Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Expert

Since this article is being edited by people who are personally involved in one of the various factions of the Syriac people, and supervised by administrators who are no experts in the matter, I strongly believe an expert should be asked in order to get out of the deadlock the article is currently in.

The entire article should be revised, including its title. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Benne, but there is no legitimate issue with the title, that is just your paradigm. I do agree, however, that the entire article needs revision. But sadly, nearly all of the "experts" (if that is what you wish to call them) on the modern Assyrian people are involved with the different religious sects.
What do you believe would qualify a person to be an expert on such a topic as this? --Šarukinu 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Garzo has been involved on this on several occasions and just because YOU don't like it doesn't require someone who agrees with YOU to change it to YOUR liking. You don't want an expert it has many, you want someone to agree with your misconceptions. Sharru Kinnu III 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Benne, I have to agree with Elias that the article by now isn't so bad pov-wise (no thanks to Elias himself, of course, who practically had to be beaten with blunt implements into accepting npov revisions). I realize "Assyrian people" may be seen as taking a position in the "Assyrian vs. Aramaean" thing, but the fact of the matter is that this is simply the most common term adopted in English, before this naming nonsense became so pressing among Syriac factions, and I believe we should keep the article at this name on grounds of MoS (not, it goes without saying, on grounds of taking a position towards Assyrian nationalism) --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is obviously far from NPOV. It is so evident that the entire article is written with the connection with the ancient Assyrians in mind. Just the fact that the Assyrianist flag is shown as being the flag of the Assyrians. Sure, that's true if Assyrians is meant to refer to those Syriacs who identify with the ancient Assyrians, but not if Assyrians is used as a common denominator for all the Syriacs, which you are trying to make me believe. Also other sections try to link Syriacs with Assyria, as if there's no discussion about that, be it scientifically or among the people themselves. Assyrians cannot be used as an umbrella name, and it is not in practice, just for political reasons. In the US Census you can see that, e.g., also among many organisations in the diaspora, where the Syriacs (in its broadest sense) are referred to as Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs.

It should be recognised that:

"Syrians" has throughout been used for all the members of Syriac Christianity (excluding those in India), and that the Syriac equivalent of that name is Sur(y)āye.

"Syriacs" is often used as a modern equivalent of the now ambiguous "Syrians", but that is also used in a narrower sense, referring only to the West Syriacs, i.e. Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics, and some Protestant groups.

"Assyrians" is used in various ways, in narrowest sense as only members of the Church of the East, in a broader sense as people of East Syriac Christianity, i.e., Chaldaean Catholics and Church of the East members, and sometimes as referring to all the people who call themselves Sur(y)āye.

That many Syriacs reject the label Assyrian, and choose to call themselves Aramaeans, which is something different than a "Syriac-Aramaic identity", as you've suggested.

By choosing Assyrians over any other term, you do favour one side over the other, whether you like it or not. Like I stated above, I agree that Syriacs is not a perfect term either, in the sense that is ambiguous because it can refer to all Sur(y)āye or just the West Syriacs. Sur(y)āye (Suryāye, Surāye or Suryoye) is the only name that is used by all Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs, are Suraya/Suroyo. Assyrian isn't at all limited to the Assyrian Church of the East. That's a very false statement. The Assyrian movement is huge in the Syriac Orthodox Church. It has actually gone so far that some Oromoyo fanatic priests refuse to baptise Syriac Orthodox Christians who are Assyrian nationalist. And the same situation is found in the Chaldean Church, where some Chaldean priests are banning Assyrian nationalists amongst them. The article already states that there are some who call themselves Aramaeans. Just check the first ref in the infobox, where it links to the Assyrian naming dispute. Oh and, let's not exaggerate the Aramaean faction? Aramaeanists are constantly struggling within their own church of the Assyrian faction. It's not that huge as you're trying to make it. This article is obviously far from NPOV. It is so evident that the entire article is written with the connection with the ancient Assyrians in mind. — Yes, because they happen to be our ancestors. The article also mentions that Arameans are our ancestors as well. Believe it or not man, but Syriac Orthodox Christians aren't Arameans. Just the fact that the Assyrianist flag is shown as being the flag of the Assyrians. — No shit? What group of people do you think this article is about? Indians? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:01 20 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I briefly wandered over here to get information on Assyrian trading for my article at a glance, and this article needs a lot of work. You don't NEED to be an expert at anything- just use quality, unbiased resources and document them accordingly. This article suffers from a lack of information, reference overuse (I mean how many references in that one section? It looks silly), and badly placed items- and that is without delving into the POV. I was going to come back here and try and do some repairs in a few days, but this seems more of a war zone than a serious effort at getting it right. Monsieurdl 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Assyrians manifested a remarkable degree of linguistic, religious, and cultural continuity from the time of the ancient Greeks, Persians, and Parthians through periods of medieval Byzantine, Arab, Persian, and Ottoman rule.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] - why does this single sentence need 12 sources? Chaldean 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. The quotes in the footnotes need to be eliminated also. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think only credible academic sources should be left in. Remove redundancy. Sharru Kinnu III 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This "war zone" is between those making a "serious effort at getting it right" on one hand, and the [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]-WP:POINTers (aka Elias) on the other. Such is Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter- there will always be those types here, but in the end those who suffer for article greatness shall prevail! :P Monsieurdl 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't want an expert, you want some fanatic Oromoyo priest to rewrite this article and state that Syriac Christians are racially pure Aramaeans. That is what you want. There is no expert on Wikipedia on this issue. The closest we have to an expert is Garzo, and he is not NPOV (though, to his credit, I must admit, he's trying to be). Benne, I hate to break it down to you, but NEWSFLASH: THERE ARE NO ARAMAEANS IN EXISTENCE TODAY. It is of crucial importance that you understand this. I'm sorry, but that is the honest truth. Look, this naming dispute started around 30 years ago. The first wave of Syriac Orthodox Christians from Turkey emigrated to Sweden in the late 60's, early 70's. They founded Assyriska FF. A few years later, another wave of Syriac Orthodox immigrants came to Sweden, and they began their bullshit about us being Aramaeans, by starting Syrianska. That is how it started, basically. It's a tribal conflict that has been going on for 30 years now, and the Halef family are largely responsible. Before that, NO ONE, called himself Aramaean. I am sorry that Oromoyo fanatics brought you in to this, Benne, but it is time for you to knock this off. You have been running around, totally obsessed in this topic for over 2 years now, and you haven't achieved anything so far. The only thing you've done is wasted our time. I can see on the Talk:Assyrian genocide/Archive 1 talk page archive that you tried to rename it to Syriac Genocide, and falsely claimed that it was a neutral title. This is a lie. You know very well that it is not neutral, and you know that the Oromoyo fanatics are trying to make Syriac synonymous with Aramaean. You moved sv:Assyriska folkmordet to Syrianska folkmordet, and you know very well that it is not a neutral title at all. You say that you are not a Suryoyo, if that is true, then this is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. This doesn't concern you. You are not one of us and you should not get yourself involved in this dispute. Mind your own business. Seriously man, knock it off. It's not fun anymore. As for this article being rewritten, it doesn't need a rewrite. It needs some cleanup and to conform to Wikipedia standards (quotes going to remove etc.), but that is basically it. Oh yeah, some more content needs to be added. I liked Dab's recent edits. Something more like that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:03 18 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody to please keep identity disputes out of this, as the objective is to discuss how to improve the article, not the prospect of Assyrian unity. The latter belongs in forum discussions - this is a pseudo-encyclopaedia. I was wondering, is it possible to link to youtube videos for more information? There is a neat series of clips from a documentary on the Assyrians from various indigenous regions (i.e. Hakkari, Khabur).. see: [1], [2], [3]--Šarukinu 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. Those clips are excerpts from the same documentary as the one Richard Nelson Frye is featured in. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:52 19 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unless the copyright holders have given permission for the excerpts to be hosted on YouTube, those clips are arguably copyright violations, and shouldn't be linked to. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we just cite the actual documentary? Shouldn't be a problem if we can just get the name of the documentary. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:29 21 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, Akhilleus. I'm pretty sure the copyright holders haven't given any such permission. But what is Wikipedia's official policy on that? And Elias, how would you go about citing the documentary if all we have are short clips? --Šarukinu 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any official policy, but there does seem to be a consensus that linking to copyright violations is a bad idea. I know some users have been pretty industrious about removing YouTube links, I haven't looked around for the discussions. Citing the documentary by name shouldn't be a problem. (There's also a chance that you could get permission to post clips if you contact the documentary makers.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe their is a Wiki policy against using youtube as a source. Chaldean 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: YouTube, is not, the source. We are citing an actual documentary, not YouTube. A few excerpts happen to be on YouTube. That's all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:14 22 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

The identity of modern Assyrians today with Ancient Assyrians is not accepted as proven or even likely by most objective non-Assyrian historians. Neutrality on this point could easily and inoffensively be achieved by noting the various viewpoints in circulation, the very strong claims of specific Assyrian factions, and the doubts from historians about any of these claims. This would give the various positions a fair hearing without falsely claiming one viewpoint has achieved consensus.Ftjrwrites (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Autonomy and forseeable infighting...

When and not if Iraq is divided into federal regions and quite possibly even later down the lign into sovereign states a war will emerge over this identity crisis if it is not resolved soon. These ludicrous and often hysterical arguments over identiy must be quelled otherwise this will deverge from a verbal conflict onto a physical conflict. The Maronites in Lebanon went to war with each other during the civil war and are divided now between two leaders. This CAN and probably will happen here. Why can't everyone accept that Assyrian is the internationally recognized term for Aramaeans/Syriacs/Chaldeans specifically in English? Who does it hurt to call ourselves Assyrian other than religious fanatics and historical revisionists? Do we need a civil war in an autonomous Assyrian region? Does no one remember history a half a century ago when we actually had an Army allied with the British using the name Assyrian when there was no naming dispute? Does anyone remember that the title of Chaldean and Assyrian switched between the two Churches of the East? Does anyone not see that Assyrian is used in place of Syrian because of Syria? Does anyone remember that Aramaean meant pagan and Syrian meant Christian? Who is trying to revise history? What is this purpose other than political? Sharru Kinnu III 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone not see that Assyrian is used in place of Syrian because of Syria? - this is the point I think many non-Assyrians here don't seem to understand: if their was no Syrian Arab Republic today, I would be calling myslef Syrian in English (Suraya in Sureth of course.) Chaldean 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Maronites in Lebanon went to war with each other during the civil war and are divided now between two leaders. — Not true. The Maronites in Lebanon, along with their Assyrian brethren, went to war against the Lebanese Muslims (i.e., the Arabs), because they started their Jihad against Christians in the country. Google Brigitte Gabriel. By the way, if we get a state, I bet you 100 bucks that all Oromoyo fanatics and those anti-Assyrian Chaldean Catholics will call themselves Assyrians immediately. It's just a temporary dispute in the diaspora, mainly due to stupidity. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:18 18 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read about the Lebanese Civil War... There was fighting towards the end between Muslims vs Muslims and Christians vs Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.247.164 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah the Lebanese civil war was now started by a Jihad, nice ultra-simplification there, Im sure that the massacre of 2000 Palestinian refugees by Christians, helped along by Israel, was a 'Just Crusade' whoever wrote the above must be trully stuck in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.168.106 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Events involving a civil war involve casualties and shameful events from all sides; that's why it is called a civil war- more personal, more involved. If you want to contribute to the article, then do so. If you want to debate the civil war, then I'd look elsewhere. Monsieurdl 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is offtopic, and should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No actually, it's addressing the current crisis on this talk page in allusions. Just because it isn't stated in a direct way doesn't make it off topic. The Lebanese war part WENT off topic but was inteded too. It was just alluding to the fact that this naming crisis is trivial and can be dressed as a much deeper conflict. Sharru Kinnu III 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Does anyone not see that Assyrian is used in place of Syrian because of Syria?"

That's why we use the word "Syriac" in English, not Syrian. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Syriac" was created only 70 years ago by church officals, so that their was no confusion with Syrian Arab Republic. Chaldean (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quell the fighting once and for all

This is the wrong venue. We've reached many consensi and have come up with the current article... now onto other agendas... as soon as I bring back the Soviet Union this time with Babylon as the capital in the Assyrian Soviet Socialist Republic we'll worry about the great purge. (Syriacs and Chaldeans)... for now shut up. lol up but seriously wrong venue. Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus, there has never been reached any consensus whatsoever, and I'm afraid there never will be as long as Google counts are used to determine what the Suryāye are supposed to be called on Wikipedia. Assyrian is a biased misnomer with no scientific basis. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian is a biased misnomer with no scientific basis. - I respect your false opinion, but your just not going to get it your way. Pshena. Chaldean (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus, there has never been reached any consensus whatsoever — For the sake of argument, I'll go along with your statement: there is no consensus, and there sure as hell is no consensus that we are Aramaeans. In fact, I find it funny, that one of the Oromoyo fanatic priests here in Sweden is named, literally, Sennacherib. I guess that's as Aramaean as they come. And another Oromoyo fanatic priest here in Sweden, used to be active in the Assyrian Democratic Organization. I swear, some of the stuff I'm finding out about these dipshit Aramaeans is quite hilarious, but most of all, I'm amazed at the sheer magnitude of stupidity coming from this fictional ethnic group. and I'm afraid there never will be as long as Google counts are used to determine what the Suryāye are supposed to be called on Wikipedia. — Suryaye has been declared, as a fact, to be derived from Assurayu by two completely objective Assyriologists. What's your problem? Have you fallen for the fanatical and religious myth that it somehow magically means Aramaye? Assyrian is a biased misnomer with no scientific basis. — As opposed to the crazy pseudo-Aramaeans who hire the self-proclaimed Assyriologist Megalommatis who believes that northern Europeans are Assyrians? [4] lol. Yeah, some real scientific stuff you Aramaeans got going on. I'm real impressed. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Look Benne, whether you like it or not, this ethnic group is Assyrian. Period. Yes, there are some of us who disagree with this indisputable fact, but they have never been able to prove it. You just have to live with it and accept that Suryaye are Assyrians. Suryaye doesn't mean Aramaye. Our culture has never been Aramaean. Only our language is derived from Aramaic, a language the ancient Assyrians also used very profusely. The fanatical Aramaeans do not in any way have a patent on Suryaye. And you simply have to accept that all Suryaye are ethnic Assyrians, whether they know it or not. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The louder you scream, the less convinced you seem to be. An etymological connection between the words Syria and Assyria is insufficient. Rome and Rum also come from the same root, does that make all Greek Orthodox Romans? So do Deutsch and Dutch, are all the Dutch Germans now, or all the Germans Dutch? Etymology is a very shaky basis for your sheer theory. Read Th. Nöldeke, he also acknowledges the etymological connections, but nevertheless stresses that the Syrians are Aramaeans. And this is but one of the sources. Once again, check out the Urhoy page, there's plenty of irrefutable sources. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutch people are Germanic peoples. They are more or less very close with the Germans. Rum and Rom is not the same thing as our dispute. Read Th. Nöldeke, he also acknowledges the etymological connections, but nevertheless stresses that the Syrians are Aramaeans. — Where does he state that Syrians are Aramaeans? And for the record, Suryaye are not the same as Syrians in Syria. It's possible that the Arabs in Syria are the actual Aramaeans you keep bitching about. But the rest of us are not even from Syria. We have always been Mesopotamians, even the fanatical Oromoyo fanatics are from Mesopotamia, not Syria. I mean, seriously, how the hell are Suryaye in Iran supposed to be Aramaeans? The louder you scream, the less convinced you seem to be. — I wasn't screaming. I just happen to think that the pseudo-Aramaeans are idiots and they should not be allowed to procreate because they are so stupid and filled with religious fanaticism of being a holy people because of the Aramaic language. In an Assyrian state, I would sterilize them all out of spite. lol. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No of course Rome and Rum are not the same, silly, that's exactly my point. But they are etymologically the same, just like Assyria and Syria, probably.

Th. Nöldeke (1871), "AΣΣΥΡΙΟΣ ΣΥΡΙΟΣ ΣΥΡΟΣ", in Hermes: Zeitschr. für klassische Philologie, Volume 5, Issue 3. Especially the last paragraph.

Dream on, about your Assyrian state ... --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind quoting the guy, in English? Dream on, about your Assyrian state — If we set up an Assyrian state, I would make sure the human rights of all Aramaeans would be deeply violated. Sterilisation would be the nicest punishment for any self-proclaimed Aramaean amongst us. I may also consider slave labour for pseudo-Aramaeans. Don't take it personal, though, Benne. I know you got a passion for this fictional Aramaean ethnicity, but I would deal with the pseudo-Chaldeans amongst us in very much the same way. And just for the fun of it, I would make sure that Akkadian Assyrian would be revived and put in use so that no one else in the future would use the Aramaic language as some kind of reason that we are "Aramaeans"... — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[5] Get yourself a German dictionary (and a good shrink). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The science talks for itself. Pretty interesting though how you compare the etymological connection between Syria and Assyria with the connection between Rome and Rum. Interesting, though not surprising. As usual, you so called Arameans (I suppose that's what you call yourself) can't make a distinction between ethnicity and religion. Syria and Assyria refers to names of countries(thus, something to do with ethniticy), as do Rome. But Rum? I think what you are referring to is Rum Orthodox, that is to say, a religious group. There's a difference, you know. The etymological fact is perhaps not an infallible argument in itself, but together with the geographical fact (most Suryaye comes from the region of the old empire of Assyria, not from the region of Aram) and the linguistic fact (many words in the Syriac language are from the Accadian language), you Arameans can't take these facts as mere coincidences. YES, the Suryaye (read: Assyrians) could have migrated to northern Mesopotamia, and YES, you can try to convince us that the Accadian words in the Syriac language are nothing more than a result of Aram defeating Ashur, and therefore the Arameans borrowed a few words from the Accadian language, and YES, the etymological connection can be discussed. Be realistic; could all of these FACTS be coincidences? Answer: No! Shalito (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow the Turks must have been doing us a favor. I totally see why Genocide was necessary. The divided us so much (Byzantines and Turks) that they've succeeded in turning us against ourselves. Me as ruler of Assyrians would have to at the very least unleash the hand of God on all non-Assyrian males until the spoils of war (left over [beautiful] women [ugly ones would parish]) become concubines to us and we would repopulate the earth with Assyrian seeds. That would also solve the worldwide population crisis. Is this what you people want? Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Turks/Kurds, is that they killed the Assyrian nationalists in the Syriac Orthodox Church and left us with these Aramaye idiots. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the official King of Assyria being directly descended of Sargon of Akkad, I call for a genocide immediately on Oromoye. A CALL TO ARMS! I'm kidding of course but seriously this is sad. This is not necessary but this may be the future for sell outs. Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Future for sell outs? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-inflicted genocide. They're going to kill themselves off by continously dividing themselves to the point to where they're going to say we're just American or Swedish or German, etc. Hell, I'm contemplating conversion to Judaism and application for Israeli citizenship just to fight our common enemy. 16:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

That's called assimilation into other cultures. Which is what you'd do if you would convert to Judaism and apply for Israeli citizenship. I would never recommend an Assyrian to convert to Judaism. Why would you want to deny Jesus as our Lord? Also, last I checked, Israel was providing weapons to the Kurds and the Kurds are killing Assyrians with those weapons. Great choice of fighting our common enemy. Which reminds me, these Aramaean crackpots are quite funny: Seryoyo scout in Jerusalem. Watch it and laugh your ass off at Benne's cohorts. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

lol wtf a couple of those chicks in skirts were hot though. I'd get me some Seryoyo ass. lol but seriously I was kidding about the Jewish thing. I would take Israeli citizenship though. I like them better than Palestinians that's for sure. Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Muslims converted by the French and the British.

This article is a lie. Aramaic speaking Christians disappeared from the Middle East Centuries ago and the colonizers converted local Turks and Taught them Pseudo Aramaic and fed them this nonsense Assyrianism. Give up. Come back to your Turkish roots you traitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.247.128 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it down to you, but modern Turks in Turkey are barely of a Turkic race. Most of them are actually Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, and other racial elements. This is what racially pure Turks look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK7V44X-V3c Hardly what modern Assyrians look like. I highly suggest that, if you are from Turkey, you go ahead and DNA test yourself. Chances are your origins is of an Assyrian ancestry, albeit, a Turkified one. You have to learn to differentiate between race and culture (not the same thing). And no, race is not a "social construct", since that is bullshit because there are actual biological differences between different races. In any case, we Assyrians are not Turks. Too bad, pal... — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Megalommatis

Megalommatis is not a WP:RS. He was even up on stormfront recently for his claim that Europeans are Assyrians,[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/assyrian-and-israelite-origin-northern-401379.html] and even the Nazis couldn't take his bullshit seriously. The guy presents himself as: Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, and Islamologist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 49, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. Come on, does anyone really believe that? Which accredited university is this Mr. Genius publishing his expertise for? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Google scholar only amounts to one hit. This guy isn't to be taken seriously and he's most likely a fraud or a con-artist because he makes all these bold statements and self-aggrandizement about himself, presenting himself like a big shot but he's nothing of a kind. Megalommatis should be kept out of every article on Wikipedia since he's no academic source. I'm tired of his attacks on our Assyrian ethnicity and how some moron Assyrians believe what he says and start believing they're Aramaeans because Megalommatis says that we are Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same one that suggested having concentration camps for Iraqi Sunni Arabs? And yet 3rd party users are not seeing how reduculus this whole thing is. This single user (Vegant with his IPs) is ruining Wiki pages, but 3rd party users all care about is following procedures. Give me a break. Chaldean (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the pseudo-Aramaeans are not smart enough to realise that this joke of a fraud is not representing their cause very well, their opinions should be ignored. This con-artist has also been involved in attacks on the Oromo people [6] (not to be mistaken for Oromoyo fanatics though). He's been making a lot of ridiculous statements and his credibility is zero. I think it's quite good though that he's publishing a lot of disingenuous nonsense on aramnahrin because the more people like him on that site the better for us Assyrians. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And his other source is a mirror-website of Wikipedia of the page Arameans. Can this user just get banned from making these edits? If his not being contructive, whats the point of trying to couperate with him. Chaldean (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his indopedia link[7] is an old copy of Aramaeans (link:[8]), which hardly makes it a WP:RS. These antics are signs of bad faith and should not be tolerated. And they're not here to make constructive edits, they're just here to edit war and try to get it their way. If they were here to present their case seriously they would read wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and take it seriously. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

about Megalommatis

I dont care what hi is or what he studied. He´s doing a interview with the person, and what that person is saying is inresting, not what megalommatis are or what he has studied or how many languages he can speek. And stop removing what im writing. Chaldean, you remove everything without any reason. you cant do that. as long as i have sources as backup for the text im writing in the article, you and EliasAlucard dont have any right to remove everything i write!VegardNorman (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone here obviously needs to get acquainted with how Wikipedia works. Try reading WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:QUALITY. We can't accept "sources" here on Wikipedia because you like them or because these "sources" tell you what you want to hear. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and has encyclopaedic standards to maintain and follow, per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. We rely on serious sources, published by people who have at the very least a Ph.D or any similar academic background. Other sources, that are considered fairly reliable, but not necessarily academic, can be accepted. Megalommatis, is not one of those sources. And don't make stuff up, me and User:Chaldean have very good reasons to remove the joke that is Megalommatis, simply because he is not a scholar, but rather, a cheap fraud who claims to be Mr. tough shit yet he doesn't even know what he's talking about in his articles. I find it unbelievable that you aren't even ashamed of bringing this guy up as your supposedly credible source and representing your cause. Have some dignity and don't back up your history with Megalommatis; he writes all kinds of nonsense with no grip on reality. If you keep reinserting this Megalommatis joke, it will be reverted by me and everyone else until you get blocked for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what that person is saying is inresting - how do you want to be taken seriously when you say something like this? Do you even know what an Encyclopedia is? Hint: Its not a Blog. Chaldean (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You should read what he says. stop your false assyrian propaganda.. both of you tries to make every article here inwikiepdia "assyrian". EliasAlucard you are a problem in english wikipedia and also in swedish wikipedia. you try to make all articles in swedish wikipedia assyrian. you try remove the article about Syriacs in both swedish and english wikipedia. cant you just accept that Syriacs is a ethnic group and that you and your friend Chaldean belongs to the Syriacs, descendants to the arameans! 91.126.59.166 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And Megalommatis is still not an academic source. The ethnic group is Assyrian. Even Suryoyo is spelled with a silent Aleph in our church history. We Syriacs are Assyriacs, or more properly, Assyrians. Get over it. Anyway, get it through your head that Megalommatis is not acceptable on Wikipedia. He is not a credible source. Do you at all understand what that means? Believe me, you don't really want this moron saying you guys are Aramaeans because he's a fraud. If you understood any better you wouldn't bring up Megalommatis. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the question is when. Syria and Assyria was not the same thing in Roman times, which is the time the terms "Syriac" and "Assyria" go back to. It is thus no coincidence that the people pushing "Assyrian" tend to be from what once was Roman Assyria, and those who don't are from what once was Roman Syria. There is a division here, and the dispute is real, no matter how much you rant about one side being "wrong". You are right in pointing out that Megalommatis isn't an academic source. You are wrong in pretending that your "silent aleph" has anything to do with the question. dab (𒁳) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And you sir, are most definitely wrong when you claim that only those who are pushing for Assyrian are from "Roman Assyria" and those who aren't are from "Roman Syria". There are Assyrians from Roman Assyria (the so called "Chaldeans") who aren't pushing for Assyrian whereas there are "Chaldeans" who are pushing for Assyrian. And there are those who are from Roman Syria who are pushing for Assyrian. Look, forget about what you read on that Friesian site. It was written by an outsider who has no real understanding of this issue, and while he may be agnostic on the matter whether we are Assyrians or not, he does not know all the details. This isn't a coherent dispute between two cohesive divisions. There are religious factors, nationalistic factors, historical factors, and many other reasons as to why the dispute is the way it is. Don't try to simplify things by generalizing because it's not that simple. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, the preceding silent aleph has everything to do with this question. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Friesian Proceedings

The stuff on the Friesian site is interesting. I found the original article in the Wayback archives. And it is sad to read all those letters of protest that Kelley Ross received, and that moved him to withdraw this information: http://www.friesian.com/notes/assyrian.htm . /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That article does bring up some interesting points but certainly not every detail. For instance, he writes: Self-identified Chaldeans and Aramaeans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists. — This is true, except for the omission of the fact that it's not Assyrians from the Assyrian Church of the East who call "Chaldeans" and "Aramaeans", Assyrians. It's from their own churches where this is happening. There are many Syriac Orthodox Christians who are originally from "Roman Syria" and are Assyrianists. The same is true for the so called Chaldeans. That article seems more like an anti-nationalist essay than trying to actually present all sides. Oh and, this is a funny statement: As descendants of real Aramaeans, the modern Chaldeans are more likely to be related to the real Chaldeans than anyone else, but there is no documentary or historical connection that can be traced after the age of Nebuchadrezzar, when the ethnic Chaldeans had blended into the older Babylonian population, and Aramaic began to be spoken by everyone. — Yes, there's a good reason why there are no documents or any actual proof that modern Chaldean Catholics are descendants of the ancient Chaldeans. It's because we are not. We Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians. It's that simple. And the Chaldean name has only in recent times been attached onto a stock of Assyrians, which has only complicated this issue. He makes bold statements without being an expert on the subject and most of his article is based on hearsay rather than citing academic sources. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and in case you didn't figure it out, that article isn't an objective description of modern Assyrians and our name issue. It's a biased, anti-Assyrian piece of paper, probably written by some Christian fundamentalist who is very biased due to the negative depiction of Assyrians in the Bible, trying to instil feelings of a collective guilt over what our forefathers did against the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel (as if the Israelites themselves were innocent angels), and by mentioning the crimes of our forefathers, trying to make us feel guilty and un-Assyrian. It has false assumptions that modern Chaldean Catholics are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans simply because modern Assyrians have a church called the Chaldean Catholic Church. Self-proclaimed experts who haven't done their homework really shouldn't speak on such complicated issues as this. We modern Assyrians have all the right in the world to identify with the ancient Assyrians and no one has the right to come and use "Assyrian" as a word of shame against us. Unfortunately, the Assyrian ethnicity is under attack not only from this Friesian site, but also from modern Assyrians themselves (so called "Aramaeans" and "Chaldeans"), Kurds (who nowadays claim that modern Assyrians are not Assyrians, but get this, "Kurdish Christians"), Turks, Arabs, and just about everyone else. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Need an edit

Need an admin to restore this article to the last stable version by User:Chaldean, the current version is POV, OR and as can be gleaned from the discussion above, filled with sources that do not pass reliability, and don't even get me started about its poor grammar in the beginning of the lead ("them selfs"). Simply put, the current revision is beyond tolerance. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted, not because of POV or OR (I'm hardly qualified to judge), but because everyone here is using the talk page with the exception of VegardNorman, who has so far declined to talk about his edits save for this barely coherent post that didn't really address the content issues adequately (or at all, for that matter). – Steel 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. Keep it protected for a while, we'll see if this VegardNorman guy can present his case adequately. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Population statistics

Hey, should we use this population chart? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Zenda (an obviously Assyrianist website) a reliable source? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you consider Zinda unreliable, that means Zinda is reliable and flawless. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No I dont think we should use it. I always emphisize on using census provided by each state. And if census date isn't available, then we look for other sources, like Zinda, etc. Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, we don't have census for many countries which this Zinda link covers. I don't see the problem. Benne is of course protesting as usual because it's Zinda and not Aramnahrin but I don't see how that is a problem since this isn't about the name dispute. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously Zinda claiming 400,000 Assyrians live in United States, isn't neutral. Chaldean (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, do you seriously believe there are only 82 000 Assyrians in all of the United States? That's just the recent census, and I seriously doubt every single Assyrian participated in that census. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are more then 82K, but we don't know exactly how much. Thats why I believe it is more apropriate to post most recent census. Its unfortunate the US does census only once very ten years, but oh well, we'll wait in 2010 to see what the population is. Chaldean (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion to use this Zinda link as statistics is not about the US census. I think it should be used where we don't have statistics available. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Perhaps we can post all the smaller countries in teh Assyrian diaspora page. Chaldean (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use this report, one of the best, it deals with all countries so it is not biased. Also Assyrian population is much closer to this report than what is available elsewhere. This report tell us that there were 4250000 Million Assyrian worldwide in 1994, so if we apply annual growth rate %2.6 (Close to the percentage of Iraq) and end in 2007 we should have 5933413 Million Assyrian in 2007. Joe Warda (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 The Report
 http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aii
 The tool to calculate growth 
 http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php


 I propose to change the total number of Assyrian worldwide on the front 
 page to 5933413 if nobody have any problem to discuss, show you're support 
 or show you're apposition.

POV

The article starts with "The Assyrians (also called Syriacs or Chaldeans; see names of Syriac Christians)...". It starts by saying that Assyrians are sometimes called Syriacs or Chaldeans, meaning that all Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians. This is indeed POV. EliasAlucard also reverts the edits and keeps the pov-pushing, I suggest he stops that. The TriZ (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take it up with dab.[9] — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. What part of our identity is not negotiable don't you understand? Chaldean (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's great that User:VegardNorman, threatens with more persistent vandalism if the article doesn't conform to his world view.[10] I think this can get him banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Like you did in swedish wikipedia you mean Elias? And I dont really care who wrote it, im just pointing it out. And Chaldean, you should read about writing NPOV and what it means. What you think is the truth about the subject is NOT interesting, keep your radical thoughts of yours for yourself. The TriZ (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to follow your own suggestions. You keep your revoluationary thoughts out of here. What you do in Swedish wiki has no effect on other language Wikis. Chaldean (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather say their thoughts are reactionary, not revolutionary. And pointing to WP:NPOV, when you haven't even read it yourself, is pointless. There's no way that User:VegardNorman or User:The TriZ are in compliance with any serious wikipedia policy. They're just here to revert war and vandalise stable articles so that they can get it their way. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And why are you changing subject? Is it or is it not POV what is written in the start of the article? And have you or have you not reverted any edits of thtat POV start? The TriZ (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not. It is written with citations that Syrian is dirivited from Assyrian. Chaldean (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, what? Are you WP:STALKing me? Cause you always try to change subject when im asking serious questions about articles. Like your afraid of wakening up and realize, "hey, maybe im really not an ancient assyrian like all the objetive experts are saying". Neverless, the article opens with "The Assyrians (also called Syriacs or Chaldeans; see names of Syriac Christians)...", which is clearly POV when your assuming in the beginning of the article that Syriacs and Chaldeans are all Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously what is your problem? Can you not follow? For the last time, the first sentence is not POV, because its backed with multiple sources in the article. Chaldean (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For once and for all, SYRIAC ARAMEANS ARE NOT ASSYRIANS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE NON-SUBJECTIVE EXPERTS (Sebastian Brock, Witold Witovski, Otto Jastrow, Bengt Knutsson and if course many more) SAYING IT, WHAT YOU THINK IS NOT INTERESTING AND SHOULD NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE ARTICLES. Sorry about CAPS, but maybe you can see what im writing then. The TriZ (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually read Brock state explicitly that we are Aramaeans, from a racial point of view. He has stated that we have an Aramaean cultural heritage, as in language. That's not the same as being an Aramaean and falls under WP:OR. Hopefully though, by the end of this century, the Aramaic language will be extinct and the curse of this language (i.e., the falsely reconstructed Aramaean identity) will disappear from the Assyrian people along with the neo-Aramaic language. Our Assyrian ancestors truly cursed us by adopting the Aramaic language. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep on dreaming, Brock has have lectures across the world about the Syriac Aramic heritage. But you probably have seen this [11]. Im sure that will answer alot. The TriZ (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what does a wiki encyclopaedia without much content and filled with amazon.com advertisement, have anything to do with this? The only one seriously working on this Beth Mardutho wiki, is User:Garzo,[12] And yes, I've seen it before; you still fail to realise that Syriac is not an ethnicity, it's a language used by an ethnic group, and the majority of this ethnic group doesn't identify as Aramaeans. And fortunately, it's not a dream, but a reality which seems inevitable at the moment that the neo-Aramaic language will die out. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are funny in a unaware way, check this to [13]. The TriZ (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And the only one working on it is still Garzo. Yes, he's not the only one registered, but he's working on it pretty much alone. Again, what does Beth Mardutho have to do with this? Do they have an article about the Assyrian naming dispute? Why are you bringing it up here? Is this some bragging nonsense? How is Beth Mardutho at all relevant to this discussion? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there are several highly educated experts saying that the Syriac people are not ethnic Assyrians. Showing that this article is strongly POV right from the start of it. The TriZ (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And there are more "highly educated" people saying that we are Assyrians. By the way, you guys don't own "Syriac". It's not yours. Whether you like it or not, a large majority of the Syriac-speaking Christians, identify as Assyrians. This is an indisputable fact. The entire Church of the East, identifies as Assyrians. That's around 500 000 to 600 000 or so adherents. Beside that, the Ancient Church of the East, identifies as Assyrians. The Chaldean Catholic Church, is divided, but a huge portion of it still proudly stick to the fact that they are Assyrians. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Catholic counterpart, the Syrian Catholic Church, although not universally, identify as Assyrians. So what we have left is a tiny portion of the Syriac-speaking Christians, who reject their Assyrian identity, based on a mistranslation of Aram into Syria, in the bible. We have another group, of Syriac-speaking Christians, who seriously believe they are descendants of the Chaldean dynasty (which is more fiction than fact). All in all though, most of us, are of the opinion that we are Assyrians. Yes, there are those of us who disagree with this, but that's a POV without authority and held by an insignificant minority. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously reading what you are writting? "insignificant minority"? The Syriac Orthodox Church and its people identify as Syriacs (Arameans). Which are these "people" that are saying we are Assyrians. Yildiz? The Assyrian himself. Frye? The iranist with an Assyrian wife. Parpola? Who makes his living saying we are Assyrians. Brock has no reasons to say we are Arameans, with a MA at Cambridge, a Ph.D. at Oxford and also a fellow of the British Academy I personally trust him more than any of your sources. And as shown, he is absolutely not alone. Which is a proof of that many experts in the area are saying that our people are ethnic Arameans. So you saying "All Syriacs are Assyrians, end of discussion", is just silly and ignorant by you and a proof of how you are not suitable to edit these articles. Lay off is my advice, and I believe most people here agree on that (and spare ous all comments about user:VegardNorman's edits, you aren't better). I also suggest, which is the first thing I wrote, that the start of this article should be changed. The TriZ (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Brock has close relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church. He has every reason in the world to bullshit our ethnicity. And please point out, specifically, where he has stated that we are ethnic Aramaeans. Until then, do not one more time repeat that statement. Claims of a cultural heritage is not the same as ethnicity. The ancient Assyrians and the Babylonians, had a Sumerian cultural heritage. But they were not ethnically Sumerians. Likewise, Americans today have arguably a Graeco-Roman cultural heritage, but guess what? They are neither Greeks nor Romans. Furthermore, Cavalli-Sforza, one of the best geneticists in the world, has stated in his DNA tests about the Assyrians: they are Christians and are possibly bona fide descendants of their namesakes.[14] I take that any day of the week over Brock. Brock's opinion is not interesting anyway. All he knows is church history, he doesn't know much beyond that. Believe it or not, but our roots aren't limited to early Christianity. By the way, I think you should read Fred Aprim's book the continuous saga (ISBN 1413438571). I'm reading it right now, and I can only say that we are beyond a shadow of a doubt, Assyrians. Oh and yes, the pseudo-Aramaeans are of course an insignificant minority pretty much only existing in northern Europe. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From swedish wikipedia, "Syrologen Sebastian Brock hävdar istället att dagens syriska kristna inte har något med de forntida assyrierna att göra, utan att denna benämning uppstått de senaste 150 åren. Han hävdar också att folkgruppen har en arameisk identitet, och att benämningen assyrier "ignorerar det rika och varierade uråldriga arameiska arvet som alla syriska kyrkor har legitim rätt till"." Let me translate it to those who doesn't understand. It says Brock claims that todays Syriac christians has nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians, and that it is a term that has arosed the last 150 years. He also claims that the group has an Aramaic identity, and that the term Assyrians ignores the rich and vary old Aramaic legacy that all Syriac churches has legitimate right to. The TriZ (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Swedish Wikipedia is not an authority, and doesn't count as a WP:RS (especially, seeing how sv:Användare:Oromoyo has changed the numbers, from 1500 to 150 years). I happen to have the scanned image here, and Sebastian Brock, states that "Suryoye" is not an ethnic designation, but rather, a religious one. He claims that "Oromoye" is an ethnic designation, which is of course nonsense, since it's not even in use by 80% of the ethnic group in question. He also, quite obviously, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, when he states that the ethnic designation "Assyrian" lacks historical context, because it clearly doesn't. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's bribed by the Syriac Orthodox Church to conjure up lies (both options are actually possible). Try reading some other literature. I suggest you get yourself a copy of Fred Aprim's book. In that book, Aprim cites numerous scholars, historians, and many many other experts in the field, who clearly prove that the Assyrian ethnicity, is a reality. And there was no such thing as "Suryoyo Oromoyo" in the Ottoman empire. It was Suryoyo Othuroyo, as attested by Horatio Southgate, and the Armenian nation. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think i can't mention more names, but it's just ridicolous to do so. They who call themselfs Suryoye are also Oromoye. In Sweden for example, in syriac language, you call a Syriac-Aramean Suryoyo and a Assyrian Othoroyo. Also there are some whom are called Assori. And suggesting that Brock is bribed or stupid, I just won't comment on that... The TriZ (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

move

I agree with the move. I have had it with the pathetic nomenclature nonsense. I frankly don't care that these people call themselves, but if they must make a spectacle of themselves by public in-fighting, we'll have to settle for a slash-solution. dab (𒁳) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is extremely flawed, dab. You want them to cease their acknowledged vandalism,[15] by appeasing them and move the page to their preferred version, in order to make them stop the nonsense. This rationale is against Wikipedia policy, and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is not at all common (only in Sweden, due to political correctness from the Swedish government) and moving this page would violate WP:COMMONNAME and you know that. I suggest an indefinite block on User:VegardNorman because he has acknowledged that if he doesn't get it his way, he will continue with vandalism. This should not be tolerated. Appeasing him with a move is not how Wikipedia operates. This is the same rationale Internet trolls like the Gay Nigger Association of America justified when they got their article deleted from Wikipedia; the choice between allowing their article undeleted on Wikipedia or unleashing more vandalism on Wikipedia if they didn't get it their way. It's the same thing with User:VegardNorman, and you dab want to give into it and relent for the sake of a vandal account. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with vandalism. Even the official US census files the group under under the slashy "Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans". If that's the solution chosen by US authorities, it is bloody well arguable for the purposes of Wikipedia. If VegardNorman breaks the 3RR he'll be blocked like everybody else, but the move proposal has its merit. dab (𒁳) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If were going to follow census, then the US is the ONLY COUNTRY in this world that does that. What about all of the other countries that lists Assyrian only? They are going to get powered by the US alone? That doesn't make any sense. For the last time, our ethnicity is not negotiable. This is so silly. Its like going to the Greek people page and suggesting it to move to Greeks/Macedonians. We need to all calm down and use common sense. Chaldean (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit summary of User:VegardNorman's last edit on the article: Let both groups be united. the term Assyrian/Syriac unites both groups and there will be no more vandalism, because now everyone is satisfied, or else the vandalism will continue..[16] How can this be tolerated? He's basically saying: do as I say, or else we will continue vandalising this article until I get it my way. That's beyond tolerance. Regarding the US census, that's no authority on this matter. The slash solution that was put forth was nothing but a politically correct compromise, without taking a stance on the dispute. Before that, all Chaldean Catholics, and all Syriac Orthodox Christians were categorised under Assyrian in the US census. What matters here is the authority of scholars, academics, Assyriologists, and other people with an authoritative insight on this ethnic group, and that's what we should adhere to. Very few, if any, calls teh ethnic group in question, "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". It's either "Assyrians" or their ecclesiastical denominations' designation (i.e., Chaldean, Syriac or Assyrian). And according to WP:COMMONNAME policy, this article should be Assyrian on the basis of the common name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL vis-à-vis Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (notice that I added "people" in order to single out references to the ancient ethnic groups by the same name(s)). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Second time your deleting what im writting in discussions today. Seems you dont want people to see this [17], talking about user:VegardNorman should get endless banned. The TriZ (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Let other decide if it should be deleted or not, fourth time you do it now. The TriZ (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, follow the US census. But it will not put an end to the conflict. Next thing they will continue arguing about names of languages, genocides and whatnot. It is a pathetic waste of energy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this article should not follow the US census. It is a pathetic waste of energy. — Couldn't have said it better myself. And it's equally pathetic to move this article to Assyrians/Syriacs because it won't stop from there. In any case, WP:COMMONNAME applies here, not the US census. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point here is, the US census is subject to change and should not be considered an authority on this because there are many other censuses conducted by other countries, and they don't list the ethnic group, after religious denominations. "Chaldean", is a religious denomination. Likewise, is "Syriac", a religious denomination (even though, it originally has a different etymology). The ethnic group in question, is Assyrian. DNA researchers, Assyriologists, historians, and many other experts, simply do not call this ethnic group, "Assyrians/Syriacs". We Assyrians dislike this compound name, for many reasons. We don't want to be bunched together as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Aramaeans/Phoenicians/" because it looks stupid. The notion that this compound name would achieve unity is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Also, the US census is very politically motivated. A good example is how "white" was replaced with "European American" in the 1970's. This is, obviously, because of political reasons and Wikipedia has no obligation to cater the US census for not being able to make up its mind. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is purely about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), not about "negotiating ethnicity". It is irrelevant what the "Assyrians" are called in Bulgaria, beucase that will be in Bulgarian. We are interested in what they are called in English. I daresay the official US census is a notable source for this question. Assyrian people is an arguable title, but it is unacceptable to have this discussion dismissed out of hand as invalid by partisan editors. The US census uses the slashes in the interest of neutrality. We should, nay must, consider similar solutions, for identical reasons. The US census calls them "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", which is as authoritative and as neutral as any English language source you're likely to find. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The US census, a few years ago, listed the ethnic group, as Assyrian. This applied to Chaldean Catholics as well as Syriac Orthodox Christians. After pressure from religious leaders (mostly from the Syriac Orthodox Church, but also some from the Chaldean Catholic Church), the US census was changed in order to appease a few religious nutjobs. And English Wikipedia is not solely an American Wikipedia. It's an international Wikipedia. The compound name is rarely in use by the ethnic group itself, and it shouldn't be used here either, because that's not how this ethnic group is called in colloquial speech, and neither by the experts. Kevin B. MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, in his research, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Cavalli-Sforza, a DNA researcher, in his DNA tests, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Simo Parpola, an Assyriologist, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Academic and scientific study, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. That's what Wikipedia should reflect. Not politically correct appeasement of religious denominations. And the US census is simply not common, and the way US authorities handled the issue, they should be ashamed of themselves for not investigating further into the matter, but rather chose a "neutral" compound title. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"a few religious nutjobs" is your view of the dispute. A dispute in which you are very much involved, as is well known. WP:COI. I am agnostic which term is "better", "Assyrians" is certainly arguable, as is "Syriac Christians" and other possibilities. "Assyrians" is misleading, because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians. Since it is also (hotly) disputed, a compromise solution like the one of the US census seems best. It's really irrelevant to anyone but the involved fanatics, but sadly we'll have to settle for some title. Elias, I ask you once again to stop to bring up irrelevant items like genetics or Assyriology into this question of nomenclature. I will ignore any further posting mentioning Cavalli-Sforza or Parpola: they have nothing to do with this. dab (𒁳) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We are interested in what they are called in English - They are callled ASSYRIAN in English! Obviously you ignored the google results to prove that. I think you don't even know what was the main reason for the US Census to move to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. The biggest push for this was done so by American Maronite Lebanese leaders who refused to be listed as Arabs. So actually, changing it would be even more wrong, since this page does not deal with Maronites. In reply to your comment of because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians - there is no confusion, it is perfectly clear why today Assyrians call themselves Assyrians - because of connection to the ancient Assyrians. THe article explains this later, with sources and there (the Assyrians) view and notable scolars that back them up, as well as neutralizing it by bringing the other side of the arguement as well (rejecting the identity.) Once again, I strongly disagree with the name changing. Chaldean (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the "Assyrians" are called in Bulgaria - English is the offical language in Canada, and in there census they use Assyrian alone. It just doesn't make sence for the US statistics beraue to be the mother of all answers. Chaldean (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Elias, I ask you once again to stop to bring up irrelevant items like genetics or Assyriology into this question of nomenclature. I will ignore any further posting mentioning Cavalli-Sforza or Parpola: they have nothing to do with this. — Is this you acting professionally, dab? How can you state that genetics and Assyriology is irrelevant in an issue like this? It's extremely relevant to the matter at hand. Whether you want to accept it or not, this naming dispute is not at all, exclusively about a title to designate a group of people ("Unicorn (ethnic group)"; your proposal, sarcastically implying that we are a fictional ethnicity). It is about, lineage and descent, first and foremost. The name issue is a result of the question of descent. The US census listed the ethnic group as Assyrian, for decades. Even as far back as the late 19th century, all Syriac Orthodox Christians (which was the predominant Assyrian stock in America at the time), were listed as Assyrians and were proud of it. The US census is not static, and could likely, change back to Assyrian any time soon. Bottom line is, there should be an article entitled Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, but it should be on topic and about the US census and the controversy that arose out of it when Assyrian was changed to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", not primarily about the ethnic group. There's a lot of sources we can glean from and write an article out of regarding the US census. Fred Aprim writes about it in his book, Zinda Magazine has written about it, and I'm sure there are some documents available somewhere from the US government regarding the US census. "Assyrians" is misleading, because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians. — With this rationale, you should propose a name change on the article, German people, because it's misleading and leads to confusion with the ancient Germanic tribes in Magna Germania. Come on, seriously? Since it is also (hotly) disputed, a compromise solution like the one of the US census seems best. — No, Assyrian is not at all hotly disputed. No one has really managed to successfully prove that we are not the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. This compound title is just yet another attack on Assyrians and it's just another way to make it appear (in a misleading way) that we aren't Assyrians. Wikipedia should reflect authoritative research regarding this ethnic group, such as, Cavalli-Sforza and Parpola. Not appease religious nutjobs for the sake of political correctness. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The amazing world of semantics. The letters *tree* map to a notion. The notion maps to an entity.

"sarcastically implying that we are a fictional ethnicity" -- you didn't understand a word I was saying. Time for you to read up old de Saussure and get a grasp of a neat little idea known as l'arbitraire du signe. I really see no point in debating any further on this level. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dab, but I don't happen to be a mind reader, and I certainly cannot read your mind. We have an article, entitled European American. This, mostly because of the US census. THere's a very good case to have an article entitled Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs, but it should not be this one, and it should be about the US census (which is arguably a notable event as far as the US census is concerned). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

DNA Section

Assyrian DNA section is totally inaccurate in my opinion, where it refers to them being the natives of Iraq. The actual sources do support that Assyrians are a totally different ethnic group from Arabs, but it also shows that Assyrians are genetically closer to Jordanians than Iraqis, and there is no proof what so ever that they are the sole Natives or even the actual decendant of the Mesopotamian people, rather that they are genetically closed, ethnically differentiated and genetically very close to Jordanians.

This does not constitute proof of them being decendants of the Mesopotamian people - rather almost contradicts that with their genetic and ethnic closeness to the Jordanians who are not Mesopotamian people. Also, aramaec is not the original language of the Assyrian people untill they were converted to Christianity in the 'Aramaicisation' period were they extensively intermarried with the Aramaic populations of the Levant, supported by many ancient texts. The populations of Mesopotamia have themselves also extensively intermarried, so they should at least share some closeness to the Arabised Mesopotamians from Babylonia in Iraq oif the are indiginous mesopotamians which they don't. I removed that section untill reliable sources can be given. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

and there is no proof what so ever that they are the sole Natives or even the actual decendant of the Mesopotamian people - the proof is the language they speak. That goes without saying. You don't need a source to prove Assyrians are indeginious to the region. Thats like wanting prove Greeks are indegenious to Athens. Chaldean (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Language DOES NOT constitute race nor ethnicity, they are totally different things. It is similar to saying that Spanish-speaking Latinos are indiginous to Spain, it is totally wrong. Also, Aramaic was NOT the language indiginous to the area of nothern Iraq, but rather the Levant, thus Jesus speaking it, so by your point, they are rather indiginous to the Levant. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. You must not be aware that Aramaic became the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and Persian empire. Assyrian kings from 1362 BC and forward spoke only Aramaic - from Nineveh (Northern Iraq.) And, yes, language for what defines an ethnicity (look at the article.) Universal languages such as Spanish and English are totally a different situation. Chaldean (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No Langua Franca itself does not constitue ethnicity, ethnicity is defined by race please read THAT article. Languages come and go, and change offen, just like they did in Assyria, so are no evidence of racial relationship. Arabic and Kurdish are now the lingua franca of that region, so how do we know their language did not change again? Plus there IS NO genetic proof that they are the actual decendants of the original Mesopotamians, and THAT is what constitutes ethnicity, not a language which most probably stayed with them due to religion as with most of their culture. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are really disturbing and I'm beginning to think your a suck-puppet. Chaldean (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nabuchadnessar's reverting is disruptive, but the points he's making about language are sound. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No they are not. The user outright claims there is absolutly not proof of connection between the ancient Mesopotamia and today's Northern Iraq. Yet the page has clearly balanced the two sides (for and against) with credible sources that the user is removing because its crap. Chaldean (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read a bit more closely, Chaldean--I said that the points he's making about language are sound. What language a group speaks today isn't necessarily evidence of its genetic affiliation with an ancient group that spoke a related language. As for "ethnicity", that's mostly a matter of self-definition (or group definition, I guess I should say), but good luck trying to get anyone to adopt an impartial position about ethnicity on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Akhillus for rewording my views better. I stick by my opinion and wont do any more distruptive edit. I would like to dispute the neutrality of this article as many sources are from Assyrian nationalist or Assyrians themselves were in our culture it is so much grander to think of oneself as being decendants of an ancient people. I also believe this article is suggestive of that they are indeed decendants merely on bases of language, without balancing that out with the alternate opinion of language has no relations to genetics (in this case I believe it is more to do with religion). This article also fails to clearly point out that there is no conclusive genetic data (ie comparing modern assyrian genetics with those of ruins - if any exist). Merely being different genetically does not automatically mean they are decendants of the ancients, and besides which it's a fact that most Mesopotamian peoples became assimilated with newer peoples, so why are assyrians so different? I just got a message saying I'm suspected of sockpuppetting or whatever. I'm new here and would appreciate help on what to do to prove that otherwise and place somesort of complaint against whoever wasted my time. Many thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't reply to your message until the results for sockpuppeting come out. And now I am even further confident that your VegandNorman. Chaldean (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, you accuse everyone of being puppets? If you seriously believe this user is VegardNorman, then truly there is something wrong with you. By the way, Chaldean wrote this about VegardNorman before, "Now, this user as well is his possible suck puppet User:The TriZ..." The TriZ (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks The TriZ for that info, I appreciate it. Although I have written on the case page that I believe these allegations are frivilous, I am more than glad to do an IP check or whatever to prove these allegations are wrong, even if it slightly compromises my privacy. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what to do next with the sock-puppetree case. Can an admin please help me what steps to take next? If I do the IP check and it comes out negative, am I entitled to lodge a complaint against Chaldean? And finally if Chadean continues to refuse to discuss here until the sockpuppetree case is finished, how do I go about editting it as no-one else seems to disagree. Many thanks in advance Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been some time and no-one is answering me - typical of Wikipedia it seems. This is the last chance for discussion until I edit this article to how I see will make it more just and less biased. Admins please discuss here rather than reverting my edits and calling them vandalism, as no-one seems to raise any arguement against them. I am getting the impression some Admins hold biased beliefs themselves and are just editing to what the want without proper explanation. I have tried contacting admins but got no response, so please discuss here or tell me where else to discuss edits. To say my opinion again, I believe this article wrongly protrays the Assyrian peoples as the direct and only decendants of the ancient Mesopotamians with no conclusive genetic proof but rather on the simple bases of language, which is defferent to ethbnicity. If they want to call themselves Assyrians that is OK, as ethnicity is self-determined, but decent is not. The first source on the DNA section even shows that Assyrians are genetically very close to Jordanian Arabs, which has been conviently ignored by the Assyrianist authors of this page. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguement. Has there been a DNA test done one Greeks to connect them to Ancient Greece? Of course not since it is impossible. To use language and culture to connect a group of modern people to ancient time is typical by scholars as that is what its used to connect modern Armenians to ancient Armenians (and so forth.) The page at its current state is neutral in that it makes the arguement for the connection (by bringing up several scholars that have agreed on the connection) and also mentions how other scholars deny the connection. The DNA test show that Assyrians are close to Jordanian Arabs - and what conclusion are you making from this? Did you ever thought the Jordanian Arabs are close to Assyrians, and not the other way around? As in, perhaps they might have Assyrian blood in the genetics? Lastly, just curious, why have you created an account with the name of a Chaldean-Babylonian king? Just wondering. Chaldean (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank god finaly! I am trying to say that there is NO CONCLUSIVE proof that they are geneological decendants, but rather Bon Fide or ethnicly decendants, as ethnicity is self-determining. This article is unjust and full of POV from Assyrianist scholars who blindly proclaim Assyrians are the only GENEOLOGICAL decendants of ancient Mesopotamians only on the bases of language and culture, but those things have nothing to do with genetics, like the example of Hispanics. I believe POV has no place in Wikipedia, especially this controversial topic, and they should rather simply give the facts to make it neutral - ie 'Assyrians are Bon Fide (good faith) decendants of the ancient Assyrians' rather than 'Some wanker (whose Assyrianist) says they are the only decendants of the Assyrians'. There are genetic tests - especially from the National Geographics institue (like 37 marker mtDNA) which can be used, as it can be compared with bone-tissue mtDNA (I think it's because if the tough properties of Mitochondria - that they don't decay like cells or something like that) from ancient preserved samples of Mesopotamians. The closeness of the DNA can determine the liklihood of relations/geneological decent. I'm not too sure about the exact mechanics of it all, but you can go to the National geographic's Ethno-geographic project site and check it out. And for my name, well it's a long story: I am an Arab, and after a bet with an ignorant idiots I know, decided to get a DNA test to show that I am a closer decendant to the first Muslim tribes (who some say are related to Prophet Muhammed and his family) despite being Athiest. The results I got showed that my ancestors moved into Iraq from the Arabian Peninsula about 3500 BC - way before Islam/Arabs, and the suggested ethnicity on it was native Mesopotamians. Interestingly too, in the geneological break-down, I'm also like 13% Jewish, but only 12% Arab :D ! I'm thinking of doing another DNA test to cofirm they didn't get mine mixed up or something, in the future when I have the money to spend again. Anyway, you can see why I chose that name. May I ask about you name? Why you chose your ethnicity as you name, because I haven't met anyone else who for example calls themselves 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Aryan' or 'Black' without assuming they're supremacist nutjobs lol :D . Nabuchadnessar (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean makes some excellent points. We can easily simply say that the genetic similarities for those Arabs and the Assyrians are so because they were Arabized, Islamicized - there is, after all, plenty of historical accounts of the upward sweep of Arab conquests after Islam, correct? Unless we happen to have King Sargon I's DNA lying around somewhere and compared modern day samples with those?

While language certainly does not define ethnicity in racial terms, it certainly defines it culturally, and if the language is a modern version of an ancient one, it alludes to continuity of a nation/ethnic group/race. There is no such thing as racially pure humans, with PERHAPS the exception of remote indigenous tribes in very, very isolated areas, and even then, "racial purity" only means they are genetically almost identical to each other, but with little knowledge as to whether they have "mixed" - for lack of a better word, with "others".

Modern day Assyrians have lived in Mesopotamia since time immemorial. They have not moved. They speak a modern version of Aramaic/Akkadian (e.g., if the British speak "New English", Assyrians speak "New Aramaic/Akkadian"). They are adherers to the same faith with the Assyrians converted to 2000 years ago, with the same church(es) - later came the Orthodox and Catholic denominations. To discuss DNA as the principal deciding factor as to the only testament to their "Racial" purity and whether they "really are the descendants" is off-topic: no one is racially pure, especially in the Middle East, and since the other factors I have just listed actually exist and define this group of people, it is as good a claim to being the descendants of the Ancient peoples and of the land as the Palestinians claim to Palestine, the Greeks to Greece, or the Coptics to Egypt. And not even all of those groups have kept their original language (i.e., Copts). Yet no one claims their "descendency" is subject to negotiation through DNA tests.

The Assyrians, subject to different religious denominations and, therefore, the inevitable identity politics which naturally follows, are seemingly subject to special rules when identifying themselves. The ONLY variable differentiating them from other nations - (i.e., Serbs, Greeks, French, English, etc.) in the world which declare their ancestry is the very religious institutions which have maintained their language and culture. Can anyone claim Croatians and Serbians are somehow ethnically distinct? Not likely, but one is Catholic, and the other, Orthodox. Enter religio-ethnicism - the story of the Assyrians.

The DNA testing of Assyrians also shows that they are closely related to each other (from the various areas of Mesopotamia) but distinct from Turks, Kurds, other Arabs. Specifically, the DNA testing showed: "The closest genetic relationships of the Assyrians are with the native populations of Jordan and Iraq" - the native populations, meaning those which trace their ancestry to those geographic region to at least 500 years prior (as they defined it)....remember also that "Iraq" and "Jordan" refer to modern day borders, which have little to do with how the area defined itself prior to colonialism. This, of course, discounts subsequent Arabs and others coming into the area from other places. (see: The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East, Dr. Joel Elias). 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Waleeta

I agree with a lot of your point Waleeta, but the point I was trying to raise is that the Assyrians are not by far the ONLY decendants of the Mesopotamians (decendants I mean genetically not culturally etc...), especially if you keep in mind that most Arabs in Iraq and the Leventine are Arabized native populations rather than geological decendants of the Arabians, so most can also trace their ancestory to Iraq for thousands of years. And as much as you want us to respect your cultural ethnicity claim (remember ALL ethnicity is self-determining, and not necessarily geneological), we ask that you respect ours (Arab Iraqis), as most of us also claim to be decendants of the ancient peoples there, and I for one, have geneological factor (btw does that qualify as a source to prove my point if needed) - rarely any Iraqi Arabs now claim decent from the Arabian peninsula, especially with new Iraqi Nationalism. I can't see why their ethnicity cannot be respected equally, and the part of this article which says or suggests Assyrians are the ONLY decendants of the Mesopotamian peoples changed, to rather say, for example, 'The Assyrians are Bon Fide decendants of the Ancient Assyrians/Mesopotamians'. I will happily settle for that, then I'll go about changing the Article on Iraqis in it's different discussion to accomidate the Iraqi Nationalist view if it doesn't already do so. Just doing my bit to help Wikipedia before uni starts. ;) Nabuchadnessar (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think some people get confused by the DNA section, it only tells us that Assyrians are a rather inbred group, not who they're descended form. As for Arab Iraqis, they are probably mostly descnded from the Christian population, as well as Arabised Iranians and Kurds (with Arab admixture). Funkynusayri (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man, yeah, I forgot to add the Arabized Persians, Kurds and Turks - plus a whole load of other races. :D Strangely, most still manage to keep record of everyone's family's decent, so I don't think we Arabs might be any better and less inbred - but I have no genetic data on it - the source seems to mainly focus on the Assyrians. So I think the PoV assumption should be removed, and replaced by the actual facts - they are relatively a genetically-closed community and there DNA is considerably different from Arabian Peninsula Arabs, and similar to Indiginous Iraqi and Jordanian populations. I'm sure our readers could draw their own conclusions, rather than feeding them that of someone else - especially since it can easily be mistaken for fact. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been pretty much resolved. For the remainder of it and the resolution, please go to my talk page and Chaldean's talk page, with the Assyrian DNA sections. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Population

SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) says that there are 80.000 "Syrianer"(Syriac-Arameans)/Assyrians living in Sweden, not Assyrians. It is generally known that there are more Syriac-Arameans then Assyrians in Sweden. This article is about Assyrians. Not Syriac-Arameans. Therefore the population written in the infobox is wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just double checked that source, and I agree, it does say "Syrianer".Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Europe is tricky, since most countries don't take ethnic cencus, let alone having a reliable source. Earlier in the project, we pledged that we would only use offical census from each nation, and to the ones that do not have census, the most reliable source available should be used. Chaldean (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Chaldean, but I think you should find the right sources before making the statement - rather than writing what appeals to you then going out to find the sources which is inaccurate and unreliable - and will end up making the whole of Wikipedia a free-for-all. I suspect this is what has been done in the majority of this article. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Syrianer" is Swedish. The common English term is "Assyrians". Same thing. The Swedish article is at sv:Assyrier/syrianer. This would correspond to a compromise solution like Syriac/Assyrian people on en-wiki. This is just terminology, the group referred to is one and the same. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)dab,

"Syrianer" is the Swedish word for those who refers themsels as Syriac-Arameans. Those whom call themselfs Assyrians are refered in Swedish to "Assyrier". The TriZ (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In Sweden, what about those who don't identify themselves with neither Assyrian or Aramean, but rather just Syriac (Suraya/Suroyo), what do they call themselves in Sweden? Chaldean (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no word for that in Swedish. There are some people who doesn't care about either they are Assyrian or Aramean if course, but in Swedish they would call themselfs either "Syrianer" or "Assyrier". Basically the word "Syriac" is translated to "Syrianer", though the word is used by the Aramean faction, so the Assyrian faction would never accept calling themselfs that. "Syrianer" in Sweden aren't calling themselfs "Araméer", though they identify with them. The TriZ (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh. this is about an ethnic group that cannot agree what to call itself. The problem is discussed at names of Syriac Christians. The introduction to this article cannot do better than just list the proposed names. It is completely pointless to just keep removing those names you dislike. I know this is a dispute, ok? Wikipedia will just remain neutral and list such names as can be traced to reliable sources, end of story. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to new title

The most neutral title for this both articles (Syriac-Aramean people and Assyrian people) would be Syriac People, because of both groups accept the term Syriacs, but not all accept term Assyrian. Syriac-arameans only accept the terms Syriacs, but the group Assyrians accept both terms Syriacs and Assyrians. And also, the name of the both groups in Syriac language is Suryoye, wich means Syriacs in english. Term Othuroye means Assyrians, and only a minority of both groups accepts that term. Majority of Assyrian group call them selfs for Suryoye (Suryaye) wich means Syriacs... Syriac-Arameans, Syriac-Assyrians, Syriac-christianity.. i think the most neutral and common title and to unite all groups would be Syriac people instead of Syriac/Assyrians or Assyrian people. And then articles like this one, Syriac-aramean people, Western Syriacs, Eastern Assyrians etc will redirect to this new title "Syriac People". VegardNorman (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For every 1 person that consideres himself Aramean, there are 100 who consider themselves as Assyrian. So the arguement of trying to make the title neutral is not so strong enough. The Assyrian ethnicity is not negotiable - simple as that. Chaldean (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a brave statement Chaldean. The TriZ (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should stay where it is, but should deal only with those people who call themselves "Assyrians". We need a separate article for the modern Aramaeans, and a common article for the Suryāye (which should be titled Syriacs, in my opinion), which should include much of the information currently presented in the Assyrian people article.

This would not come down to POV forking (dab's standard argument for not having separate articles), but just a plain presentation of the facts. Any other solution would inevitable result in new articles anyway, because Assyrianists would never settle for a common article named "Syriacs". --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. VegardNorman (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

the problem, dear Benne, is that you don't have the necessary sources to support that suggestion. Show me one encyclopedia that has seperate entries for the "Aramaean" and the "Assyrian" groups. Show me one census for that matter. How are you going to write articles no ethnic groups if you have no sources to base them on other than argumentative blogs by random zealots? The main misunderstanding is that the title "Assyrian people" is not informed by Assyrian nationalism, but by traditional English usage. "Assyrian people" is a term used in English for Syriac Christians, no matter what their individual flavours of nationalism, and this group is what this article is about. See (see!) the 1910 quote by Wigram given under Names_of_Syriac_Christians#Exonyms.

Because the article will never have peace under the present title, we should move it either to Syriacs, or to Syriac Christians, or to Syriac/Assyrian people, take your pick. It doesn't matter what number of editors on this talkpage "agree" to creating various unsourced articles on semi-imaginary ethnic groups, as you don't present reliable sources defining these groups (census data, encyclopedia articles, etc.), there is no way to implement that. WP:V is not negotiable.

I take it, Benne, that you opt for a move to Syriacs. The article you want under Assyrian people is presently under Eastern Assyrians. Those are the "Nestorians". It is possible to have an article on those, but "Assyrians" in English includes all Syriacs, not just the Nestorians. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, this article has been peace under the present title, but you seem to be theo only one who doesn't feel confrable. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Syriac-Speakers acknowledge of identifing of being Assyrian. To bring that down, because a small group in Northern Europe has a different view on the subject, is a weak arguement. That is the reason why this suggestion to move this page has been rejected multiple times. Chaldean (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

you don't want to understand what this is about, do you. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac). Come back once you have made a good faith attempt to understand the issue. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I perfectly understand the issue and your the one who seems to want to start lighting up a match. Benne's suggestion is a good idea, but you seem to have made up your mind and go with it. BTW, Benne, I think the page Names of Syriac Christians can be good enough article that unites all the group as one. I don't think we need yet a saperate article titled Syriacs. It wouldn't be a problem if we moved that page to Syriacs too, maybe as well. Chaldean (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the most neutral for all groups wold be "Syriac people" VegardNorman (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The term “Assyrian” is more common than the term “Syriac”. Search Assyrian http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Assyrian&btnG=Search and you get 80 news. Search Syriac http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Syriac&btnG=Search and you get 36 news. Assyrian people is perfect. Kaldaya (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegard, we don't have to force something. Of course Syriac people is more neutral, but that is simply not a representation of the real world. The English world knowns the group mostly as Assyrians. To change that is simply trying to make Wikipedia an athority on this issue. Wikipedia should only explain the subject, not try to intervine. I backed your idea of creating Syriac-Aramean page, but unfortunatly Dab has become very athoritive and now is even trashing other members with his bad tone. Chaldean (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Assyrian people" has been common from about 1910. Since the Assyrians themselves have started their weird infighting over the term, usage has changed. The US census now uses "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" to include everybody. If we want to be neutral, we should move this page to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. I don't like this slashy solution any more than the next guy, but you have to blame the Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs we are forced to use it. They must be the only ethnic group that cannot agree what to call themselves. Frankly, this strikes me as rather pathetic. Since that's how it is nevertheless, let us use the "political correct" US solution. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Assyrians hit counts in google may refer to the ancient assyrians. The term syriacs is 50 years old, and is representhing all christians in middleeast (Syriacs-arameans, assyrians and chaldeans). (Syriac christianity). The real name was Syrian, but because of Syria was created at 1950, the term Syrian may also refer to the arabicmuslims in Syria. Therefore they changed the name to Syriacs. VegardNorman (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab's Beginning sentence

also called Syriacs, Syriac-Aramaean people, Syriac Christians, Suryoye, Syriacs/Assyrians, Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans

First of all, Syriacs is Suryoye, so why is it listed twice? Second, Syriacs is Syriac Christians, so why is that listed again? Third, if you said Assyrians and Syriacs, why would you bring them up again as Syriacs/Assyrians? By stating Syriacs alone, you are basically saying Syriacs/Assyrians. Forth, where have we agreed that this page includes those who call themselves Aramean? Chaldean (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

because "Syriacs" and "Suryoye" aren't identical. One is English, the other anglicized Aramaic. Do you understand the term "synonym"? These are all terms used synonymously. Why do you complain about their all meaning the same thing??? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) for the sources for these synonyms. See Names of Syriac Christians for why "Chaldean" is not a synonym:

In 1910, William A. Wigram in his An introduction to the history of the Assyrian Church wrote: "Chaldean would suit admirably; but it is put out of court by the fact that in modern use it means only those members of the Church in question who have abandoned their old fold for the Roman obedience"

now stop reverting perfectly sourced material. You are acting purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and your restoration of "Chaldean" as synonymous flies into the face of every source cited here, at Names of Syriac Christians and at Chaldean Christians. The disruption is entirely on your part. Sure, we are both reverting, but I can state why, based on actual sources, not gut sentiment. I assure you if this nonsense goes any further, I will request that WP:DISRUPT is invoked, this article is locked down or put under probation, and any revert not solidly explained on the basis of academic sources is blockable as disruptive. Start showing some basic good faith. Request sources for any synonym you feel is included incorrectly (use {{fact}}). Stop restoring "Chaldean" as a synonym until you can cite a good source that claims it as one. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have to threaten people? By your mentality, we should also add Ashuraya and Atooraya. Your not even replying to my questions. What is the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians? Sources? What sources justifying mentioning Assyrian and Syriac, and then bringing them up again as Assyrian/Syriacs? Chaldean (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? Because it doesn't appear you have read anything I explained to you. If you can CITE' an English language source using "Atooraya", you are free to add it as another synonym. Please, please try to find out what "synonym" means. Please try to find out what "exonym" means. Please, for the love of puppies, read Wikipedia:Naming conventions to get a basic understanding of what this discussion is even about. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to answer my questions? State the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians. Start with that. BTW, your answer of because "Syriacs" and "Suryoye" aren't identical. One is English, the other anglicized Aramaic. is still false. Ask all the Speakers of the language here on wiki (including a mod User:Garzo); Suryoye is the Syriac word for Syriacs. I have 580 non wiki pages using the exact sentence of Assyrians also known as Chaldeans [[18]]. Give anything that states Assyrians also known as Assyrians/Syriacs. Your edits are simply wrong. You accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, umm how about your edits are not following up with the criteria of other Wiki pages? The Greek people page has a section titled Greeks#Names_used_for_the_Greek_people - I don't see them writing every single different name in the beginning sentence. That would be very disruptive of the page, and thus they moved all these names down in the article.

Chaldean (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I really think you should change your tone, which I find quite condescending ... I consider remarks such as "Chaldean, do you speak English? At all?" to be rather incivil. I doesn't matter if you're right or not, try to stay civil. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

well, he could show some signs of cognition and good faith, and my tone will improve immediately. At present, he is just filling this page with non sequiturs. Is there anyone I can talk to who can actually refer to the points I am making? Benne? I will be glad if this can become an actual debate. I am not holding my breath for Chaldean to make any sense. He has pulled the same stunt on Talk:Chaldean before: if you don't have a point, just keep ignoring the issue until they give up in frustration. (Benne, what can I say? I am not here to "discuss" on the level of skulking preschoolers: Dab: "please look up synonym" - Chaldean "Why do you refuse to answer my questions? State the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians." -- wht??) dab (𒁳) 09:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms

to Chaldean (talk · contribs): look it up.

Assyrian can apply to any Syriac Christian (Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac-Orthodox, Syriac-Catholic). Syriac consider Suryoye, Suroye, Suraye, Kaldaye, Kaldanaye, Kaldoye, Atoraye, Ashuraye, Athuraye, Othuroye, Oromoye. Chaldean means Chaldean Catholic. It’s enough if we have it like this The Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans, Syriacs, see names of Syriac Christians[17]) Kaldaya (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

it is common practice on Wikipedia to state the most common synonyms. We can discuss which exactly are important enough to mention (that is, as soon as we get some peace from the trolls). Distinguish:

Synonyms: Syriacs, Syriac Christians, Assyrians, Suryoye, Assyrian/Syriac, Syriac/Aramaean
Subgroups (true subsets of the above): Chaldean, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac-Orthodox, Syriac-Catholic, Nestorian, Jacobite, etc.
the "problem": "Assyrians" is sometimes understood to refer to "Nestorians" exclusively.^{[citation needed]} (really?) -- This is the case on Wikipedia talkpages and on nationalist blogs, but I have yet to see a WP:RS that does the same.

can we agree on this? yes? good. Now we need to decide which synonyms we mention in the lead, and which subgroups we list in the lead after we have introduced the group as a whole. Good? Then let's hear your suggestion. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

google count (with definite article to find English usage only):

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (2690)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (2670)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (1500)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (820)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (491)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (319)

ok, I suggest that we use either Syriac Christians or Syriacs or Assyrian/Syriac people as the main title, since these are apparently the most commonly used names. The other three variants can be listed as synonyms. I suggest that good cause will need to be presented to list other synonyms (usage in reliable sources). dab (𒁳) 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

True, Chaldaean should not be considered a synonym of Assyrian and/or Syriac, but rather a subset. At least, I've never heard of Syriacs not belonging to the Chaldaean Catholic Church being referred to as Chaldaeans. But considering the fact that the Assyrian people article in its current stage intends to refer to all Syriacs, it might be defendable to include a reference to the Chaldaeans in the first sentence or at least the first paragraph, since part of the Chaldaean Catholic do not wish to be called Assyrians but Chaldaeans.
Coming to the question of synonyms regarding to the Syriac people, we enter slippery territory. Syriacs (Syrians, Süryani, Syrianer, etc.) is often used to include people from both the West and East Syrian traditions, sometimes only to refer to the West Syrian rite churches.
Assyrians is used to refer (1) in the most narrow sense, to members of the Church of the East, (2) to members of the Church of the East and of the Chaldaean Catholic Church, (3) and, since relatively recent times, in the widest sense to all Syriac Christians, sometimes including even Maronites.
Aramaeans is used in a similar way as Syriacs, either referring to the West Syriacs or to all Syriacs together (e.g. the researcher Sébastien de Courtois or the Syriac Universal Alliance (website currently down) which considers Syriac and Aramaean to be synonyms. However, since Assyrianism has gained ground among the West Syriacs as well, I suppose many would consider the term Aramaean only appropriate to those Syriacs who refer to themselves as Aramaeans.
N.B. And of course, the terms Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Chaldaeans are also used to refer solely to the ancient peoples, but since modern Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Chaldaeans believe themselves to be the continuation of those peoples, that would come down to the widest sense I just mentioned.
Hence the question of which term is synonymous with which depends on who you ask, I'm afraid. But besides the question of which term is used synonymously, we should also consider the question what connotations the various terms have. The fact that "Assyrians" might score more Google hits, should not be given much weight in this discussion, in my opinion (scholarly works might give a better indication).
I'm afraid none of the names will be totally satisfiable, although I believe Syriacs would be the most appropriate, since it is a direct translation of the Syriac word ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ. Or perhaps a transcription like Sur(y)āye could be used, or a somewhat awkward construction like Syriacs (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans), or Aramaeans/Assyrians/Chaldaeans/Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

excellent, we are getting somewhere.

(1): indeed. I do not object to their mention in the lead at all. In fact, I insist the three major groups (viz. Nestorian, Jacobite, Chaldean) should be named right up front.

(2) "Syriacs" in my understanding is only used to refer to adherents of Syriac Christianity (east and west) as a whole. As far as I am aware, we are not at present citing any source that uses "Syriacs" for Jacobites only.

(3) You may be right about "Assyrians". If we use "Assyrians" in the sense of "Nestorians", we need to move or split this article presto. At present, this article is about the entire Assyrian/Syriac group.

(4) "Aramaeans" is indeed only used for the Jacobite group afaics, except by partisan websites etc. I appreciate your reference to the bibliomonde.com source using araméo-syriaques for the entire group. Similarly, German Aramäer is used for the whole group, but I am not aware of this usage in English. Let's settle the question of English exonyms first.

(5) of course. That's a matter for disambiguation. "Syriac" has the advantage of not doubling as a term for a pre-Christian population.

(6) we cannot google for "Assyrians" of course, because of a gazillion hits that will come up relating to the ancient empire. That's why I googled for "Assyrian Christians" to get an idea. Sure, the "google test" is only good to get a rough idea. Reliable sources trump that any time. Google scholar hits favour "Assyrian Christians" (67) followed by "Syriac Christians" (47) and "Syriacs" (35).

(7) I'll be happy with a move to Syriacs. All things considered, this seems to be the clearest, least ambiguous and least controversial term for the group.

(8) We'll still need to decide what to do with "Assyrians" I would appreciate if you could provide some reference for your points (2) and (3). dab (𒁳) 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1: Alright, but let's not use the terms Nestorian and Jacobite. Perhaps we could refer to those terms as "historically also called ..."), but that should in my opinion not be included in the lead. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2: I have no sources, but heard among Syriacs in Turkey that they say about East Syriacs: "They're not Süryani, they're Asuri". It might have to do with the fact that the Western rite churches carry the name Syrian or Syriacs, whereas the Eastern rite ones do not. There is however one more ambiguity, especially with the term Syriac Christianity: it also refers to Maronites, and to the Syriac churches in India, the adherents of which are no Syriacs in terms of ethnicity.

3: Well, let's do nothing pronto here, since the term Assyrians is quite ambiguous.

4: I don't think we have the luxury of confining ourselves to English-language sources or to the Anglophone world only. Various Greek and Syriac (also East Syriac) sources state the identity of Aramaeans and Syriacs. And much of the philological research concerning the Syriacs has been done in German (Nöldeke, Sachau, Mommsen, Hegewisch).

5: True, not as far as I know.

6: Still, I believe we should be very careful using Google hits. Also, foreign-language sources should play a role here.

7: No objection ... ;-)

8: I think it should stay where it is, being a branch of the Syriacs article. The Assyrians have so many organisations, festivals, carry their own flag, etc., I think they deserves their own article. We should just be careful not to create double information. Much of the history they have in common with other subgroups. And I presume there are also Assyrians who don't identify themselves with Syriac Christianity; if that's the case, it should be respected. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) - we really need to restrict this to English usage. We can address details of vernacular self-designation later, once we've fixed the titling issues. (4) - I know. English languages sources are merely relevant for the question of article titles, which need to be in English. The article bodies can of course be informed by any number of non-English references. (8) what "Syriacs article"?? Syriac people redirects here. This is the Syriacs article, the question is merely what title it should have. There can still be sub-articles on "Assyrian identity" or what have you. I think you are actually saying we should rename this article, and branch out all material pertaining to "Assyrian identity" to a sub-article. Now, Benne, if there is anybody calling themselves "Assyrian" who do not identify with Syriac Christianity, we are looking at yet another group entirely. Perhaps Assyrian neopagans or role-players? This would be an entirely different topic. "Assyrians" as used in this article is simply a synonym of "Syriac Christians". dab (𒁳) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No objection ... ;-)

A Wink should not be the final stamp on changing history. Dab how about you do a little more professonal reading on the subject? I have bought a copy of University of Durham's paper on the Syriac Orthodox identity. You can view it here dab [[19]]. Also, your google count here;

Find sources: the Syriac Christians — news, books, scholar (2690)

Find sources: the Syriacs — news, books, scholar (2670)

Find sources: the Assyrian/Syriac — news, books, scholar (1500)

Find sources: the Assyrian Christians — news, books, scholar (820)

Find sources: the Syriac/Assyrian — news, books, scholar (491)

Find sources: the Suryoye — news, books, scholar (319

is very misleading. Remove the the and you have over 28,000 [[20]], not 860. That is more then all of the others combined. Also, if you do a book search, it is also not even close;

Modern Syriacs (0 books)

Modern Assyrians (146 books)

modern Arameans (0 books)

modern Aramaeans (9 books)

Suryoye (34 books)

We'll still need to decide what to do with "Assyrians" - wow that line right there clearly shows your motives. You first misrepresented statistics, then you use the word Assyrian as something that needs to be decreated. Chaldean (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming to the question of synonyms regarding to the Syriac people, we enter slippery territory. Syriacs (Syrians, Süryani, Syrianer, etc.) is often used to include people from both the West and East Syrian traditions, sometimes only to refer to the West Syrian rite churches.

Here again you guys make leaps you are unaware of. Süryani, Syrianer, and Suroye (not the Suryoye which only came into use in the past 50 years) were ALWAYS used as equivalants to Assyrian. I suggest you read Donabed and Donabed, The Assyrians of Eastern Massachusetts, (Arcadia 2006) as it is mentioned and illustrated quite nicely there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.190.37 •

Aramaeans is used in a similar way as Syriacs, either referring to the West Syriacs or to all Syriacs together (e.g. the researcher Sébastien de Courtois or the Syriac Universal Alliance (website currently down) which considers Syriac and Aramaean to be synonyms. However, since Assyrianism has gained ground among the West Syriacs as well, I suppose many would consider the term Aramaean only appropriate to those Syriacs who refer to themselves as Aramaeans.

Im sorry but I must correct this. Sebastien de Courtois in his dissertation written in French used the term Syriacs. Not Arameans. He later used Arameans in the English title simply in order to garner interest as (check the date) the passion of the Christ had recently been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.190.37 •

Assyrians is used to refer (1) in the most narrow sense, to members of the Church of the East, (2) to members of the Church of the East and of the Chaldaean Catholic Church, (3) and, since relatively recent times, in the widest sense to all Syriac Christians, sometimes including even Maronites. - yet more false comments from Benne. Tell what you have said to Naum Faik, Ashur Yousif, Agha Petros, several Syriac Orthdox and Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs. Chaldean (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed lead

informed by the above, I propose the following lead. This incorporates all information on terminology we have gathered so far:

The Syriacs (also called Syriac Christians, Assyrian Christians, Suryoye, Syriacs/Assyrians, Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans and other variants, see names of Syriac Christians) are an ethnic group traditionally characterized as adhering to various churches of Syriac Christianity and speaking Neo-Aramaic languages. Their geographical origins lie in what is today Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, but since the early 20th century, many have migrated into diaspora.

The Syriacs comprise three major sub-groups:

the Western Syriacs or Jacobites, sometimes also called Aramaeans, adhering to either the Syriac Orthodox Church or the Syriac Catholic Church
the Eastern Syriacs or Nestorians, sometimes also called Assyrians, adhering to the Assyrian Church of the East
the Chaldean Christians or Chaldeans, adhering to the Chaldean Catholic Church

Note that the population of 3 to 4 million is that of the whole group. If we take "Assyrians" to mean Nestorians only, their number needs to be given at below half a million. The Jacobites appear to number around one million, the Chaldeans just below one million. Don't ask me how this adds up to above three million, perhaps we are including one or two million of "ethnic Syriacs" who have converted to Islam? dab (𒁳) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some objections: Aramaeans should be included in the lead. Syriacs who identify with the ancient Aramaeans, use this name also in English. Also, please refrain from using the names Jacobites and Nestorians, which are considered pejorative nowadays; they should only be used for historical reasons, not as modern labels. That's why I'll revert your recent edit to Western Syriacs: they are not a religious group, since they include Syriac Catholics and also some Protestants, but should rather be described as an ethnic (sub)group. Furthermore, I don't see the point in including combinations like "Syriacs/Assyrians", "Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans". I'd suggest something in the line of: "Syriacs (also called Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans)" --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: Chaldaeans are also considered Eastern Syriacs. The CCC is a spit-off from the CotE, but their pronunciation of Syriac and the alphabet they use is the same. (Garzo should be able to give some more insight in this.) --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that, as long as we can come up with some quotable source. Remember, I have no stakes in this at all, nor do I have any opinion on which term is "correct". Can you propose a modification of my proposal above that would address your concerns, ideally citing pertinent sources? I have fixed the Jacobite / Nestorian articles to be ostensibly about the group that is in fact reported in the infobox. dab (𒁳) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Under what conditions have we agreed to move this page? This page should not be moved until it has gotten the concent from the rest of the Wiki community. Dab you continue to show your understanding of the topic with this;

the Western Syriacs or Jacobites, sometimes also called Aramaeans, adhering to either the Syriac Orthodox Church or the :Syriac Catholic Church the Eastern Syriacs or Nestorians, sometimes also called Assyrians, adhering to the Assyrian :Church of the East the Chaldean Christians or Chaldeans, adhering to the Chaldean Catholic Church

FIRST OF ALL, There are more Syriac Orthodox/Catholic who identify themselves as Assyrian, rather then Aramean. So to state that the only ones who call themselves Assyrians are Church of the East, is false. Chaldean Catholics also identify as Assyrian (I'm one one them.) You are forcing your idea on the issue once again dab. Also what do you mean somethimes also called Assyrians? They are mostly called Assyrians. When you first stared this, you emphisized on using the most common term in the English Language. The fact of the matter is, Assyrians is still today more common then Syriacs in the English language. Until you can prove otherwise, then this page should not be moved. Chaldean (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, why don't you just sit back and leave this to the people who can follow the debate. dab (𒁳) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, calling the Assyrians "Syriacs" is simply a move to satisfy some Assyrians who belong to movements which only in the last century have moved away from the name Assyrian, and are motivated by religious names, not ethnic ones. It is tantamount to calling oneself "Roman" instead of Italian to specify religious identity. Syriac is a derivation of the word "Assyrian", as we have seen from linguistic and historical studies. Syriac is an English word created to avoid the term Assyrian. "Suryoyo", "Surayeh", "Suryayeh", are simply derived from "Assurayeh" and all mean Assyrian. "Syriac" can refer to the language, but not to the ethnic identity of this group of people.14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Waleeta (talk)

no, if you read the discussion carefully, you will note that there is genuine confusion what group the term "Assyrian" is supposed to refer to: the entire four million, or just the "Eastern" half million? Your claim that "the Syriacs" isn't in actual use is also refuted above. Please read the debate before recycling it. dab (𒁳) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Waleeta, keep your nonsense for yourself. It's a theory that the mentioned words derives from "Assyrian". A theory that is far from accepted by all academics in the area. The TriZ (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? First, speak with better manners please. Second, far from accepted by ALL academics? As the the page provides multiple sources, both modern and ancient historians connect the two words of Syrian and Assyrian. Herodotus statement, “This people, whom the Greeks call Syrians, are called Assyrians. You can't just dismess something because you don't like it. And dab I find it quite interesting you not replying to everything I have brought up. Until you can prove that anything other then Assyrian is a more common term, then this page should not be moved by one or two people . BTW, have people thrown out the fact that Assyrian is an ethnicity and Syriac is a language? Chaldean (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab you keep banging this idea of synoms must be used on the intro. Can you please show me another ethnic page that does this on the extreme level? Extreme level as in 8 different names. I am looking at all other ethnic pages and I can't find one that uses more then 2. Take a look at another middle eastern ethnic page - Kurdish people. The term Yezidi is freely used as a synom to describe Kurds of Yezidi faith. The reason it is used, without Kurdish, is because many don't identify themselves as Kurds. But even in that situation, they are not using numerious amounts of names in the beginning sentence. But it does talk about the issue later down on the page. The reason some are suggesting of using assyrians also known as chaldeans and syriacs only, is because that is what the general public uses. In fact there are over 500 non wiki pages using that exact sentence [[21]]. You still have not replied to the question of the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians. Again, all this is just making a mockery out of the page. The reason we created the Names of Syriac Christians was so that we don't have to deal with this headache. Re-create the Syriac-Aramean people page under the reason of those people see themselves as a single ethnic group of Aramean and Aramean only. But don't come here and attack the Assyrian ethnicity. Assyrian is what is used by most if not all governments and institutes. Chaldean (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a passive role in viewing this article and the numerous revisions it has undergone and I must say that it is disheartening to find two individuals (dab, Benne) trying to obfuscate it further and further with each edit. I am neither the first nor the last to notice that it is this sort of behavior that detracts from Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source.

Before any of these revisions are undertaken, please list your academic background as it pertain to Middle Eastern, Assyrian, and Christian history. Emil Soleyman (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm mostly discouraged about. Wikipedia is a place where people go to get a better understanding of a confusing subject. Instead of simplyfing and clearifying the subject, dab has made it further confusing for the reader, creating numerious different pages, and moving and redirecting them to something new every week. The moving, redirecting of these numerious pages on a weekly bases is making a mockery out of Wikipedia. Chaldean (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to speak from anger unless you know you're wrong, so calm down. Perhaps we can post the pictures of the Jacabite churches where the "AS"have literally been scraped off to leave "syrian" up - perhaps that will convince those who are insisting on the "Syrian/Syriac" name that the name is indeed a political invention of the last century?

That being said, an attack on the Assyrian name in no way justifies the existence of the Aramaen nation.

It was Mar Ofrom of the Jacobite church who, after the Genocide of 1915-1918, referred to his own nation as "Assyrian" http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/images/Articles/AframBarsom/AfBarsom6.html (notice here, "our ancient Assyrian nation".) This is from the Bishop, on behalf of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, in February of 1920. Before the "AS" began disappearing from the (As)Syrian Orthodox Churches.

Please also note that he, the Bishop, refers to his parish as "Syrians" alongside "Nestorian" and "Chaldean", clearly indicating he was referring to the religious designation. It is clear that politics of religious nationalism in the Middle East of the 20th century has affected the ethnic Assyrians, and has split them into various religio-ethnic groups. In our language, we referred to ourselves as "Soryayeh", or derivations thereof, simply because, well, when missionaries stumbles upon us, we didn't quite speak English, and therefore didn't say "Assyrian", anymore than Coptics referred to themselves as such (but rather, "Masrayeh") because THAT is their name in their language.

If one chooses to be called by another name, it is their free will. But playig politics with history is not only dishonest, it is beneath wikipedia standards. Waleeta (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

If one chooses to be called by another name, it is their free will. - that is what I have suggested as well. Go ahead and create the Syriac-Aramean page and talk about those in Northern Europe who refuse to be identified as Assyrian. But to forget about reality and history, like the way Dab is doing, without taking into consideration that not only Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs, but Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs have aucknowledge their Assyrian identity, and to move and rename pages over and over again is simply abusing one's MOD's powers. I mean does it make sense to creat an article titled Syrian Nestorians when there is only less then 400 google hits? [[22]] And those results only seem to be talking about ancient times 1-5 century, not modern times. All these extra pages need to be redirected, not make the issue even more confusing. Chaldean (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with moving Assyrian to Syriac. This movement is once again instrumented by a few individuals who have continuously attempted to deny the Assyrian identity which is tantamount to ethnocide. It is sad when people on wikipedia are attempting a similar issue to what middle eastern governments have tried for almost 2 centuries. The issue is not a discussion. The facts are overwhelmingly in favour of Assyrian ...and frankly, let us put it this way...."These people are from ancient Mesopotamia and still live there....they consider it their primordeal homeland,...they speak a language which is gramatically similar to ancient Aramaic with hundreds of thousands of Akkadian words, idioms and phrases imbedded into the language, similar to what was used during the neo-Assyrian period....they consider the city of Nineveh their ancient city...Semiramis they consider to be their queen....many from various religious denominations call themselves by names such as Ashur Shamiram Ninos Naramsin etc...." What would you like to call them? This argument is silly...and if people who have no idea about discussions of ethno-nationalism and ethno-symbolism as described by Anthony Smith and others...how can you say that nomenclature has nothing to do with historical fact?....furthermore...the point is "Assyrian" is the only word accepted by persons from among the various religious sects. UNTIL THE YEAR 2000 AN UNCOUNTABLE NEGLIGIBLE MINORITY CALLED HIMSELF A SYRIAC! This is still the case. Syriac is the least used of the terms. Assyrian....the most used. Aramean only for Jacobites...Chaldean only for Catholics....Assyrian for all. The fact that people call themselves Assyrian today simply means that there is an Assyrian ethnic group...WHICH is not beholden to a particular religion or country of origin. Chaldean is...Aramean is....No Chaldeans among non catholics...no Arameans among non Jacobites....(Despite the sillly comments of a few anti Syrian government Lebanese Jacobites who run the Aramaic Democratic Organization.....) Suryani kadim (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that changing the name 'Assyrian' to anything else is ridiculous and is not based on any historical or rational grounds whatsoever. It is evident that any calls in such regard are made by a few individuals who ground their ideology on anti-Assyrianism and nothing else. Each person is free to call themselves by whatever name they want, but as someone else in this discussion has said, creating a new nation or people is not made by extinguishing another, or at the expense of another. Thus, whoever does not wish to call themselves Assyrian is free to do so, but do not attempt to prevent others from freely calling themselves Assyrian or defending their history on Wikipedia or anywhere else. To keep this post short and sweet, the term Assyrian should not be changed. Thanks. ShlamaShlomo (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)ShlamaShlomo

The name "Assyrian" is entirely accurate in its usage in this article, as it encompasses and applies to all those people from our various sects who identify as Assyrians. For those who are pushing for changing "Assyrians" to "Syriacs" on behalf of those who don't identify as Assyrians, I don't know what to tell you - you're obviously keen on perpetuating the confusion surrounding this issue, but do it elsewhere. It is a terrible shame how this naming dispute on Wikipedia alone has escalated to this. You people are placing the problem where it is not - in stead of contributing constructive efforts towards improving this article, you have made it far worse and far more confusing than it's previous state from a year ago. I will give you some credit, dab, a lot of your suggestions and concerns have led to a lot more objectivity in this article, which was much needed. But now you're taking it much too far, and are contradicting your aims of objectivity.
I can assure you all that I, myself, will not allow such an irrational proposal to come into effect. I am also joined by far too many who disagree to allow this to happen. The three of four of you who agree with this proposal will meet the disapproval (to put it lightly) of many people in the following days to come, so please reconsider before pursuing these aspirations of intensifying the confusion surrounding the Assyrian name. Poshon bshena. Šarukinu (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

article scope and possible sub-articles

I want to make clear that this article is about all ethnic Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans/Aramaeans. There seems to be some lingering misunderstanding that it only deals with a subgroup. This is not the case, as evident already from the headcount in the infobox. Now, there can be articles on specific subgroups. Such as

(a) on denominational grounds:
- Chaldean Catholics
(b) on geographical grounds:

if there are other sub-groups, they can have their own sub-articles if and only if some credible source is cited that delineates the subgroup, qua subgroup of the group discussed here.

so, before we address the question of synonyms, redirects and pagemoves further, can I assume that we are all agreed on this? dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't agree on this. Who decided this page was also about Syriac Orthodox that don't consider themselves Assyrian (aka Aramean). Who made that decision? This page has been on ethnic Assyrian ie people who call themselves Assyrian, not a collection of Syriac Christians. If your going to do that, then you might as well add Indian groups like Nasrani Chaldean (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

did you read the article? Did you read the infobox? This article is about the ethnic group known as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in the US census. If you have some other group you want to discuss, cite sources establishing their existence. Note that we do have an article on Assyrian nationalism: An ideology is not a group, although of course a group can adhere to an ideology. You want to discuss the nationalist ideology, go to Assyrianism. This is about the group itself. dab (𒁳) 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the ethnic group known as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in the US census - who has made this decision? So Armenian people is based on Armenians in the US Census? What kind of logic is this? You still haven't provided any sources for your beginning sentence. We know Greeks are known as other names, but the that article doesnt start with Greeks {also known as Hellenic, Cypriot, Pelasigan, on and on.) We created the naming dispute page to prevent such problems, but you seem to want to spill the problem over other pages. Chaldean (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

you really aren't following what I am saying are you. I am at a loss how to communicate with you. I am using English, and you simply fail to parse what I say. Your own English is reasonably correct, so I do not assume you are simply unacquainted with the idiom. At this point, I have really no idea how to impress basic elements of verbal discourse on you. I am assuming good faith on your part, but I am afraid that a sufficiently low ability for verbal communication is indistinguishable from trolling.

ok, read my lips. This article is about the Aramaic-speaking Christian group originating in the Middle East. This group has for example been referred to as "Assyrian", or "Syriac", or more recently (US census) "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". This group is what this article is about. Any questions? We will not say "Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans)" any more than we will say "Greeks (also known as Cypriots)", because Chaldeans are a subset of Assyrians the same way Cypriots are a subset of the Greeks. We might as well say "US Americans (also known as African-Americans)". dab (𒁳) 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. On the one hand, this article is about those who identify as Assyrians. But on the other hand, most Assyrians believe that the name "Assyrian" encompasses adherents of the Church of the East, Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Orthodox Christians. Many people from the two latter sects also support this position. Chaldean, to say that this should only be about those who identify strictly as Assyrians goes against the purposes of the present article, especially since the demographics listed show numbers that far exceed those who identify solely as Assyrians. The fact that the article on Greeks doesn't list any "synonyms" is largely due to the fact that overall, they all identify as Greeks. Whether that is a national as opposed to an ethnic identification is a different matter. I personally believe that it doesn't hurt to show the other names that the Assyrians go by. This will show the reader that all these people share a common ethnicity, history, and ancestry. The Assyrian name is a general, universal term (despite what Google may show for "news" results) which applies to all denominations, and the issues and plights thereof.
That being said, however, I have some criticisms for dab. While it is not harmful to include other appelations for the Assyrians, it causes great damage to lend precedence to the naming dispute itself in this article. The focus of this article is to inform the reader about the culture, history, and current situation of the Assyrian people. Yes, the naming dispute is a fundamental issue that plagues them, but it is a more recent phenomenon which is not critical to the understanding of the Assyrian people. Therefore it does not deserve much attention for the purposes of this article - there are many other topics that need to be highlighted and improved, for example cuisine, music, clothing, and dance. To single out the naming dispute is to further instigate it. Also, the your statement that This article is about the ethnic group known as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in the US census is poor logic towards justifying your position - who made the US Census an authority on the Assyrian people? It applies to the United States, but not to the other nations, or the Assyrian people in their entirety. --Šarukinu (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You make it look like 99% identify as Assyrians. When the thruth is that the majority of all the Western Syriacs identify as Aramean (though they goes under differnet names, for example Syrianer, Suryani, Syriacs etc). The TriZ (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethno-religious group?

Assyrians/Syriacs could be said to be an ethno-religious group, right? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, aren't most ethnics groups, ethno-religious? Are Armenians labelled as such? Greeks as well. Chaldean (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are an ethno-religious group. Most names and divisions between them are based on religion rather than decent. The whole mess of calling themselves all those different names is due primarily to religion - as recent DNA tests (Ethnographic National Geographics data) shows them very close to Jordanian Arab Muslims, who call themselves Arab. Also the Catholics call themselves Chaldean even though they have no links to the Babylonians Chaldean people - it simply a religious thing to divide themselves. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see reply to your previous questions about Jordanian Arabs above. Chaldean (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this notice bro. :) I replied to your reply. Thanks again man. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

they are a textbook example of an ethno-religious group. Or used to be at least, while the current teenage generation in diaspora seems to care more about the Bronze Age, genetics and national mysticism, and less about religion and language (hell, just look at the usernames flying around on this talkpage. About half of them allude to the Bronze Age). I can only presume this is because they have mostly lost their religion and language by now, so they need something else to focus on. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I can't agree with you any more on that bro. Some of them make out like they are the only pure genetic decendants of the Ancient Assyrians, whereas in reality it is their ethnicity and religion. In reality, their genetics are most likely a mixture of the Ancient Mesopotamians (not just Assyrians), Arameans and others, just like everyone else in Iraq and the Levent, and 'relatively closed'? Ain't that exatly the same with all us inbred Mid-Easterners lmao? However, a lot of Iraqis are beginning to choose the ancient names - even a lot of Arabs I know are beginning to call their kids Ashure, Sargon, Babil etc, including some of my cousins. I think it's just Iraqi nationalism lol. Also ancient mysticism has always been in Iraqi culture, until the Saddam's arabism tried stigmatising and banning it as pagan and even black magic. But even then we had holidays for the Return of Tamuz, Zarda ou Haleed and Khithril Yaas. Anyone else remember that disgusting bitter paste? I mean back in Baqouba were I grew up, our neighbours were Christians and were just like us. Even though they were Chaldeans, everyone called them Iraqis, at most Christian Iraqis, and they lived just like us. Hell, one of them gave birth shortly after I was born and called her son the same name as me. I totally agree with you with this Assyrian nationalism being born in diaspora, as they were practicaly indistinguishable back home. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, totally agree, virtually all ethnic groups have something to do with religion, even if not directly. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you're addressing people like myself? Just because we do not fit into your ideal image of anti-nationalism does not mean you can ridicule us for identifying with our ancestors. Had it not been for the Bronze Age Assyrians, there would be no modern Assyrian identity, or the modern use of the Aramaic language itself, for that matter ;) --Šarukinu (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nabuchadnessar, the Assyrian identity predates Iraqi nationalism. To reduce it to that is very typical of those who have no true understanding of the Assyrian people. The Assyrian identity is as real an African, Arab, or Irish identity. It has a long, well-documented history, and there is cultural and linguistic continuity (more so than other "accepted" and "main-stream" identities). Everyone else in Iraq and the Levant have had significantly more intermixture with the Arab muslim conquerors of the 7th century AD - this itself is inferred from the personal names and religious affiliations of the majority of Middle-Easterners. We are all one, I agree. But at the same time, we must acknowledge the diversity within Iraqis, at least in honour of what each ethnic group has endured over the centuries, as well as in honour of the pluralism which the new Iraqi government supposedly endorses. --Šarukinu (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, Assyrian nationalism was certainly not born in the diaspora. I have been told stories about an event that was held somewhere in the vicinity of Baghdad whereby many Assyrians dressed up as ancient Assyrian soldiers and paraded through the streets for some period of time, back in the 60s-70s. (Whether or not this is true, is totally up to speculation). Also, what about the various Assyrian political organizations that were rooted in Iraq? What about the strict Ba'athist policy against Assyrian identification in the census which began in the 70s? Perhaps other non-Assyrian Iraqis referred to Assyrians as Iraqis, but Assyrians have distinguished themselves from their non-Assyrian neighbours for centuries now. Had this not have been the case, there would be no Assyrian identity today, or anything remotely related to it. Also, I think your anecdote is restricted to Southern Iraq - my father was born and raised in Baghdad, and he also tells me how he was commonly seen predominantly as an Iraqi by his Arab Muslim friends and neighbours. However, my mom was born and raised in Diyana (near Arbil), and the situation up there in the North was completely different. --Šarukinu (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a secular Assyrian nationalist publication was started by Assyrian protestants, and joined by Assyrian Chaldeans, at the turn of last century, in Urmia, Iran. They became a culturally based magazine, it was called "kikhwa", or "the star". It was followed by the Assyrian levies in Iraq - they were the only British Levy group which the British did not refer to by their religious designation (i.e., Muslim Levies, Yezidi Levies). They called them Assyrian because the Assyrian insisted on the name. This was post World War I.

In Diaspora, the nationalist movement begun in the USA. By Jacobite Assyrians from Turkey. Who, on their immigrations papers, wrote their city/country of origin as: Kharput, Assyria - rather than Turkey (see Donabed, Sargon, "Remnants of Heroes" for actual photograph).

All groups are ethnoreligious. I believe we have all seen My Big Fat Greek Wedding? THe American man, who falls in love with the Greek girl, must get baptized before they can marry. Once he is dunked in the water, what does his betrothed say to him? "Congratulations, you're Greek!". He was ethnically defined by his baptism. I realize this is simply a film but it is telling - when a church has an ethnic/cultural designation attached to it, it becomes the "church" of that ethnic/cultural group - hence the infighting between "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs". The only difference between Assyrians and say, Armenians and Greeks, is the Assyrians don't have a country, making their identity subject to question, AND they don't have the luxury of having only one church (i.e., the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox,etc.) and therefore the Assyrians are defined by the many various churches, much thanks to the millet system imposed by Turks and of course the inherent desire of each Patriarch to remain the sole heir to the nation.68.34.57.55 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

Šarukinu, that was a very long post, but I'll try answering as much points as I can. Appologise if I wont answer all points. Firstly, no, Assyrian identity does not predate Iraqi nationalism, Iraqi arabs were thinking of themselves as a unique people and proud of their history for hundereds of years, or since our history began, due to geneological and cultural ties with the mesopotamian ancestors. Second, yes, they are Arabised and Islamised, but those don't necessarily mean genetic 'mixture' as you put it, but it did happen. Also, ethnicity has nothing to do with genetics, and is not necessarily affected by geneology, especially since there is no such thing as Hitlers pipedream 'pure race'. Instead of mixture with the Arabs, which still happened, the Assyrians mixed with Aramaens, Persian and Armenians as a result of their famous, and ingenius, mass deportations of indiginous populations just before the neo-Assyrian kingdom. So I don't believe genetically Assyrians are anymore related to their ancient counterparts than Iraqi Arabs, but like I said genetics has nothing to do with it. Ethnicities and genetics are totally different. The parades in Iraq were true, but it wasnt at all just the Assyrians, but many Arabs who also dressed up as Assyrian/Mesopotamian soldiers and paraded, and threw sweets at the crowds - I have some pictures of my mom and her sisters and grandad at it dressed in the strange clothes. So culturally, I don't see Assyrian culture as unique in Iraq at all. And yes, Assyrian identity did always exist, but Assyrians distinguished themselves from their non-Assyrian counterparts mainly on the basis of religion - Just like in Iraq Sunni generally marries Sunni, Shia marries Shia, Kurd Marries Kurd - it's traditional Iraqi xenophobia. But like all the other groups, intermarriage is not unheard of. So my point is that yes, Assyrian identity did always exist, but religiously rather than nationalisticly - the Assyerian nationalist identity - based mainly on false assumptions in my opinion, was however born in diaspora, as the Christian Assyrians no longer had the religious difference to keep unique, so truned to the language - which keeps them unique from both Arabs and Europeans. Interestingly also, this has been renaissance of the language - as so much more Assyrians in SDiaspora know the language than Assyrians in Iraq. And the Assyrian secular movement was also born in diaspora way after Assyrian nationalism. There was no such thing in Iraq - and an Assyrian I knew who converted to Islam was disowned by his own family for years - they still don't associate themselves with him, so religion is integral to the original Assyrian identity. And I am all for Pluralism too bro, I'm happy to call anyone whatever he wants to be called regardless, but I believe ethnic nationalism - such as believing your ethnicity is superior to all others, and extreme racial/ethnic segregation is racism, and has no place in the world. From the name, unfortunately the once tolerant, open integrated Assyrian identity is turned into ethnic nationalism, and very often crosses the boundary to what is defined racist just like Arabism/Kurdish supremacy. So have you identity by all means, and I personally respect that. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely false that more Assyrians in Diaspora than the Middle East know the Assyrian language. We, in Diaspora, learned it from our parents - we have no language schools. The language is alive in Diaspora simply because it is alive in the Middle East. This includes Western and Eastern Assyrians - of all religious denominations. You keep insisting that Assyrians are not the only descendents of Mesopotamia, and I am not sure why this is pertinent. Quite frankly I think most non-Pensinsular Arabs (Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, some Turks, Kurds, Persians, even Maronites) are actually descendents of the Ancient Mesopotamians. This does absolutely nothing to take away from the Modern Assyrian identity - which has been continuous since the conversion to Christianity 2,000 years ago (See Mar Efrom the Assyrian, see Mar Abrahim of the 12th century, etc.)

And no, the Assyrian nationalist identity did NOT begin in Diaspora with the post-Genocide migrants to New England, USA. It actually begin in Urmia, Iran 20 years prior, and was continued with Jacobite Assyrians while still in Turkey, and they carried it WITH THEM to the Diaspora. (Again, see Donabed, Sargon, "Remnants of Heroes", for copies of primary source documents). Since the Assyrian nationalist identity began in the middle east, prior to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and prior to the Genocide (which actually increased its power), it most certainly did also predate Iraq, and therefore, "Iraqi" nationalism.68.34.57.55 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

Regarding reverting the page to include "Chaldean" - the Assyrians are sometimes called "Chaldean" as well. Actually, they are called "Chaldean" quite a bit. So it does not make logical sense not to also include "Chaldean" in their names.68.34.57.55 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

About the question of who decended from whom, your point that all non-peninsula arabs are Mesopotamian decent is frankly ludacrus and painfully ignorant. I suggest you read about Arabisation, and how most Mesopotamians where arabised, just like some Persians, Turks etc... Second, if you have any facts appart from your nationalistic ignorant crap, you'll realise that most self-identifying Arabs are not from peninsula decent - go check out some geneological data and facts instead of your Biblical semi-facts, and you'll also realise that there is no such thing as pure-decent - especially when your talking about thousands of years like this. I'm sure many 'Peninsula Arabs' have more Mesopotamian geneological decent than self-identifying Assyrians, and I'm willing to take you on an offer to show you my DNA evidence as long as you do one to show your decent too. Finally, if you studied the Assyrian history that isn't published by fake Assyrianologist idiots with more political than intellectual goals, you'll see that the Assyrians had an ingenius method to stop resistance in their vast empire. Mass deportation of indiginous populations so they assilimate and lose cultural identity that might spark revolts - so by the mid-Neo-Assyrian period, central Assyria was a racial melting pot. Frankly, even the Assyrians themselves were not direct decendants of bronze-age Sargon etc... Source= Adam Hart-Davis's History: From the Dawn of Civilisation ISBN: 978-1-8561-3062-2. Read from page 36, the first part is stone-age crap. ;)

If you are talking about decent as in cultural, I also disagree, Assyrians have the Christian Assyrian culture, mainly bought by the Aramaens and missionaries, rather than that of the Ancient pagan traditions that were the original Mesopotamian culture. And Kurds and Turks don't have a goddamn grain of Mesopotamian culture, even the Maronites don't to most part. Just tell me, is this Assyrianist ideology's goal to unite all minorities in Iraq araginst Arabs rather than a cultural one, because by what your saying that's what seems to be true. Plus Arabs in Iraq also have a lot of Mesopotamian culture - like Awdet Tamuz/return of Tamuz (which we celebrate at about Easter time), Zarda ou Haleeb etc... We also use Mesopotamian God's names for moths and a lot have even began naming their kids ancient names. So to your querie about why I insist I am Mesopotamian - well simple, because I am.

So yeah, we are Arabs, we speak Arabic as our language, have many aspects of Arab culture and proud of it, and most consider decent from the Mesopotamians, some from Qahtani Arabs (including me till DNA test) and other groups, and it is as insulting to deny our self-designated identity as it is for me to say 'All Assyrians are just Gypsies, or Arabs', like Turkey is doing to you. Ok, I'll take your word about Assyrian Nationalism starting 20 or so years before diaspora, but I will not accept or recognise that it was there all along.

Anyway, this discussion has already been discussed and finished between me and Chaldean, and we agreed to ammend the section on DNA, which I think has been done. Go to my and Chaldean's pages, and read the DNA sections, I also numbered them so you can follow them in the correct order. If you have any other problems with that particular discussion and section, or with the Assyrian DNA arguement, please feel free to start a new section on my discussions page called 'Assyrian DNA 5' and I'll get back to you on that as soon as possible :) .

As for this discussion, I'm no expert on Assyrian Nationalism - all I know is that it is ethnic nationalism - so is often defined as racism, and it definately wasn't there in ancient times. I'm opting out now before I start an offtopic debate. Thanks and TC. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebuchudnasser, I am impressed with how much you can write while knowing little. You basically repeated what I said: Arabization is what caused MOST Arabs - not the fact that they come from the Peninsula.

As for the Assyrian culture being Christian Assyrian brought by Aramaeans, also false. To the contrary, Assyrian Christianity is riddled with pre-Christian rites and practices (I.E., Fast of the Ninevites, Kaloo soolaqa, the baptisms of water outside of Easter and Christmas.) Kurds, Persians, Turks will tell you about Nawruz - a Spring celebration which is actually rooted in the ancient Akkadians, or "Akitu", which predates all of them. The Persians also celebrate a holiday called "Yalda", which in Persians means nothing, but in Assyrian/Syriac means "Birth". It was also adopted from the Mesopotamian culture along with the Aramaic language which was their lingua franca for centuries. Arabization of most of the Mesopotamian peoples, as you said, is true, but not all, considering there are Assyrians who remain as Assyrians and who speak Assyrian and who identify as Assyrian. I would say Arabization failed here.

Nationalism not being there in ancient times seems to me a silly comment coming from nowhere. I wonder who said anywhere here that it existed in Ancient times? Assyrian nationalism began after all the world's nationalism began, after the concept was born from European - notably French - revolution. For Assyrians specifically, again, the turn of last century.

Again, the Assyrians are a nation of people, descendants from the Ancient Assyrians - be they from whatever tribes were incorporated into the area at the time. This really has little to do with DNA and everything to do with what makes Greeks Greek and Palestinians Palestinian: Language, geographic location and ingigeneity, religious contiguity, common history and geographic origin, and self identification. If other descendants of the same peoples are now called "Arab" or "Turkish" or "Persian", so be it. There are still those who cling to the original identity, safe from Kurdification, Arabization, Turkification or Persification. Waleeta (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)waleeta

"This really has little to do with DNA and everything to do with what makes Greeks Greek and Palestinians Palestinian: Language, geographic location and ingigeneity, religious contiguity, common history and geographic origin, and self identification"

I said I wont continue with this meaningless arguement, but why can you not agree that it also makes Iraqis (Arab) Iraqi. We also cling on to most traditions and also identify ourselves - well the Iraqi Nationalists like me at least - as decendants of the Mesopotamians or as Iraqi, more than as Arabs, in that very same respect. Thats why the national football team their is called 'Lions of Babylon'. And like Assyrian Christianity, Iraqi Islam and Arabism is also riddled with many pre-Arab/Islamic traditions like I said before, and if you ever lived there (I moved out in 98, but still remember a lot), the culture is very different from mainstream Arab culture. Plus the name 'Iraq' is derived from 'Uruk' - an ancient Sumarian then Babylonian city as I understand, so our identity is as geniune as any other, and the Assyrian identity is also Geniune IMO.

I resent you mocking my knowledge, I definately do understand much more than you on the subject, and might have repeated myself to try and explain my point to you, which from your first replies seems to be continuously misunderstood. Then again it might be my explanation not being clear that mislead you, like your explanation of Assyrian nationalism mislead you.

Also, I totally agree with what you said with Arabization, and I think it is now even failing the people who were once Arabized thanks to the miserable and pathetic failure of Trans-Arabism and suffering endured under them, like Saddam. Also, I heard Yalda a lot back in Iraq. Is that the celebration where people put candles down the Euphrates, or is that a totally different thing? Nabuchadnessar (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean in the first sentence

Dab's arguement is that since not all Assyrians are Chaldean Catholics, it should not be used in the first sentence. But if were going to use that arguement, then we need to remove Syriacs as well since it is mainly a reference to Syriac Orthodox. Also can you please tell me dab what is the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians? Thats like saying Assyrian and Assyrian Christians. Please comment. Chaldean (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians are indeed called "Syriacs" and "Chaldeans" as well, please stop changing the first line of the article. It is an absolutely indisputable fact. Not all Chaldeans call themselves Assyrians, but this is not a reciprocating relationship - Assyrians are called by several names, mostly to do with their religious denominations. Assyrians exist in all of the church sects, Catholic, Orthodox, or other, and they are indeed called "Syriac/Syriani", and "Chaldean/Chaldan" - even those who self-identify as Assyrian.Waleeta (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chaldean, nice to talk again. I'm not sure about that, but aren't there some non-Christian Assyrians? I know they are a very small minority of an already small minority in Iraq, but I'm sure they exist as I know a relative who is. Also, would they sieze to be called Assyrian if they aren't Christian? I'm honestly no expert, but just though that might be relevant to say. Take care Nabuchadnessar (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article does also mention Muslim Assyrians, but it doesn't make sense labeling them Assyrian since they don't consider themselves Assyrian. Chaldean (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab replied but removed it immediatly for whatever reason, but I will answer what he brought up; this is not an "argument", it is a mere fact. You are obviously still completely unaware of the overall picture. In English, "Syriacs" used as a name for the entire group.

That is news to me. Can you please tell us how you have come to conclusion of being a mere fact and not even "arguement" about it? Because I am doing a basic book search on google and it showing to me that Syriacs is not a reference to all Assyrians, but rather just Syriac Orthodox (and sometimes to Syriac Catholics only):

1. Martyred Armenia - Page 24 by Fà'iz el-Ghusein, Fā'iz al-Ghusayn - These are not Armenians, but Syriacs and Chaldeans

2. The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy - Page 143 by Elliott Abrams - regarding Armenians, Syriacs, and Assyro-Chaldaeans see Valognes

3. An Armenian from Jerusalem - Page 1 by Jacob Orfali - Urfa was the home of the Syriacs (Urfa has a mostly Syriac Orthodox history, related to Tur Abdin)

4. Strangers and Exiles: A History of Religious Refugees - Page 270 by Frederick Abbott Norwood - In Iraq, of 50,000 Assyrians, of whom of whom 8000 were Nestorians, 30000 Chaldeans, 10000 Jacobites, and 2000 Syriacs (for this one, I am assuming they are refering to Syriac Catholics, since they are not Nestorian, Chaldean, or Jacobite.)

5. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide - Page 209 by Bat Ye'or - World War I by Christian survivers of massacres in Anatolia, Iraq, and Syria: Armenians, Syriacs, and Nestorians

6. The British Review, and London Critical Journal - Page 62 by William Roberts - ..still exist in these countries: Greeks, Catholics, Maronites, Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Jacobites (A reference to Syriac Catholics this time.)

7. Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict: Shadows of Modernity - Page 178 by Andreas Wimmer - According to the education law of 1930, local schools of religious communities such as the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Syriacs

8. Historical Dictionary of Iraq - Page 56 by Edmund Ghareeb - Although the Chaldeans, like the Syriacs (qv) and the Assyrians, were also massacred in the 19th century

9. Examination of a fundamental human right: the 2006 International Religious ... - Page 50 - and particularly on the persecution faced by the Assyrians, the Syriacs

10. Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role : Report of the Lebanon ... - Page 14 by Daniel Pipes - the Chaldaeans and Assyrians to Iraq; the Syriacs to northern Syria.

I only qouted 10 books, but it keeps going on and on and you can look through the books for yourself. As you see, the evidence is overwhelmly against the notion of Syriac being for the most part a reference to all Assyrians. Yes, I have seen it used very reraly to describe the whole group, but again, the fact is that it is mostly used to describe Syriac Orthodox, specifically from Tur Abdin, Turkey. Chaldean (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, thanks for clearing that up about Assyrian Muslims, a lot of them are Arabised like you said, so don't consider themselves Assyrians as such. And thanks for all your other help here bro, appreciate it. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, it is very simple: look at the infobox in this article. The 3.3 to 4.3 million people listed somehow constitute a group. Now, how do we call this group? Sometimes, they are called "Assyrians". Sometimes "Syriacs". Sometimes "Syriac Christians". Sometimes "Assyrians/Syriacs". Now, as you say, sometimes "Assyrians" and "Syriacs" are also used as terms for subgroups of these 3.3-4.3 million. Neither of these subgroups corresponds to the group described in the infobox. The article ostensibly concerns adherents of all Syriac churches. You claim that the entire group cannot be referred to as "Syriacs"? If that is true, the term "Syriacs" should be removed, not the term "Chaldeans" added. You have however not shown that this is in fact the case. You have only shown that sometimes, the "Assyrian/Syriac" groups is resolved further into an "Assyrian" and a "Syriac" subgroup. That's true enough, but doesn't resolve the question plaguing us, how do we call the group as a whole? References addressing this directly would be greatly appreciated, but try avoiding serving us selected out-of-context soundbites. dab (𒁳) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've broken it down, right there in the lead: we have

the whole group, called Assyrians, Syriacs, Syriac Christians, Assyrians/Syriacs, Suryoye and variants (3-4 million)
- adherents of the East Syrian Rite, formerly also called Nestorians
  - adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East, also called Assyrians (1-2 million)
  - adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church, also called Chaldeans. (0.7 million)
- adherents of the West Syrian Rite, also called Syriacs, and formerly also Jacobites (1 million)

I think this catches it all. I know the terminology is a mess. It's not my fault. We have to make do with what material is out there. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, this is already shown under the religion section. Why did you put it in the beginning part of the article? The beginning article is out to summerize, not detail the issue. Chaldean (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{dab) Chaldean, it is very simple: look at the infobox in this article. The 3.3 to 4.3 million people listed somehow constitute a group. Now, how do we call this group? Sometimes, they are called "Assyrians". Sometimes "Syriacs". Sometimes "Syriac Christians". Sometimes "Assyrians/Syriacs". - Please get it right. Mostly called Assyrian, sometimes Syriacs and Chaldean. BTW, I still don't know what you ben by Assyrians/Syriacs.

(dab) You claim that the entire group cannot be referred to as "Syriacs"? If that is true, the term "Syriacs" should be removed, not the term "Chaldeans" added. You have however not shown that this is in fact the case. You have only shown that sometimes, the "Assyrian/Syriac" groups is resolved further into an "Assyrian" and a "Syriac" subgroup. - I showed that Syriac is used almost conclusively as a subgroup, not a reference to the entire Assyrian people. In another words, the same as the name Chaldean. If you won't will allow the Chaldean Subgroup name to be mentioned in the beginning sentence, then Syriac should be moved as well. I don't mind how you want it, but I won't let double standard get by. Either you mention both of them in the beginning of the sentence or don't have any at all. Chaldean (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

do you want to mention "Chaldeans" in the lead, yes or no? If yes, we need to give a quick overview of subgroups in the lead. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab please do not ignore the important points I brought up and continue to make dramatic edits to the page without confronting what I brought up. Where have you shown the word Syriac is mostly used as a reference to all Assyrians? Its just like you said, either have both subgroup names on the beginning of the sentence, or none at all. Chaldean (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope

it appears a lot of the "disputes" around here stem from confusion of this article's scope. Some people seem to assume that this article discusses East Syriacs ("Eastern Assyrians", "Nestorians") to the exclusion of West Syriacs. This is patently not the case. Already, the ethnic group infobox includes both Syrian and Iraqi populations. This is the article on all Neo-Aramaic speaking ethnic grouplets. It may make sense to {{split}} a sub-article on East Syriacs (Nestorians, at present this redirects to East Syrian Rite) the same way we have aricles on Chaldean Christians and West Syriacs. This would establish some sort of symmetry. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There was one already I think, called Eastern Assyrians, but you redirected it to here. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, what right does it give you to declare what this page is? All neo-Aramic speakers? Does that include Maronites too, since there are a few Maronites that speak Neo-Aramaic? What about Arabs (muslims) in Syria that speak Neo-Aramaic? They are included in this article as well? And the few Indians that speak Neo-Aramaic, are they included too? This is certianly not the case. The Kurdish people page does not talking about anybody that speaks Kurdish, but rather a group of people that consider themselves Kurdish. For example; this page may not include all of Yezidi people, since there are some whom don't consider themselves Kurdish at all. The same with Zaza people as well. Chaldean (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning paragraph

Dab continues to be wrong about the beginning paragraph. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template we see nowhere in the intro paragraph does it ask for user to talk about religious dinoms. Religion lines is in fact discussed under bulletin 3.2 [[23]]. In fact sub-groups are, according to the template, should be placed in the buttom under classifications [[24]] and not in the intro. Chaldean (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a "religious dinom" is, but your argument is empty anyway. Clearly, the subgroup structure of this ethnic group is complicated, and bound to confuse people. It is you who insists on mentioning the 'Chaldean' subgroup in the lead. And I agree, it is important to clear up this confusion right away. This is what the lead is doing now. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating your own rules will not get us anywhere. I think it would be a good to follow the guidelines we are given by the WikiProject Ethnic Group and to try to emulate the rest of Wiki's ethnic pages to the best we can. Sub-Groups and Religon groups should not to be listed in the beginning paragraph, but rather down the article. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

you're not even making plain what your objection is. I aim at clarity. If you have factual objections, or objections on grounds of neutrality, pray state them. Can we postpone discussing the details of layout? You are not being honest, Chaldean, you try to wave around MoS (inexpertly) so you can go back to a muddled presentation that will allow you to make misleading suggestions. I have no interest in such a debate. Edit honestly or stop editing. Ask for third party input if you are under the impression that I am misbehaving. I will not waste bona fide expositions on somebody who doesn't reciprocate. dab (𒁳) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, all I want is for the good of Wikipedia. I really believe your last edit was simply making the page tacy looking and I have asked for a 3rd opinion from the Ethnic WikiProject. I will be interested in what they say. Let us wait and see. Chaldean (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)