Talk:Baqofah

message: I was given permission from baqofa.com to use its content in 2006: 
:From; 00000
:Date; Mon, January 09, 2006 11:33 pm
:To; admin@baqofa.com
:I wanted to also ask you if I can barrow some of the contents you have on your webpage and add it on the internet-based encyclopedia called www.wikipedia.org
:REPLY - admin@baqofa.com wrote;
:As far as borrowing the information about Baqofa. You are welcome to borrow the text information as long as you reference the Author, in this case, baqofa.com. 
Iraqi (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission from baqofa.com

message: An administrator will come to resolve the copyright issue in a few days. Until then, the notice must stay up. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But even when its vandelism? Iraqi (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the tagging was not vandalism. It was requested by the copyright holder through OTRS. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So then where do I post the permission from the copyright holder? Iraqi (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The permission process is set out at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, the permission that you assert you were provided is not usable on Wikipedia as it does not explicitly release the information under GFDL, which not only allows reproduction but also modification. Since the copyright holder did not provide clear license under GFDL and was evidently not advised that permission to reuse also permitted modification, we must respect his e-mailed request, which clearly issues from the administrator of the website, to remove this material from Wikipedia. In several days, unless specific licensing from the copyright holder is provided, this material will be deleted. Unfortunately, since this material has been present since the foundational edit of this article, this means that the entire article must go. There is a link on the article's face to a temporary space in which a new article may be written without this text. The new article may include information from that site, but not sentences or phrases, except in accordance with our non-free content guidelines, which do permit limited direct quotations of copyrighted text. If you have any question about revision, please ask, since if the new version of the article also infringes, it, too, will have to be deleted. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of the regular contributors addressed the matter in temporary space and since verification of GFDL permission has not been forthcoming, I have rewritten the article with some additional sourcing. Information has been incorporated from the previous source, but not language. However, the article could use with improved sourcing, since it relies heavily one one source of unknown authority. I attempted to search google books, but found little usable in English. Perhaps contributors with more appropriate language skills will have better luck. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Material that is challenged needs to be cited to a reliable source. If Chaldean Christians are ethnic Assyrian, it shouldn't be difficult to find a source that says so? Otherwise, since the text has been challenged, we have to stick with what's said in the sources we have. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Given reliable sources, there should be no problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to the recent edit summary, "The source says "The people of Baqofa are Chaldean Christians". It doesn't mention the ethnicity of the people.", I have added a quotation from the site to reference. It does, specifically, say "Chaldean village". I have edited the lead sentence to indicate Assyrian roots, but please find reliable sourcing before changing sourced information. Again, if Chaldean Christians are ethnic Assyrians and there is something to indicate that the designation of this by the sole source as a "Chaldean village" is wrong, it shouldn't be difficult to source that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To see if I could help out with resolving this, I've done more source searching, but I'm afraid that as an English-speaker I have hit a wall. I found a tiny bit more information, which I have added, but I simply can't find anything more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Chaldean Christians are ethnic Assyrian, it shouldn't be difficult to find a source that says so? If you actually read the article "Chaldean Christians" you'll find sources. And even worse when you write "Chaldean village". Redirecting it to Chaldea is totally wrong, Moonriddengirl. Shmayo (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are reliable sources at "Chaldean Christians", then I don't understand why you would keep adding uncited material. Wikipedia articles are each developed individually. One does not stand as a source for another. However, if another article has sources, then that would suggest there are sources you could use.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ethnicity of the Chaldean Christians mustn't necceserary be Assyrian, since we know many Chaldeans self-identify as simply Chaldeans or it could be anything else. The source says Chaldean, the only reason to write anything else is for own POV reasons. The TriZ (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: I will try to explain in simple words and in one paragraph. There is a vigorous movement since 2003 to unite all Christians in Iraq under the name Assyrians for political reasons.  Historically, most Christians in Iraq were united under the name Chaldeans or simply Christians with small minorities here and there. Assyrian extremists where always there and were ignored for the most part but lately they are being supported by  politicians Kurds in north Iraq to gain control over a small valley in Iraq north of Nineveh where most of the Chaldean villages exist today (Tel Keppe, Tel Skuf, Batnaya, Baqofah, Alqosh). The Chaldean people don’t want any territories or land, they simply want to freely practice their religion and simply be called and their villages by a name they have been known by for hundreds of years, going back to references to their names dating back to Marco Polo’s visit to that region.  The conflict over the two names is happening everywhere on the internet and it is unfortunate to see it happening here, for no reason other than the ones I explained above. 
--Chaldean2 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for filling in some of the background. Although, of course, resolving this conflict is well beyond me, it has truly perplexed me. I have not encountered it on Wikipedia before, and it hasn't been highly publicized where I live, some approximately  away. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baqofah Explained