Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 14 August 2007

Please note: Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning. Please create an account or log in if you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion.

huh?

What happened to ur talk page man?Tourskin 06:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:58 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Arab vs Semitic!

Arab Christians

Elias yourself a dedicated Assyrianist you should respect other peoples history. I ignored many claims by Assyrianist that the Arabs were just a tribe among the Arameans! Just because a tribe called Aribi were among the Aramena allies. And am pretty sure you have your own identity problems with strong headed opnions vs the Anti Assyrianist Arameans. What I am saying is we shouldtake the "Khalil Jibran" look on Lebanon and use it for the mideast it will make things easier. You have your own mideast I have mine! and thats that. Like I already said you can edit the ancient Semites page anyway you want and I will make sure I fix the Ancient Arab page in a way it distinguishes between Arab and the modern Christian Arameans/Assyrians, Jews (myself I want this to be clear and I emphasize on ethnic Arab identity)--Skatewalk 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, stop calling me an "Assyrianist". There's is no such thing as "Christian Arabs". They are just Arabized Christians. That is not the same thing. Arab, is a race, just like Japanese is a race. You don't become an Arab, by speaking Arabic. I would like to see you provide source for these DNA test; Assyrians have a unique DNA profile that distinguishes them from all other peoples; Arabs included (source: ). Also, you do not redirect articles by editing a #redirect title because by doing so, you disregard the entire history of the article. You move the article when you want to redirect it. Since you're new here on Misplaced Pages, how about you get yourself acquainted with the welcome note I added on your talk page? As for this article, I agree with Garzo, that it should be merged with the Semites article, or Arab article. Pick which one you want. There's no need for having a separate article about Arabs being ancient and everything. You can fill it up on the Arab or Semites article. Just make sure to source it properly using <ref>URL</ref>. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:32 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean by Arab Christians dont exist!!

forget the Aramean mixed/Arabized Christian Arabs. Did you hear about the Ghassanids )? Lakhmids? Banu Judham? All these are Qahtani pure Arab tribes that became Christian around the 3rd century AD. Thats the Christian Arabs. Can you please not edit Arab topics, just like I stay away from Assyrian topics -I just read!- (because I really don't know about Assyria as much I know about Arabia and vice versa?), This simple fact about the Arab CHristians just shows how complex is our Arab history. Can we respect each other?--Skatewalk 10:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with respecting you as long as you respect me, which you don't. It just so happens that I know more about Arabic topics than you know about Assyrians. For instance, I speak Arabic. You have to understand, that just because someone is of Semitic origin and speaks Arabic and lives in the Middle East, that does not mean he or she is an Arab. For instance, the Iraqi Arabs, are closer genetically, to Europeans, than they are to the Arabs in Saudi Arabia. The very fact that you use the misnomer "Christian Arabs", is a lack of respect and an insult to me and other non-Arabs, because you don't respect the fact that we aren't Arabs. Also, just in case you didn't know, Arabs, speak a Semitic language, which means you are a Semitic people (though of course, it must be said, that I wish it weren't so). There is no such thing as Christian Arabs. Yes, maybe a few thousand obscure numbers which don't count. Other than that, this "Christian Arabs" label is being applied on non-Arab Christian ethnic groups from the Middle East, 95% of the time: Arab Christians. The Maronites in Lebanon, are not Arabs, doesn't matter if they speak Arabic. For example: http://www.aina.org/releases/20070416140021.htm Do you know how much this pisses me off? Knock it off with calling us Arabs. We are not Arabs, and we don't want to be Arabs. Stop trying to make Arab a universal label for all Semitic peoples. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Genetic differences

• One small point- "Assyrians have a unique DNA profile that distinguishes them from all other peoples." -Technically, there is no racial DNA profile. All humans have interrelated DNA structures. An Assyrian is just as likely to have closely matched DNA with a Mongolian, an Arabian, or an African as another Assyrian. Ursasapien (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please, do you seriously believe that? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • Not only do I believe this, but factual scientific evidence bears this fact out. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Right, keep telling yourself that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
        • It's called science. Please don't be afraid of it just because it goes against your sacred opinion. I have no problem with you saying that Assyrians have been a distinct people group for thousands of years, but to say that their DNA is distinct is perposterously wrong! Ursasapien (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm not the one saying this; scientists are saying that we Assyrians (and that goes for all Assyrians) have a distinct DNA profile that distinguishes us from all other peoples. Did you even read the source? Also, denying that there is such a thing as races amongst humans, is political correctness, and a typical ridiculous fear of Nazism. To say that there is no genetic difference between a man from China and a man from Africa, is disingenuous stupidity at best. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:37 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
            • That's not what I said. What I said, and what is completely verfiable, is that there is more genetic variance among people of a "supposed" race as there is among all humans. I looked at your "source" but it seemed to be a series of article synopses and I could not find the article you were pointing to in particular. I have not heard of any reputable scientists who state that Assyrians are genetically distinct from all other humans. Regardless, it is simply a fact that we are all genetically very close to one another. Cheers, Ursasapien (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, close, but not identical. Try searching for distinct using ctrl+f next time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No two people's DNA is identical (with the possible exception of some identical twins). Assyrian DNA is not identical, and the article that you pointed me to tells us that, "It is important to understand that this applies to the population as a whole, not to any one individual. Each individual can have a variety of genetic features." The book referenced by the author of the article, The History and Geography of Human Genes makes it clear that we are all genetically very interrelated. In its review of this book, Time said, " landmark global study flattens The Bell Curve, proving that racial differences are only skin deep." The book The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East itsself states that, although modern Assyrians have been a homgenous group for hundreds of years and share a genetic profile, they also show that they are closely related to many other people groups, such as the Iranian, Kurdish, Turkic, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Lebanese people. How about you? Did you read my reference about the World Genome Project? Again, I think you can effectively argue that Assyrians are not Arabs and have been a distinct homogenous people group for hundreds of years. I do not think you can argue that Assyrians are genetically distinct from all other people in the world, and I do not think your source argues this either. Ursasapien (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Short and clear: you are saying that there is no such thing as human races? If yes, I am not going to take anything more of what you're saying, seriously. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:55 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Human "races" are a cultural or social construct. There is simply no scientific or genetic evidence of significant differences. Don't get me wrong, I can understand your anger with saying Assyrians are Arabs (they most certainly are not). However, there are no sub-species of Homosapien. Genetically we are not that divergent. If you are going to make a claim that any group of humans are genetically distinct from any other group of humans, then I have no doubt that you are close minded and would not believe any amount of scientific evidence. Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with modern science, as far as this topic goes, is that it has become very infected with politically correctness. This is of course, understandable. It is a result of Nazi Germany, and just hinting today that there are different races amongst humans, is seen as some kind of instigation to murder all Jews, Africans, Gypsies, etcetera. Of course, there are human races. We don't differ as much as the races between animal species, but yes, there are different human races as well. Obviously, a man from Japan is not of the same race as a man from Africa. The same species, yes, but not the same race. As for us Assyrians, we are a miscegenation of Sumerians and Akkadians, and some other Indo-European and Semitic peoples. Calling us Arabs, is bullshit! — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:14 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you that modern Assyrians are not Arabs. Iranian people (Persians) are not Arabs either. I might also agree with you that modern science has been greatly affected by political correctness (see global warming). However, when it comes to specific groups of human beings having distinct genes, you don't have a leg to stand on. For thousands of years the concept of race has been used to divide people for socio-cultural or political reasons. The Nazis, as many before them, tried to use science to prove their own prejudices correct. Yes, there is variance of skin color, hair texture, and eye/nose shape among humans. However, when it comes to DNA there is as much variance among a "race" of people then between all people. The man from Africa and the man from Japan are from the same race- the human race. They may have different eyes, ears, noses, skin color, hair texture, culture, and religion, and yet, genetically they may be remarkably similar. This is just a fact, as your own reference proves. Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, DNA isn't all what it's about. There are also other differences, for instance, IQ differences, and other distinctive traits like facial features, height, skull shape, etcetera. Yes, we are all of the same human race, but you know, we are of different subraces. This is just a very taboo subject, and the most convenient thing to do for many people, is to deny that there are different human races. You have to of course, speak in general terms when you talk about a specific group of people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:38 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my point, all along, was that DNA needs to be left out of the argument. There are significant differences among different groups of people. Some groups of people are very homogenous, like the modern Assyrians. Other groups of people are very heterogenous, like modern Americans. However, no group has been isolated for a significant period of time, as to be genetically distinct. Incidentally, I believe you would have a difficult time showing general distinction between people groups when it comes to IQ. There is just too much variance among groups of people. Jewish people, in general, are not smarter than other Semetic people. Semetic people, in general, are not smarter than non-Semetic people. There are very smart people and very unintelligent people in all "races." Anyway, it seems that we agree on my central point, -There may well be different races of men, but none is "genetically" distinct from any other. Ursasapien (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to be a little specific on what kind of Jews you're talking about. Ashkenazi Jews, have proven over and over again, that they have very high IQ results compared with other Jewish ethnic groups. There is a reason for why there is an article titled like this: Ashkenazi intelligence. Africans generally don't compete with Europeans and/or Asians. Semitic peoples are somewhere in the middle. This is of course very controversial, and any modern scientist who says that there is a general IQ level of a certain ethnic group, is immediately labelled as a hateful racist. But hey, what if that is a fact and he's trying to present facts? I think that's unfair. You have to be honest in these kinds of tests, and the truth may hurt sometimes. Censorship isn't my territory, I believe in free speech and I don't subscribe to political correctness. related topic: Race and Intelligence. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:01 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The article, Race and Intelligence, indicates that the differences between the members of the same group are entirely genetic, but the differences between two groups is environmental. Some would argue that, due to extreme persecution, only the smartest Ashkenazi Jews survived. Basically, Hitler did produce a "super-race," just not the one he intended. However, intelligence is an ambiguous thing in general and is much debated, even among experts. By the way, I totally respect your free speech and your right to your own opinions. I just have an issue when people use unfactual arguments to support their position. I wish the best and happy editing. Ursasapien (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some would argue that, due to extreme persecution, only the smartest Ashkenazi Jews survived. Basically, Hitler did produce a "super-race," just not the one he intended. — Well, that is an interesting theory and it could very well be so. But that obviously falls under Eugenics (which Hitler also advocated, for his own people), does it not? Anyway, do we agree to disagree? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:19 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see no disagreements in our positions. We have agreed that there are differences among people groups. We have agreed that we both have the right to our own opinions and to voice said opinions. You have conceded that differences between races is not specifically genetics-based. I see a great deal of agreement and respect between us. Ursasapien (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for an interesting discussion :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:27 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Not All Arab Christians are Maronites

Again Elias Maronites (religion not a race, most of them are Arameans though) they were dominant in Lebanon because they were favored by the French. (only few families among the Maronites are Arabs). Most the Greek Orthodox, Geek Catholics in Lebanon and the Christians of Jordan are pure Ethnic Arabs From (Qahtan). You can read more about it on christian Arab websites.

I respect Assyrians and like them and I never considered them Arabs (except those who chose to be), although I am against stretching the Arab identity thin to include Non Arabs (Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians..etc).

Every race was present/mixed with the Near East population since the days of the Akkadian Empire. The original Arabs themselves are a result of mixing. So I dont believe in DNA, because among our own families we have different looks, eye color, hair...etc. And to clear up the fog I am not an Aramean or even close. I am pure Christian Arab our families came from Yemen 3rd century BC. Read about the Ghassanids (if you care, if not I don't blame you). When I have time I will read more about Assyria (now I just now that its confusing terms and identity between Assyrians and Arameans. I treat both with respect --Skatewalk 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab Christians are not the Minority!

See Elias this is the problem, you say that Arab Christians only number thousands! Do you know how massive the population of Kahlan was? (half to two thirds of Saba'a migrated North!) we converted to Christianity in 3rd century AD. The Maronites are only a portion and among them are the Arameans, phoenicians and Ethnic Arabs, not all of the Arab Chritians are Maronites! We are the majority of Christians and most the Jifna Arabs remained Christian doing the math we atleast number 5Million now just from Jifna alone. Our last names still go to the Ghassanids and Hamdanids. Maronites are mostly composed of Aramean immigrants and mixed Arabs, Phoenicians, and even European minorities. They are a sect of mixed people with the Arameans making the bulk population. They are not related to Ethnic Christian Arabs. I am really disappointed that you think Arabs hate Assyrians just because they were kiled in Iraq by their Iraqi compatriots! the Iraqi regime and later insurgency killed everyone with no discirmination (I mean everyone got killed in Iraq!) and I am sorry for your people, but by such statements you alienate us from your cause, not that you care, but If we dont care for you the Europeans will not, just look what they did to the Armenians!--Skatewalk 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

...and I refuse to take such insults as calling my forefathers "Arabs"... Whenever you find yourselves refusing such insults please do never forget to avoid insulting other people as they refuse to be insulted. I hope you don't lose your mind and remain civil when explaining yourselves. You could have said that you refuse the fact your ancestors are being considered as Arabs and everybody would have understood you w/o any big effort. We don't have time to waste dealing w/ incivility. We've had enough in Misplaced Pages. Thank you. -- FayssalF - 11:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• What was incivility about that? Is it not allowed to express your opinion here on Misplaced Pages? It's funny, Wikipedians seem to be the most easily offended people in the world. Look, that article, was not accurate, it was not properly sourced, and it was not neutral, and it was written from an Arabocentric perspective. This is not NPOV. Calling my ancestors Arabs, is inaccurate. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:49 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elias.

Is it not allowed to express your opinion here on Misplaced Pages? → Please remain civil when explaining yourselves. It means you have all the rights of the universe to express yourselves. I've just said it above.

It's funny, Wikipedians seem to be the most easily offended people in the world ← That's accurate but NOT funny at all. I've just experienced that yesterday. has just told me this yesterday: "Occasionally I find people very offensive indeed -luckily not directed at me but on user talk pages I have come across. I remember somebody telling my good friend User:John Hill, an experienced editor in relation to his work on the Jat people that he is a useless editor and should leave wikipedia for six months to get his facts straight!!!" Source:User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld expressing themselves

Look, that article, was not accurate ← Probably right. That's why you express yourselves and communicate w/ others.

Calling my ancestors Arabs, is inaccurate. ← That's the wisest way to express yourselves. You've just expressed it now in a civil way. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To merely imply, that my ancestors were Arabs, is an insult, because: it is a lie, historical revisionism, and another way of trying to undermine the Assyrian identity. It doesn't get better, by Arabs slaughtering Assyrians daily in Iraq either. And there are also Arab nationalists, like Saddam Hussein, who tried to suppress our identity. Not only is this an insult from a historical perspective, but it is a lack of respect for a very oppressed people as we speak. There is no incivility to point out that this is an insult. Unless of course, you, he, or she, is an easily self-offended person. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:16 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but keep up the good work and hope you understand that if me is an easily self-offended person then your attitude is maybe worse. There are a couple of billions of oppressed people out there but only millions can get offended. Probably less can get uncivil. Probably less can get violent. Probably less can kill.

Please bear in mind that if i was really offended then my attitude toward your behavior would have been different, maybe awful. I am not. I've heard enough as i said. I really don't care. I've acted the same way when a German wiki-warrior was ranting against some Polish and Dutch wikipedians. I am just an admin and as you know i am not editing the articles you edit.

Let me tell you this hoping i am not offending you but your approach to Misplaced Pages is totally biased. Bear in mind that i am not an Arab. I am a Berber. A bit oppressed? Maybe but i won't keep thinking that i've been oppressed by Arabs all my life. I can't be thinking all my life of Spanish Reconquistadores treating me so bad and kicking my ass out of Al-Andalus! All Spanish contributors here are my friends and you can verify this at my last thread w/ . I know though that your situation/circumstances are different but we are humans and maybe Wikipedians would think about civility before thinking about the fact that they are being oppressed off-wiki. Misplaced Pages is just not the right place for a battle. I know you know that of course. Cheers. -- FayssalF - 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You can choose to believe that I am biased. I just cleaned up a biased article. I'm not the one who's biased here. Anyway, let's just shake hands and get this over with. There's really nothing to quarrel about anyway. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:40 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's shake hands. -- FayssalF - 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

*Shakes hands* — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:55 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias regarding ancient Arabs

Its a pure historic geographic term of the past, irrelevant to modern Arabism. stop claiming that I am trying to impose Arabism on Assyrians, because the fact the Akkadians came from Arabia. Doesn't mean Assyrians are Arabs! (is that what you want to claim, because the article clearly stated Assyrians are non Arabs, just because the Akkadians had past in Arabia. that doesnt make them Arabs where ever they went, or atleast thats not what I am trying to prove). Dont deny my efforts to reason with you! I was nice all the time and you continued insisting on merging the ancient Arabs with pre Islamic Arabs both two different periods. --Skatewalk 20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the Akkadians came from the Arabian peninsula, that doesn't make them Arabs. Why can you not understand this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:33 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Just like the Celts are part of ancient Italian history. Even if the Celts are not Italian today, Celts are still pat of the ancient Italian history. Now add one more factor, in the Akkadians. With Arabia being their land of origin that makes an important part of Ancient Arab history (remeber the title of the article "Ancient" thats why I didn't want you to merge to recent Arab history (preIslamic Arabia) those are two different periods! So in a study of Ancient Arabia, you have exclude the Akkadians? Does that make sense to you at all!?---Skatewalk 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to magically make the Akkadians into Arabs? Why is this so important to you? Why can you not understand, that not all Semitic peoples, are Arabs? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:01 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• Its important to me because the Akkadians are part of te ancient Arabian history? they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! Is that very hard to understand? Forget modern Arabism. These Akkadians were bedouins who lived in Arabia. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia!, --Skatewalk 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Its important to me because the Akkadians are part of te ancient Arabian history? — No, they are not. When Arabs as a people began appearing in history, all Akkadians had become Assyrians by that time, together with the Sumerian population. they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! — It wasn't called Arabia at that time, and they did not live with any Arab people, because they were the first Semitic people. Arabs didn't exist at the same time as the Akkadians. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia! — At some point in time, the people that are now Germans and Japanese, probably also had ancestors who lived in Arabia. It doesn't make them Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:02 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • Elias can you read what I am writing! I am talking about Arabia as a geographic term. Their is nothing such as Arab race. Dont confuse history with modern Pan-Arabism. The Akkadians are included in the article as part of Arabia! I dont beleive in an Arab race or any of the Pan-Arabist BS. the whole Mideast is Genetic mosiac. However, the article is purely historic and doenst relate to the modern Arab identity. Many tribes left Arabia and settled Africa, South Europe. Nobody is claiming Ethiopians, Sicilians or Spaniards are Arabs!. The Akkadians were vanished early in Mespotamia. Their effect was far more cultural than anything. And Mesopotamia is a region outside of Arabia, thats why the Akkadians are the only group that has an Arab origin, regardless of who they influenced afterwards. Akkadians spoke the same language, same culture and are known, if you know other tribes that lived in Arabia and left please include. I never heard of Ancient Arab tribes that settled Germany or Japan? Their no evidence or documents, but the Akkadians were od obvious Arabian origin--Skatewalk 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If you don't believe in an Arab race, why are you insisting on calling the Akkadians "Arabs"? They did not speak Arabic, they spoke Akkadian. Yes, it resembles Arabic, as do all Semitic languages, since Arabic is also a Semitic language, but Arabic sure as hell isn't the precursor to all Semitic languages. The Akkadians didn't vanish, they mixed with the Sumerians, and their children became Assyrians, and later, from Assyrians, Babylonians (the Assyrians split in two). Look, you are obviously a proud Arab. That is fine. Just don't try to impose the Arabic ethnicity on all Semitic peoples, all right? All Semitic peoples, most likely, originated in one way or the other, from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't mean we are Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:35 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
        • The are Ancient Arabs because they lived in Arabia! Iam not concerned with their genetic, cultural makeup (although very close to South Arabian anyways, but thats not the subject here). They are part of Ancient Arabia history because they originated form Arabia. Is that hard to understand? I am not a politician, I just want to fix the article!The Akkadians only originated and lived in Ancient Arabia, other Mesopotamian nations (even if Semitic because they were Mesopotamian not Arabian) belong the history of Mesopotamia. --Skatewalk 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Living on the Arabian peninsula, and speaking a Semitic language, thousands of years before Arabs even exist, doesn't make you an ancient Arab, it makes you an ancient Semite. A proto-Semite, if you will. Arab, is not the original Semitic peoples. They are the youngest of all Semitic peoples. Stop cluttering up articles with revisionist Arab propaganda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:10 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

So who are the people of ancient Arabia? it is called the Rabian peninsula not the Semitic peninsula. If you call yourself Semitic thats fine. The article is discussing Ancient Arabia. Its history of Saudi Arabia, do you expect us to forget our history, or just dont mention it?! --Skatewalk 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is the history of Saudi Arabia, you are welcome to write about it on Pre-Islamic Arabia. Just don't try to impose an Arabic identity on Proto-Semitic and ancient Semitic peoples, simply because they originated from the same area and spoke a related language. Yes, today, it is called the Arabian peninsula. It wasn't called Arabian at the time of the Akkadians, and they surely didn't regard themselves as Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:58 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Ancient Arabs. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ammar ( - ) 14:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, the Arabs are holding hands. Don't give me vandalism warnings. I have several good reasons and he didn't listen and just kept reverting without providing academic sources. Three independent editors have reached a consensus on that article, that it's clearly not written accurately, lacks academic sources, and it's being partially controlled by sockpuppets writing WP:NOR stuff. On top of that, an Arab nationalist is trying to turn every Semitic peoples into Arabs, even though they aren't Arabs. If anyone is vandalising, it's User:Skatewalk, who refuses to discuss on the talk page, and he has broken the WP:3RR rule. Go give him a vandalism warning, and please refrain from your Arabic bias since you are an Arab. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:38 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You still refuse to accept his reference about Akkadians , which seems to be a Reliable sources. and you are breaking the Assume good faith rule even. please calm down and lets work together in a peacful environment Ammar ( - ) 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that source. In fact, I've even used that source on the Assyrian people article. I will however remove this source, from the Assyrian people article. I only used it because it says the same thing as what other Assyriologists are saying. Either way, that source, doesn't say that the Akkadians were ancient Arabs. It says, they migrated from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't make them Arabs. Yes, most likely, all Semitic peoples, have a common origin. So what? Does that mean that we are Arabs? No, we are Semitic peoples, not Arabic peoples. Is that so hard to understand? There was nothing Arabic with the Akkadians. They didn't have an Arabic culture, and the Akkadian language, surely wouldn't be intelligible by Arabs today. The word "Arab", didn't even exist when the Akkadians rose to prominence. He is just trying to make all Pre-Islamic Semitic peoples into Arabs. He thinks that Semitic languages means Arabic languages. Clearly, this is Arabocentrism. He is an Arabic fanatic. The world doesn't revolve around Arabs. Arabization is lame. Stop imposing Arabic culture on everybody. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:52 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I know you right , but thats still not a good reason to remove a reliable source which related to the subject . this is not an arabization or something like that . My friend you are removing anything comes on your way , for example : you have removed the template of the Saudi WikiProject , which includes the history of arabian peninsula in it's tasks. (sorry i just noticed it was redirected)

anyways ,stop removing contents without a good reason. thanks Ammar ( - ) 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For your information, you are defending a sockpuppet user, and you have insolence to accuse me of vandalism while at the same time, you are defending a sockpuppet. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:13 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me!? Just because I exposed your sock puppet User:Dbachmann that don't give you the right to acuse me of being that.

And he is protecting the history of Saudi Arabia! because you are denying an ancient period of the history of Arabia, it will only make us focus on this subject. --Skatewalk 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Syriac is not Assyrian

Please take your time to read the following articles: You'll find that your theory is disputed. Don't try to present it as a fact.

One more request: don't try to draw my personal background into this discussion. You don't have the slightest clue. --Benne _(talk) 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "theory" is not disputed. Believe it or not, I have already read what you're linking. Not the least impressed or convinced. Also, you only have John Joseph and Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, and neither of them are neutral on this. There's an entire world of academic scholars from European and American countries, who are unanimous about this. Sure, this is not ad populum, but I take their opinions any day over a fanatic Turk. What is your background, if I may ask? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:23 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Syriac = Aramaean

Have you even taken a look at ? These are all sourced, verifiable quotations, proving that for centuries, Syriacs (both Eastern and Western) have been aware of their Aramaean heritage. It's quite impressive. I would be surprised if you could come up with a similar list of quotations proving that Syriacs have considered themselves inheritants of the Assyrian Empire, before the Anglican missionaries came to the area, in the 19th century.

By the way, I don't believe my background is of any relevance. --Benne _(talk) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we Assyrians don't deny that we have Aramaean ancestors. Get over it, we are Assyrians, because they were a lot more in population size than the Aramaeans, and they simply adopted their language after assimilating the Aramaeans, because of its more advanced alphabet compared with cuneiform. Your background is very important in all this. Are you a Syriac Orthodox? If not, what are you? Also, please don't point me to that joke of a site, cite academic scholars, if you want to make a point. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:33 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if you could come up with a similar list of quotations proving that Syriacs have considered themselves inheritants of the Assyrian Empire, before the Anglican missionaries came to the area, in the 19th century. — You have seriously swallowed this conspiracy theory that the "evil spiritually Satanic West" is trying to do away with the "rich Aramaeans heritage" of Syriac Christians, as stated on that horseshit Aram Nahrin site? Unbelievable. Here, read this: at the end, Frye refutes that ridiculous claim. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:55 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Still, you have not come up with a serious refutation of the facts presented on that site. I don't care about the site itself, it's the sources it presents.

Neither have you been able to present evidence of the so-called Assyrian identity of the Syriac people, before the 19th century, whereas I have pointed out to you sources that equate Syriac with Aramaean. Also, your claim that the Aramaeans have been assimilated by the Assyrians is not supported by any reliable evidence. All you do is continue with your Assyrianist rant, blindly denying what has been written by people from your own tradition, without presenting any concrete counterevidence.

And by the way, we are discussing the background of the Syriacs here, not those of Misplaced Pages editors. --Benne _(talk) 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tatian and Lucian both identified as Assyrians, and they lived in the borders of modern day Syria. In this article, Richard Nelson Frye, an academic scholar, mentions the assimilation of Aramaean tribes into the Assyrian empire. Simo Parpola, also an academic scholar, and a professor of Assyriology, goes through this in intricate details, here. I don't need to refute anything, they're doing it rather fine on their own, and their studies, is of much more important weight, than your assertions. If we have called ourselves Suraya and/or Suryoyo, that means we have called ourselves Ashuraya. What is it you don't understand about this? How the hell, do you go from Syriac to Aramaean? It is so illogical. Also, why are you refusing to say your background? What are you hiding? Are you a Turk? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Tatian refers to himself as being "born in the land of the Assyrians", that's something different than calling himself an Assyrian. I still have to find a proper citation of Lucian's works, which I haven't seen in Parpola's article, nor in the Misplaced Pages article. So when it comes to Syriacs who refer to themselves as Aramaeans vs. Assyrians, your score is quite poor in comparison to the Aram-Nahrin website.

Concering Frye, you're probably aware of John Joseph, who challenges his theory. Also, I've pointed out to you a different source that does not support the Assyrian-Syrian theory. I am printing Parpola's article now , and see what I have to say about that. --Benne _(talk) 06:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

They were not Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:17 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Is that all you can come up with??

Check out Urhoy. It proves indubitably that Syriacs (also from the Church of the East and the Chaldaean Catholic Church) considered themselves Aramaeans. Also, the Greeks were aware of this. --Benne _(talk) 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That site doesn't prove shit. Cite academic scholars, and don't bother linking me to more "Aram-Nahrin" sites posting articles from that lunatic "Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis." Thank you. Also, let me know what your opinion is of Parpola's stuff. And Tatian and Lucian, identified themselves as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

An academic title is no proof of neutrality. I cited notable people from the community itself. You still haven't come up with a proper citation yet. You just keep repeating yourself by saying that "Tatian and Lucian are Assyrians", without providing any evidence. As I've pointed out before, Tatian just says that he's born "in the land of the Assyrians", and I'm curious about Lucian's self-identification.

Concerning Parpola: I find his article quite shaky. He does not prove a thing. Based on some 20th-century sociologists who studied assimilation processes, he claims that communities generally assimilate within three generations, but that certain factors (education, oppression) can hamper that process. Using this hypothesis, he suggests that Aramaeans (without mentioning them specifically) must have been assimilated. As "proof" he says, among other things, that the Assyrians used quite harsh methods to obliterate non-Assyrian ethnicities, including their religions, that they resettled population groups throughout the empire, and that many regions had been under Assyrian control for more than three generations. After the fall of the Assyrian Empire, subsequent empire did not bother much to disturb the Assyrian way of life. Hence, he says, Assyrians were able to continue to exist as a separate people, until today.

I believe it's shaky, because at first, he writes that oppression can be a factor counterproductive for assimilation. First of all, I doubt it is possible and scientifically sound to extrapolate 20th-century foundings on a population group that lived more than 2000 years ago. Besides, if the Assyrians' treatment of newly conquered peoples was so merciless, then why would Aramaeans not have persisted against all odds? He uses this argument at random, and only when it suits his purpose. Also, at the core of his "proof" lies the equation Syriac = Assyrian, with which, as you know, I have a problem, for it's merely a disputed theory. --Benne _(talk) 14:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is only a "disputed theory" in your own stubborn mind. You should read this. Also written by an Assyriologist that agrees that we are Assyrians. That stone, is basically all the evidence we need. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:39 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Assyrian Empire

Hey Elias, good idea with Neo-Assyrian Empire. I think we should greatly expand the Ancient Assyrian-related articles, to bring them up to par with other ancient history articles. For example, ancient Rome- and Egypt-related pages are huge! Posh bshena. --Šarukinu 16:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Assyria imho should be a very general article, and the different periods, should cover intricate details of this and that certain period, in their own articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:17 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I was gonna make a "Wars of Neo-Assyria" article but oh well.Ok let me start a campaign box in the article, and see what info I can pour in. Yala azekh wa pulshekh! (lets go and fight)!

Neo-Assyrian Empire 2

Hey man, about the article, I will add references where I can and improve the campaign box by adding relevant links and other battles and or more info. See what I can do, somtimes I am busy / not bothered, other times it looks like I am high and ready to wikify!Tourskin 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes man, patience is a virtue. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:51 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

ref

ok thanks, i didnt know how to consolidate those references. Tourskin 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Assyrianidentity.png

Please upload it on Commons next time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:08 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how. I don't know anything about Commons. Chaldean 08:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all right, I've done it. I'm converting it to an svg file as we speak (much better). — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Syriac Christianity

Khon you say Syriac Christianity is a religious page, then what do you think the Chaldean dominance is? What do you think the Syriac Orthodox dominance is? I really believe it would be better to be put all in one great page, so that a visitor does not get confused and must go to 10 different articles to get the point of view of everybody's. Chaldean 14:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's confusing. Are you insulting Misplaced Pages readers' intelligence? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:43 12 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No, but having alot of pages here and their just confuses the average reader and make the issue even more complicated. Chaldean 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is this is the exact reason why I oppose all these different articles. Now "Chaldeans" is going to be an entire different ethnic page. This is wrong. "Chaldeans" and "Syraic Orthodox people" do not deserve their won page because that would indicate that these people are from different nations. All these articles should be put together. Chaldean 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If we get down to work properly on these articles, source them with academic stuff, doesn't matter what some few confused Chaldean Catholics will think, in time, most of them will get the picture. All we need is irrefutable academic sources. That's all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:09 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Memnoch the Devil edits

RE: "No shit it's a work of fiction? Stop calling this a heretical work; it's a novel"

I wasn't calling the book heretical. I was defending it against those who might; by giving a reminder that the work is not only a work of fiction, but is very much intended that way. (You'll notice my comments are right below where it mentions that parts of the book are downright blasphemous.) I won't re-add my addition to the page, if you really feel it doesn't belong there. I just wanted to clarify my actions.Cylith 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that was your intention, then I agree it's a good idea. It's just that you made it sound like it is a heretical novel. That was my problem. Otherwise, I think it's the best damn book I've ever read. Well, one of the best anyway. Probably the best. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:16 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose it's my fault for wording things that way. It's somewhat unnatural for me to write as an encyclopedia should sound. I'm much more accustomed to writing conversationally (like now). So I can sometimes muddle things a little when trying to get my point across. Yes, it is a very good novel. I like Rice's portrayal of theistic evolution.Cylith 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all right, it's okay to do mistakes. No need to apologise for it. I personally loved the part with Veronica's Veil, in the novel. That was great how Anne Rice put it together. A true classic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:36 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

A redirect you created is being concidered for discussion

Click here if you want. TheBlazikenMaster 11:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)