Hi NearEast! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ashur, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I am referring to this sentence: "The Nineveh Plain Protection Units was founded in 2014 by the Assyrian Democratic Movement of Iraq in defense of the indigenous Syriac speaking populace of Nineveh Governornate." When unsourced material is removed from Wikipedia, it is against policy for anyone to add it back in again without citing a reliable source. Alephb (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in question is cited on the individual page, of Nineveh Plain Protection Units, and does not need further citation. NearEast (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in question.. “The oldest of the fragments of the Isaiah scrolls date to about 50 BC to 130 CE, hundreds of years after the Prophet Isaiah. It thus means that the Book of Isaiah, along with the entire Tanakh, is considered to be pseudepigraha. Regarding the tone of the book, Isaiah is actually contending Hezekiah and the reestablishing of temple worship in 2 Chronicles 29. Regarding the temple, Isaiah 1:11-31 and Isaiah 66:1-6 clearly speak against the aspirations of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 29. In 2 Kings 18:22, the messenger of the King of Assyria refutes Hezekiah's claim of his so called dependence on the LORD, by defending [the temple of the] Judah. It seems that the sympathizing tone towards Hezekiah in the English translations of the Bible, and the levites mentioned in Isaiah 66:21 in a positive tone, contrast the tone of Isaiah towards the temple. The mention of a three party alliance between Israel, Egypt, and Assyria in Isaiah 19:23-25, also contradict mentions of Assyria being destroyed. These contending tones further imply that the Book of Isaiah is the compilation of not only many authors, but also many viewpoints.”

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Book of Isaiah. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller The edit was sourced directly from the different verses of the Bible that contradict each other, which are noted in the paragraph. The Dead Sea Scrolls, being the oldest reference to Isaiah, I had linked as well. This all only emphasized what was already written in the authorship section of the Book of Isaiah page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearEast (talk • contribs)

That's my point. You are adding your own analysis of those primary sources while what we require are academic sources (for this) meeting WP:RS. Part of our no original research polich, which is basic to Wikipedia, says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (emphasis in the original). Please don't do this again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My points are in bold, with context for explanation

@Nabataeus It's not about Movses Khorenatsi, the edit war is emanating from you claiming supremacy of your claim, and then removing mine altogether, which is just as substantiated. Your claim is out of context, there are no pages for what you claim. That exact quote, on that page, does not state anything about "SHULITA D'ARB". All I'm saying is, add your page numbers. According to what that page states (Page 500 of the cited), it only alleges Arab because it doesn't state the context why. So when your explaining it, you can't just dismiss two other theories, with no page numbers. The possible Aramean, Armenian, and Arabic origin of Abgar needs to all be mentioned.

The claim is not properly cited, there is no page number, and there is no "SHULITA D'ARB" or "Sultan of the Arabs" in there. All that is cited is Cambridge Ancient History, with that you keep edit warring by removing the possible Aramean and Armenian origin. So truly reflecting, all the possible origins need to be included, you can't claim supremacy with the Cambridge Ancient History and then state how another source isn't reliable, that's not up to you. On page 500, there is no SHULITA D'ARB. Your source is unsubstantiated. It would be Original Research on your part to claim that it isn't "supposed", because SHULITA D'ARB isn't in Cambridge Ancient History. To claim supremacy of that, then add "SHULITA D'ARB", then remove two other theories is what amounts to the edit war. All I'm saying is add them all, and it's "supposed" because on that page of Cambridge Ancient History (pg. 500) there is nothing that corroborates the claim. If you're going to add the source, then add the correct pages, and don't engage in Original Research with "SHULITA D'ARB" to edit war over supremacy of an Arab origin. Add the page that corroborates the claim of Abgar being Arab, because "SHULITA D'ARB" isn't in Cambridge Ancient History, nor is the "Sultan of the Arabs", and that is why it is "supposed". Add all possible origins, removing one or the other is bias, but it is supposed until it can be corroborated with context (Not Original Reasearch "SHULITA D'ARB" is not in there).

I didn't remove your claim altogether, the book of the bee and the reference for Aramaean remark is included. And re-read my statement on Moses of chorene, if you want to add him fine, but contextualized, emphasising on the opinions and assessment of modern scholars. (But do not make your personal analysis into articles) Moreover, I never said the title was derived from Cambridge ancient history, not even implied. You could look for Sumatar Harabesi inscriptions. Nabataeus (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that it isn't "supposed", and then referenced "SHULITA D'ARB" as supporting remark. That is not in the Cambridge Ancient History. For the reference of Movses Khorenatsi, I have added another source. NearEast (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's workwhether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each timecounts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nabataeus (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabataeus Once and for all, the edit quoted below, is the final edit I will make. Here's why, to address your points, you mention two errancies. One, you state that Moses of Chorene isn't a reliable source, because of the "universally accepted untrustworthy-ness" of Moses of Chorene. Then you directly quote Azerbaijani diplomat Farid Shafiyev stating, "Moses of Chorene and Fastus Buzond, are unreliable due to various distortions and compilations and modifications". The claim itself unsubstantiated by Farid Shafiyev. All of which is refuted by the repeated use of Moses of Chorene as a source, by many scholars, like Warwick Ball.

Two, the Cambridge Ancient History explicitly suppose, that the Abgarid dynasty is Arabic. Actually the statement on page 500 isn't substantiated. To support their claim, they mention Strabo. On page 500, the writings of Strabo are mentioned, stating that the "Maleioi", "Orroei", and "Praetavi" Arabs intermingled with Armenians and Syrians stating, "Armenians, Syrians, and Arabs intermingled very frequently." In fact, the Arab influence in the region is also questioned on the same page stating, "Nevertheless the cultural settings was fundamentally Aramaic, more precisely northern Aramaic, i.e. Syriac." Cambridge Ancient History only alleges that Abgar is Arabic, validates a possible Armenian or Aramaic origin, because the claim isn't substantiated within the context of page 500.

You keep removing my additions, claim that they are invalid based on the allegations of an Azerbaijani diplomat, and then state that a claim made with no substantiation (Cambridge Ancient History), isn't by definition supposed. I will be adding the edition quoted below tomorrow, with the same sources as the previous edit, with "supposed" included. Within the context of the statement, page 500 only confuses Arabic influence, and then the statement that Armenian or Aramaic frequently intermingled only further assert the "supposed" nature of the claim. It would be deceptive to not include "supposed", considering that the claim on page 500 isn't substantiated. If you'd like to restructure the sentence your more than welcome to, but don't remove any contribution. My contribution is substantiated, and your concerns regarding their validity is as I've stated in the first paragraph above, invalid.

"According to Movses Khorenatsi, Abgar was of the Parthian Arscaid dynasty of Armenia. Abgar is referenced as Aramean by Solomon Bishop of Basra, in his Book of the Bee. Arabic, is also supposed as an origin for the Abgarid dynasty, being called "king of the Arabs" by a renaissance dated text attributed to a pseudo-Tacitus. Abgar's nephew, King Sanatruk of Armenia, is also chronicled extensively in Armenian writings. On August 24, 2009, the board of the Central Bank of Armenia adopted a decision on introducing a new banknote with a nominal value of AMD 100,000. The new banknote depicts King Abgar V, described as King of Armenian Mesopotamia. The front of the banknote depicts Abgar pointing at the royal flag bearing an image of the Mandylion. The reverse of the banknote depicts disciple Thaddeus of Edessa handing the canvas to King Abgar V and his consequent miraculous healing."

• One, you state that Moses of Chorene isn't a reliable source, because of the "universally accepted untrustworthy-ness" of Moses of Chorene. Then you directly quote Azerbaijani diplomat Farid Shafiyev stating, "Moses of Chorene and Fastus Buzond, are unreliable due to various distortions and compilations and modifications". The claim itself unsubstantiated by Farid Shafiyev. All of which is refuted by the repeated use of Moses of Chorene as a source, by many scholars, like Warwick Ball.

Historical unreliable primary sources are used by modern scholars, it is not the point I am trying to make. Adding the claim of Moses of chorene will only lead to diverting the article from Abgar V into a serious of illustrations on how Moses was unreliable (condemned as untrustworthy in all ways - Texts and Studies: Contribution to Biblical and Patristic Literature) and on the other hand the counter argument for his reliability if exists. The page would be merely battle ground for Moses.

It's not about Movses Khorenatsi, the edit war is emanating from you claiming supremacy of your claim, and then removing mine altogether, which is just as substantiated. Your claim is out of context, there are no pages for what you claim. That exact quote, on that page, does not state anything about "SHULITA D'ARB". All I'm saying is, add your page numbers. According to what that page states (Page 500 of the cited), it only alleges Arab because it doesn't state the context why. So when your explaining it, you can't just dismiss two other theories, with no page numbers. The possible Aramean, Armenian, and Arabic origin of Abgar needs to all be mentioned.

• Two, the Cambridge Ancient History explicitly suppose, that the Abgarid dynasty is Arabic. Actually the statement on page 500 isn't substantiated. To support their claim, they mention Strabo. On page 500, the writings of Strabo are mentioned, stating that the "Maleioi", "Orroei", and "Praetavi" Arabs intermingled with Armenians and Syrians stating, "Armenians, Syrians, and Arabs intermingled very frequently." In fact, the Arab influence in the region is also questioned on the same page stating, "Nevertheless the cultural settings was fundamentally Aramaic, more precisely northern Aramaic, i.e. Syriac." Cambridge Ancient History only alleges that Abgar is Arabic, validates a possible Armenian or Aramaic origin, because the claim isn't substantiated within the context of page 500.

As observed from your talk page, you have a tendency to make your own personal analysis on the given sources. It is against Wikipedia's policies if you haven't notice. And Doug made it clear. The Cambridge ancient history state the following: At Edessa, the Abgarid dynasty was Arab. Arab cults are attested at Hatra (the eagle god Nasr) and at Edessa (the twins Monimos and Azizos). Nevertheless the cultural setting was fundamentally Aramaic.. There's no supposedly, probably or likely. It couldn't be more clearer. Being in predominantly Aramaic cultural environment doesn't correspond with their ethnic origin. Your analysis doesn't matter, mine either. We should reflect what are in the references as much as possible. Please read WP:OR.

Add the page numbers. Remove "supposed" only if in the Cambridge Ancient History it states how they came to that conclusion, if not the text doesn't state that. It doesn't state anything about "SHULITA D'ARB" or even "Sultan", this is original research.

• and then state that a claim made with no substantiation (Cambridge Ancient History), isn't by definition supposed. I will be adding the edition quoted below tomorrow, with the same sources as the previous edit, with "supposed" included. Within the context of the statement, page 500 only confuses Arabic influence, and then the statement that Armenian or Aramaic frequently intermingled only further assert the "supposed" nature of the claim. It would be deceptive to not include "supposed", considering that the claim on page 500 isn't substantiated. If you'd like to restructure the sentence your more than welcome to, but don't remove any contribution.

Cambridge ancient history is one of the utmost authorities written by actual specialists on ancient history, they deal with first hand primary materials and assess on them accordingly. If you read on the history of Edessa you would be aware that SHULITA D'ARB (sultan of the Arabs) is the Abgarids title in the city inscriptions. The "Supposed" part is nothing but a speculation and analysis that contradict the explicit nature of the source which would not be added next to the Cambridge ancient history. I advise you to use the talk page of the article instead of edit warring. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NearEast. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]