User talk:Kathovo/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kathovo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Making a new page

Hi Kathovo,

I think it would be a good idea to make a page for Assyrian holidays, such as the many Friday Dukhranas that the Church of the East has. We could list them, explain them, and give how the date is calculated. This is a very interesting topic that is unfortunately missing from this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, you can start a draft at your sandbox and I will try to improve it. Unfortunately however, I don't have sources to help out much.--Kathovo talk

Assyrian Genocide Death toll chart

Could you help me in making a death-toll chart for the Assyrian Genocide victims? Something like what I have in my Sandbox?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gladly, which references are these figure based upon? I can scan a couple of pages from Gaunt's book if you require any references.--Kathovo talk 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Actually, I read Gaunt's book (from the library -- I no longer have it) and it is excellent. He was the one who proposed that the 275,000 estimate was most likely an underestimate and that it was probably around 300,000. These seem to be the most accepted numbers; however, noted scholar Sabri Atman, in his interview with the Armenian weekly, stated that some scholars note up to 400,00 killed; do you know where these figures could be from? Atman seems to suggest that he accepts 300,000 as the toll (http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/01/08/remembering-the-assyrian-genocide-an-interview-with-sabri-atman/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nineveh Plains

Bshayno Kathovo Rafi, i revert all edits and hope that i can edit them again as soon as possible. Shlome ahuno Elvis214 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Kathovo, do you know why "pqata d'ninveh" was removed from the Nineveh plains page? I hear both Dashta and Pqata used. Dashta is from Kurdish/Persian Dasht. I myself, a native speaker of modern Aramaic, have heard people use pqata quite regularly.

Penguins53 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Penguins53

Could we possibly leave both pqata and dashta on the page? Penguins53 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually Dasht entered Classical Syriac via Middle Persian over 1,500 years ago. I thought since politicians, musicians, and pretty much everybody uses Dashta why would I replace it with a "purer" form which nobody uses.--Kathovo talk 14:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian infobox images

Hi Dear, please refer to the images that to be excluded from the infobox and let's keep the rest.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, most sources you use are unreliable. Souria al-Ghad Claims 200,000 Syriac Syrians were driven out of Syria by Zionists and Masons! Note that the total number of Assyrians and Syriac of all nationalities there doesn't exceed 120,000. Similar problems can be found in other references.--Kathovo talk 10:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, as you wish, but please keep the images of the current version of the infobox, the recent one does not appear to represent the Syrians at their best.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any objection if we include the poet Al-Maʿarri in the infobox?--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Removed Segments on the Assyrian Genocide

You undid everything I wrote, all of which was substantiated by references had it been possible to add a reference. Your comment was that "it didn't appear to be constructive!" What is that supposed to mean? The segment was about the controversy regarding the use of the name Assyrian vs. Syriac. Half of Syria's Christians are Syriac, and all of those who were the victims of the genocide from Tur Abdin and westward were Syriac, yet, any notation of that fact had been systemically erased. Any reference to the fact that thousands of Syriacs have tried to assert their Syriac identity has been erased. I pointed out the fact, not an opinion, that there are campaigns to assert the Syriac identity, and you considered that not to be constructive. Constructive of what? Since when were facts are supposed to be constructive or destructive? That sounds to me like an ideological agenda, not a dispassionate intellectualism. It is rather bizarre that there is virtually no reference to the Syriac people despite the fact that there are more than two million of them in the Middle East. Instead, it is claimed that there are more than a million Assyrians in Syria when there are only a few villages in eastern Syria who identify themselves as Assyrians. All the rest have been proud Syriacs for centuries. Why is that a "destructive" fact to mention? Destructive to the Assyrian nationalist ideology, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndouchi (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a discussion about the naming controversy on the article about the genocide is irrelevant. Also, it is not an ideological agenda, as the term "Assyrian Genocide" is heavily employed by Western scholars. "Syriac" people are "Assyrian" people; they're all one. Again, there is no need to discuss the naming controversy on that page.

Per "Syriacs"/"Assyrians" being one people, there is no need for "the rest" to be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Over-zealous bots

You seem to have run a bot which reverted this valid correction to an article. If you need convincing as to the correction's validity, please read the article with care and follow its referenced sources. As your reversion re-introduced a serious error to the article, we ask that you exercise more caution in your future use of automatic processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.204.29 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind that. One side note, changing one word to completely alter the meaning of the paragraph is one of the hallmarks of vandalism, please make sure to provide reference or at least use WP:ES. Cheers.--Kathovo talk 10:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll endeavour to provide an edit summary in future, but some of us have such little time to spare that it becomes a choice between not editing at all or a quick correction without a summary. We do appreciate that protecting Wikipedia from vandalism is a never-ending and tedious task, but in over-relying upon automated tools which in turn rely upon fallible heuristics you're discouraging people from making quick, but important, edits. You must assume good faith: it's fine to use the loose heuristics you mention to detect potential acts of vandalism, but you must then exercise your own judgement based on an understanding of the context as to whether it actually is vandalism. If you're in any doubt, or don't properly understand the context, then assume good faith. Reverting and then "Nevermind that" isn't acceptable, as it discourages edits and wastes people's time. We'd appreciate some reassurance from you that you'll take greater care in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.204.29 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

syrian

please start the discussion on the syrian people article page--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC) and i said that they share a common Levantine Semitic (aramean and arabic) heritage which is true, please read all my edits, they are all referenced--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) hello please answer me on syrian people talk page, thanx--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

i asked for RfC , go to the talk page and add you questions , we dont need two RfC--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically I believe that identities are very fluid and dynamic associations, they can be formed and broken within generations (see Ethnic identity development). In fact, if the post WW2 Syrian republic followed the path of 19th century "Syrian nationalists" and started asserting a distinctive identity of Syria, we would have been able to talk of the "syrianness" of the inhabitants of Syria. However, in reality waht we now call Syria is a self-declared Arab republic. Syrians at schools are indoctrinated that they are but a fickle in the vast Arab world stretching from Baghdad to Tetouan. Now we can argue all day how do most Syrians identify themselves, when it really comes to matter this society disintegrates into its historically constituent groups that existed for thousands of years: Sunni Arabs, Alawites, Christians, etc...--Kathovo talk 12:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

now what? are we going to cooperate in the light of new sources and find a common ground ?? kathovo i swear, i didnt mention a syrian identity , i only said that syrians identify as arabs and syriacs, so tell me if we are going to cooperate then we should cancel the rfc--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I might have overreacted a bit in my objections, but so did you :). Have a sleep dude you have been editing continuously for 2 days.--Kathovo talk 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

hehehehehhe i totally overreacted, but i thought you are trying to make me (and the rest of my people) look like Bedouins who came from the desert with nothing to connect them to this land, i know Syriacs are more pure and indigenous, but we are not totally foreigners, you might wanna do something about the RFC, and please i worked so hard on the genetic section , don't butcher it :P --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

User Penguins53 removes my edits without any reasons on the Assyrian people article.--ZUoreu9 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because adding "Aramean" after "Syriac" or even replacing the latter with the former is not only unnecessary, but it also makes for a much more confusing read. It is established in other parts of the article that there are various names. Second of all, the population numbers of under 2 million are from the 2012 book "The Assyrian Heritage," and are made by Simo Parpola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lie! You do no want Posidonius statement that Syriac actually means Aramean on this article.--ZUoreu9 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not really; I understand that Syriac came from Syrian (Aramean), which came from Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Happy Kha b-Nisan! My assyrian brother! May you and your family and indeed all our families live in prosperity and happiness. Dr. Persi (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Polish narrative propagandist changes to Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Please note that if you or Xx236 (per this comment) attempt to leave another threat on my personal page, or continue to engage in tendentious editing (i.e., trying to create a WP:COATRACK on which to hang even more of your blatant WP:POV, unreliable sources) by means of WP:TAGTEAM because your spurious sources were dismissed as unreliable on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army talk page, or persist in using that talk page as a forum, I will take your actions before an AN/I. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I find the above text highly derogatory, breaking several basic rules of Wikipedia. I'm human, not a propagandist. I'm quoting academic sources and a non-academic list of UPA ways of killing and torturing, as a comment to "freedom foghters" propaganda. I suggest to move this section to Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army or to remove it.Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have written "Please respect Wikipedia rules" - is it a "threat"?

Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'threat' issue was levelled at Kathvo. Tendentious, original research, coatrack, fringe, undue, blatant nationalist narrative POV push, etc. is levelled at both of you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not able to oppose two editors who remove my references written by Western academicians.Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The hostile unsupported accusation by Iryna Harpy should be removed from here. If she wants she can opeen any procedure but not to attack me using soemones Talk page.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to take it up at my page where you've already left your comment, Xx236. The next step is in the works if you wish it to be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename "Dohuk" → "Duhok"

Dear Kathovo,

I see that you took part in a earlier rename of the article Dohuk. I believe there are good reasons for the article to have remained Duhok, and have outlined them in the section Talk:Dohuk#Requested move 2014. I would be grateful for your contribution on this matter once again.

Taudi,

Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, It appears that the current rendering surpasses "Duhok" by a ratio of 2:1, at least according to google books results. I'm actually more in favour of using common English names rather than local rendering. I think this is also a sort of policy in Wikipedia, e.g. Kiev and not Kyiv.--Kathovo talk 19:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would like your point to be made, I suggest that you demonstrate it at Talk:Dohuk#Requested move 2014. I reckon that the case of "Kiev/Kyiv" is rather different from that of "Duhok/Dohuk". In the case of "Kiev/Kyiv", it is a large city which has a long history of English description as "Kiev" (there is also Chicken Kiev!). Duhok is much smaller with far less English-language literature about it, within which there is significant variation in the transcription of the two vowels. In effect, there is no "English name" for the city, but various renderings of the local name. In this case, I think it best to look to the preferred use in English writing locally and support this philologically. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)