User talk:Benne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Syriacs

Hey Benne. You will notice, however, that Aramaeans#Modern is completely unsourced, and thus the connection cannot be verified. Perhaps you could add references to that section? Thanks for the link to the Syriac Universal Alliance by the way. That is one source that could possibly be used. I was actually looking for more academic ones however. Khoikhoi 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(I reposted this post from the "Assyrian people" discussion page - sorry, I wasn't sure if you would check it anytime soon) Benne, I know where you stand on this whole identity issue, but please be mindful to the possibility that Ashuraya and Suryaya are synonymous terms. I can direct you to several scholarly sources if you wish. Here's a report by AINA (Assyrian International News Agency) - which I DON'T trust completely because AINA is often biased - but they make reference to a very important archeological find in Turkey, published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. http://www.aina.org/ata/20070218144107.htm

Again, do not pay so much attention to the opinions in the article, because I'm sure you will not agree with them right away (I myself found it to be a little bit biased, but with a good cause). I think I have a copy of the journal article lying around somewhere, so if you like I can send you a copy. Basically, they found a bilingual inscription (in Luwian, an ancient Anatolian language, and Phoenician) in which an Anatolian king makes reference to the Assyrians as "Sur" in the Luwian language, and "Assur" in Phoenician. Check it out and let me know what you think, ahono.Šarukinu 14:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sébastien de Courtois

Thanks for the correction; I wasn't the one who originally added the sources, I just noticed that they were there. What about the other source? (David Gaunt) Khoikhoi 06:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that Encyclopaedia of the Orient is not reliable. It is not an "Assyrianist properganda" because its not an Assyrian website. Show me a handful of mods that believe the info from this website should not be used as sources in wikipedia, then come to an conclusion that it is not a neutral source. Chaldean 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me where does wikipedia says Encyclopaedia of the Orient should not be used as a reliable source. Chaldean 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I and the rest of the Assyrian nation consider your work here the upmost slander and disrespect to our community. Correct your behavior, please. Chaldean 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one. Chaldean 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The author promoted the book as "the last Assyrians" in various Assyrian editorials and magazines. The book might have two versions, I dont know. Benne, I will get back to you after I get out of class. I will continue adding refs to Assyrian people page. Chaldean 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Well, according to WP:V, it's our job to say what the sources say. So, if you have Sébastien de Courtois' book, you are more than welcome to add information from it. As for Assyrian people, you can add {{verify source}} to some of the references if you want. However, I consider the Encyclopaedia of the Orient to be a reliable source. It's not a Wikipedia mirror, although many articles use it in Wikipedia (such as Elazığ and Artvin Province). Is this your main concern at the moment? If it is, I'm sure there are tons of other sources out there that can give the same information. Try leaving some comments on the talk page. Khoikhoi 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the last person to care if you believe it or not. I observed this in a couple Google/Gmail groups. I dont know how much thruthiness their is to it, but I thought you should know about it. Chaldean 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you're right about the Encyclopaedia of the Orient. Perhaps better sources can be found (via Google Scholar or some place else). Khoikhoi 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)