Talk:Nineveh Plains

Syriac name

There is a slight problem with the Syrian Script In English its written as Dashta d-ninveh but in Syriac its only Dashta Ninveh I can add the following letter upon request Yaron Shahrabani (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian nationalism

This article has been targeted by Assyrian nationalists who have inserted nationalist propaganda and disinformation. I have now removed most of this. In fact this article was created by an Assyrian nationalist, and as things stand there isn't a strong basis for keeping it as it lacks notability and references. If the nationalist vandalism continues the page will need full protection. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please write what is nationalist propaganda, not just wrinting that it contains nationalist propaganda. BM's version was not that good, and you reverted it. But the second change, why remove those things? Shmayo (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you agree that BM's version was no good. As for the current version, the first paragraph has a nationalist flavour. I don't think there are grounds for the "Assyria" and the "It is considered to be the original homeland of the Assyrians but is currently also populated by Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, and Shabaks." This is unsourced and needs removing. The Syriac name is fine; I didn't mean to remove it. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Assyria". I'm waiting for your comment about the other sentence before I make any changes. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs are not NPOV and need removing. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well? Shmayo. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Assyria could be removed, even though the Assyrian-inhabited areas are called Assyria[1]. The sources is mentioning both thing, the first you talked about and the last. The Assyrian have asked for a autonoumous region there (even the Kurdish page is saying that). And I didn't really understand the first, if the Nineveh plains are not the original homeland of this people, then where is it? Don't most people agree that this people where there first (except Kurdish nationalists saying indo-european people built Nineveh)? For sure this people were living there before any Arabs, Kurds or any other did. Shmayo (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Easy khon, I was typing. Shmayo (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is nationalistic and inappropriate to be saying:

"It is considered to be the original homeland of the Assyrians but is currently also populated by Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, and Shabaks."

This is making assumptions in favour of Assyrian descent from ancient Assyrians, and is altogether unnecessary. I think this should be removed.

The last three paragraphs (currently commented out) are not NPOV and are either unreferenced, unreliably referenced or not neutrally referenced. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you agree we can just remove them, if you don't agree please tell me why you think contested unreferenced statements should stay, and why you think http://www.kurdishaspect.com is a reliable and neutral source. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Todays Assyrian, being descendants of all mesopotamian people, can call this place their original homeland, it's not about todays Assyrians being descendants of the ancient Assyrians. I think that it is correct, but you that want to remove it, why would you want to remove the whole sentence? Isn't it worth mentioning which ethnic groups actually living there?

Are you talking about the part about the autonoumous region? In which way is that POV? This people have requested that, how can that be POV? Shmayo (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Kurdish site is a perfect source, but they are actually just mentioning what this people want (which a simple search of "Assyrian autonoumous region" would prove). Shmayo (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the part about Assyrian autonomous region Shmayo, if you click edit on the page it is the last three paragraphs there (commented out at present). Shmayo it is simply not a good idea to be making statements about who is most indigenous to an area. I don't see how that sentence serves any other purpose than to compliment Assyrian political ambitions. This area is not the whole region of ancient Assyria, so the statement is altogether dubious. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shmayo the ethnic groups are already mentioned in the second paragraph, and the area's connection with Assyria is already mentioned in the third paragraph. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! Yes, they could be removed until any source is found. But about the first sentence, I'm strongly against removing it totally. How would "Assyrians have lived there for a very long time and they consider it their homeland, but it is currently also populated by Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, and Shabaks"? Shmayo (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC) No, the ethnic groups are not mentioned there, it's mostly the religious groups mentioned. The only ethnic group mentioned is Kurds. Shmayo (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll describe the problems with this statement:

"It is considered to be the original homeland of the Assyrians but is currently also populated by Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, and Shabaks."

First of all the "considered" part is Assyrian POV, secondly, to say: "but is currently also populated by Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, and Shabaks" is inappropriate and could cause offense, thirdly the sentence simply makes no sense, so what if it is the original homeland of Assyrians? it is redundant to mention it, it's like saying Lebanon is considered the original homeland of Lebanese people. Most people (in the Old World at least) are living in their ancestral homelands, regardless of what language they speak. As for who this land belongs to; it belongs to Iraq and all its people. Read the sentence, it is completely inappropriate and open to causing offense to those non-Assyrians who live in the region. Is there any good quality census data which indicates that Assyrians (COTE) make up the majority in this region? if not, preferential statements like this should go. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've givven another proposal above? How could "but is currently also populated by..." cause offense? I think these people are aware of that this, pretty small area, have been Assyrian for a very long time. Shmayo (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement is very offensive. Your "alternative" was barely different. The statement is preferential to Assyrians and disrespectful to non-Assyrians. I actually think this page is a fork of Assyrian independence and non-notable. Perhaps it might be better gone altogether. Rather than propose deletion, I propose merging it into Assyrian independence. What do you think? Maybe you can get away with the bias there. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the last half of that statement which has improved things. Mention of Kurds, Shabaks and Yazidis is already made in the second paragraph anyway. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've edited for a proposed solution. Tell me what you think about that and about the proposed merger. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well? I've commented out the image unless you can provide a reference for it. I'm now happy with it as it stands and have removed the POV tag. I'm waiting for your comments about the recent changes and merge proposal. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You better comment fast Shmayo otherwise i'm reporting you for edit warring. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not edit it until we've discussed it. My alternative was different. You said that it looked like the Assyrians were decendants of the ancient Assyrian, which it don't look like in that sentence. You still didn't say why it would be offensive? The small Nineveh Plains are known for being Assyrian, so I think they would agree. Yes, but Assyrians are not mentioned later. Shmayo (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Shmayo, I want you to provide a reason why you reverted each of these changes. Where you don't give a reason I will assume consent and make the edit again. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You just reverted around 10 edits and I want you to explain which of these you have a problem with and why. If you do not do this, I will assume you didn't mean to revert this much and repeat the change since the only thing you've mentioned here is about that one sentence. My reasons were of course in the edit summaries. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of your edit did have something with the things we are discussing, i.e. the inhabitants and the autonomous region. And please do not remove the map. Shmayo (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no source information to suggest the information in the image is in any way accurate, in a case like this it is better it goes unless of course you can provide a source which qualifies the image, in which case it can stay. What is your objection to my edits to the third paragraph here? Also please explain why you think kurdishaspect.com is a reliable and neutral source. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Even in the articles it's mentioned that it's about these three districts? Because it was saying that Assyrian wanted the autonomous region because they felt cultural different from the rest of the people in Iraq, which doesn't sound very correct. They consider it to be their homeland and that's why. Therefore I like the one one better than the one you suggested. Shmayo (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Shmayo it is altogether unreferenced exactly what this region includes, I think until a good quality, reliable, neutral source is presented we should refrain from giving specifications about the exact area it covers, especially when this issue is linked to political ambitions. The image is contested on these grounds. Shmayo that the Assyrians consider it their ancestral homeland has no bearing whatsoever on them wanting autonomy. For the third time, could I have a reason for your resolute endorsement of kurdishaspect.com? And, could you explain your objection to this edit. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many places where these three districts are mentioned as the Nineveh Plains, [2][3](search for more). Why I said the Kurdish site could be used is because if a Kurdish site actually says these parts are mainly inhabited by this people, which ly close to Kurdish areas, then it's most likely so. If they wouldn't, a Kurdish site would never have said that. I hope I can continue this discussion today, but it's getting late (here) so if not, we'll have to continue tomorrow. Shmayo (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem Shmayo, we can continue this discussion tomorrow. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits prompting the tags

Recent edits by an IP user(https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:31B4:1C10:FDD8:D71B:A0BB:984E) to this and several other pages consistently make Chaldean Christians their own ethnic group rather than being Assyrian. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if this is correct. However, similar past edits were reverted, and the current edits also make claims beyond what is in the cited sources. Thus the placement of the flags int he hopes they'll attract someone more knowledgeable. 2601:401:502:320A:44E6:16AF:15FF:6799 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed nineveh

I removed nineveh from nineveh plains because it lies in eastern mosul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)