Talk:Zelge Fans

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles

Assyria

This redirect is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles

Neshre

Neshre is in Syriac, or Turoyo. It is silly to redirect to a disambiguation page, in this case Assyrian language. Also Turoyo is (correctly) not included in that disambiguation page. The TriZ (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac language is also known as Assyrian. There is nothing wrong with having Assyrian instead of Syriac, in Assyrian related pages (like Zelge fans.) Its just like how you won't accept the words Assyrian genocide to be mentioned in the Syriac people page, but rather Syriac genocide or Seyfo, simply becuase its a Syriac issue. Chaldean (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what your saying is that it should be called the Syriac genocide? It is not the same. Assyrian language is wrong, it doesn't exist any Assyrian language. The genocide is another issue. The TriZ (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue and the Genocide issue are both termonology, that is why I brought it up. Does it says Assyrian genocide in the Syriac people page? Of course not, because you would find it offensive (Even thou its the corrent termonology, just like the way Syriac is for Syriac language.) But because its an Assyrian issue (Zelge fans is), then it should be delt with differently. Assyrian language is a term that is used sometimes today to refer to Syriac language - so you can't just blow it off by saying "it doesn't exist". Chaldean (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about the genocide, you can't say that Assyrian genocide is the correct name and Syriac genocide wrong. Assyrian language can be refering to Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, and not Turoyo for example. When it comes to the genocide it's much more controversial then the language question. Therefore I believe it's strange how you can compare the two things. Has anyone questioned that the name of the language is called Syriac? The TriZ (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you can't say that Assyrian genocide is the correct name and Syriac genocide wrong - I did not say that, I said that is the most common name used in the English language. Remember, we are dealing with what is common and what is used in the English language only.

Assyrian language can be refering to Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, and not Turoyo for example - that is why its a disam page and not a straight link to the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic or Syriac langauge page. In English, "Assyrian language" can be a reference to only a dialect (Assyrian Neo-Aramaic) or a reference to the whole Syriac language itself.

Both issues are termonology issues, that is why I brought it up. Chaldean (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turoyo is not included in that disam page. And also, if Assyrian language isn't the most common name and neither the correct name, then why write it? The TriZ (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac language is included in that disam page, and Assyiran, Chaldean, and Turoyo fall beneath Syriac language.

if Assyrian language isn't the most common name and neither the correct name, then why write it - I don't know how many times I have to say it; the same reason why you don't see Assyrian genocide in the Syriac people page. Chaldean (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name assyrian genocide is not neutral name. Qeṭlā ḏ-‘Amā Āṯûrāyā, what happened to the suryoye? is everyine "atoraje" now? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey doesn't think Armenian genocide is a neutral term either, should we change the name of that article as well? We had this discussion before - the title of an article is based on what the subject is known as most in the English language. Sooreth/Suroyo is mostly known as Syriac in the English language, thus that is why Syriac language is the title; but that doesn't mean you can't use alternatives of the name in other pages ("Sayfo" in Syriac people page for example and "Assyrian" reference to Syriac in this page.) Chaldean (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So lets say me and ArameanSyriac calls the English language for Whatever, so can I then say that Whatever is an alternative for the English language and write it in a wiki article? Turkey says the genocide never happened, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Suryoyo is known as Syriac in the English language cause that's the correct name of it. Seyfo is the name of the genocide in the Syriac language and is used by not only people who speak Syriac, but also for example the Swedish government. Assyrian language is something you Assyrians have come to call the language since you refuse the correct name. The TriZ (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you have said above is an opinion, so there is no point in addressing them. Chaldean (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying it's right for a wikipedia article that you write an incorrect name for a language? The TriZ (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your little fantasy troll world back to Swedish Wikipedia. Assyrian langauge excists and its not incorrect. When will you understand that what the Swedish government or any non-English government uses doesn't matter when it comes to English Wikipedia. On the other hand, Australia uses ASSYRIAN rather the SYRIAC for the language when taking census. [[1]] If you want to keep pushing, then I won't hesitate to make a case for the Syriac language page to be moved to Assyrian language. Chaldean (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to insult and threat people. Why don't you make a case to move the article? Please, try to. You can say whatever you want about an Assyrian language, but the correct name is Syriac and more accurate, Turoyo. The TriZ (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for people that don't understand what Wikipedia is either. Try to convince the American and Australian government that what they are using is incorrect, then maybe you can come to Wikipedia and delete the Assyrian language page. Chaldean (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what are they using and show me a direct source to it and to what are they using that reference to? As I said, Assyrian language is mostly used to refer to the Assyrian Neo-Aramic. The TriZ (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look for link above. Chaldean (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian language, in an encylopedia, refers to Akkadian. The name of the language is Syriac, why call it something else? The TriZ (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]