ...again!

Dear Garzo, Michael C. Price is ignoring talk page discussions and is being extremely unhelpful in ensuring the content of the article is made objective. He insists his ideas on "decoherence" to be included in the "critics" section of the article without having explain explicitly what relevance it has to my experiment, in contrast to all the other cited critics who have gone to the trouble of writing papers on the topic. A quick look at the conversation below copied from the article's talk page should give you a better understanding of the emotional animosity involved. I have asked for the talk page to be archived and start a new page on the issue of decoeherence and its relevance, but to no avail. Maybe you can help? P.S. My paper has been accepted in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and will appear soon. (I can give you more specific information and testimonials from notable physicists on the importance of the paper only by means of e-mail as embargo does not allow me to disclose publicly which journal it is.) So all I am asking is that Michael write a paper like all the other critics and then post it in the critics section. I also think my rebuttals should be made available in the article to the same extent the critics' arguments are reflected. Thanks for your help.-- Prof. Afshar 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself. I shall have to be blunt, I see. Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity. There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery? The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL

Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The languages

Please help me try to understand this. What are we talking about in the Aramaic language page? The ancient aramaic that nobody speaks today or the neo-aramaic languages with the different dialects that I speak today? If it is today's aramaic language, then how can it have only 445,000 speakers when you add the total of its dialects of the Assyrians alone;

• Chaldean Neo-Aramaic - 600,000
• Assyrian Neo-Aramaic - 210,000
• Turoyo language - 300,000

adding them totally is far more greater then 445,000. And where does Syriac language fall in all this? Thanks. Chaldean 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Aramaic language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is about the three-thousand-year history of the language. Aramaic has always had some diversity in it: I can understand the ancient languages far easier because they are not as diverse as the modern ones. The numbers are a problem, and they probably did add up originally. One of the difficulties is guaging how many people speak these languages with sufficient fluency. Assyrian sources would likely want to overestimate the figure, so they should be used with caution. I think the figures were originally based on Ethnologue's information, which can be a bad source of information, but is relatively unbiased on such things. Classical Syriac is perhaps extinct, although it has continued to be used in the daily life of many monasteries of the Syriac tradition, and there are certain West Syriac scholars who are trying to revive it as a spoken language with some success. The East Syriac traditions are focused more on the colloquial languages, with the more literary dialects being Alqoshi among the Chaldaeans and Urmežni among the Church of the East. I have heard it stated, I think by Otto Jastrow, that there are around half a million to a million speakers of Modern Aramaic varieties today, and that's probably the best available figure. — Gareth Hughes 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)