Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Neutrality

I thought it was interesting that this article was flagged for not being neutral. I am Assyrian and the reason my family came to the U.S. was because of how the Christians were treated in the strict Middle Eastern countries under fundamental Islamic rule. Maybe it's best that everyone gets a chance to read what really goes on in those countries who do what they do in the name of Islam.

I've heard plenty of times that Assyrians don't exist, but we do. We've managed to keep our culture strong by staying close to our people throughout the Arabization of the Middle East.

This should be integrated with Assyria and made to redirect there. --Delirium 08:30 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. Assyria is about an ancient country. Assyrian is about a modern-day people. RickK 08:33 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're related -- they're the people in the region that used to be Assyria. I'd personally prefer one article on Assyria with sections on ancient and modern history, and a note of any links that might exist between those. But I'm not entirely opposed to separate articles. In particular the recent updates about ancient empires seem to be very much in keeping with the other article. --Delirium 08:35 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The use of Assyrian to distinguish these people has been a consistent policy of modern Iraq. This article makes no mention of this long-standing aspect of Iraqi nationalist propaganda, or any of the notorious massacres of 'Assyrians' in Iraq. Connections with Assyria of antiquity are tenuous. Wetman 11:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To the contrary the Iraqi governement has doen its best to play down their Assyrian identity. During the Saddam's regim they were not counted in the census.

An unlogged-in user 134.76.165.76 changed "Assyrian" to Aramean throughout. i have reverted, since Aramaean has a page. Wetman 16:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Well people im an Assyrian..If you have any questions its just to add me at hanunz@hotmail.com..We Assyrians are alive and shall fight for indepence..just wait and see..And you morons..how the hell can a nation just become assyrians??dont you think?? we speak the same language as our old assyrians did..we look the same..we have the same traditions so what is this bullshit about? just some crap arameans trying to do some debating Sargon 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wetman 16:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are most certainly a modern people who identify themselves using the term "Assyrian". I'm not sure what Grabo was trying to get across. In an unrelated concern, I'm not sure whether the recent changes by 146.6.200.86 are corrections or propaganda. He changed a lot of numbers, which always worries me, including a factor of ten increase in the number of Assyrians killed by Bakr Sidki. He included a lot of links to stuff hosted by the Assyrian International News Agency. I don't know how well-known or respectable that group is, although their site looks quite professional. Certainly they would have a POV though, and some independent sources would be nice.Isomorphic 13:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "flag"

The Assyrian Flag

[removed offensive remark]

Whose flag is this? Where is it flown? Whom does it really represent? Am I the only one who cares? Wetman 23:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No others do care, although it does not fly above any parliament it is the accepted by all Assyrian instituations as the flag of this nation. In fact, the major instituations such as Assyrian church and The Assyrian Democratic Movement which is one of the main Assyrian political representative groups in Iraq, accept this as the Assyrian nations offical flag. --Ed Assyrian flag flies wherever there are Assyrianssee it here Adam

It was news to me, too. Some information here, on FotW. Curious, indeed -- who are the "Assyrian Universal Alliance"? Clearly, it's not purple and gold that their cohorts gleam in. –Hajor 01:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They have a website, which uses something like the flag in their logo. Tuf-Kat 02:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

As User:TheWhiteRussian confesses on his personal page, "been lurking for awhile, needed to log-in to upload some drawings I made of various flags of aspirant peoples." His pennants are illustrated at his entry Flags of non-sovereign nations. I pointed out that these confections were likely to be taken seriously... but that's the point I suppose. Wetman 01:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's one link . You can other here[1], [2], [3], [4]--equitor 06:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is False, The Modern Assyrians have no connections with the ancient Assyrians!!!

Where is your proof?

You wrote: Modern Assyrians have nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians. The ancient Assyrians were exterminated, and that has beem clearly illustrated in the Bible. The New Assyrians can be traced to the Syriac Arameans of Levant, They were called Athuri to designate the Arameans(Suriyanees) of Athur region around Mosul.

"If you will claim that the ancient Assyrians disappeared in 612 B.C. the least you can do is to disprove hundreds and thousands of references attesting to their existence as a living people during all centuries from fall of Nineveh to present. see some such examples at: http://www.christiansofiraq.com/facts.html . As far as their being Arameans it is untrue. They have never called themselves Arameans. Why would Arameans be called Assyrians? The term Suryani is persian and is derived from Asuryan which means Assyrian."

you wrote:
Then the Protestant missionaries(especially Wigram) came to set up a counter attack against the Catholic church who turned some of Suriyanees into Catholicsm and were given the name Chaldean Church(has also nothing to do with ancient Chaldeans). The british empire invented this new identity to justify a Christian rule over the not so lang migrated Arabs and Turks.

"You obviously have no knwoledge of the Assyrian history. All the historical facts contradict your claims."

You wrote:
But It resulted in uneefective mobilisation of the Christians and were bloodly massacred in 1933, at the hands of the Iraqi government then. Modern Assyrians are less in numbers comparing to their Chaldean counterpart, who make up the majority of Iraq's Christian population. Most of the current Assyrians(Suriyanees) were brought from to Turkey to Iraq, and populated the Kurdish villages around Mosul.

"The Chaldeans are the Assyrians who became Catholic and joined the Roman Catholic Church and were given the name Chaldean for religious reason." Even Iraq was part of Turkey before it was liberated by the British during world war one. The Assyrians you speak of were living in the mountains north of Mosul. They were driven there because of wars and massacres in the plain of Nineveh." The 1933 massacres of the Assyrians by the Iraqi army happened because they appealed to the League of Nations for help in settling them in homogenous community as it was promised by the British and the Iraqi government."

You wrote; 'If I am not mistaken, ancient Assyrians as a people disappeared from history after the final defeat of Assyria and mixed with surrounding ethnic groups.' Your claim is false because there is no historical evidence to prove it. Please check the following website for further information. [[Christian Assyrians] http://www.christiansofiraq.com/facts.html] you also wrote: 'I am quite sure that at least some of the members of the Assyrian Church do have some real Ancient Assyrian ancestors somewhere in their genealogical line, but to claim direct descendancy for the whole group is contrary to common sense, I'm afraid.' Again why is it contrary to common sense? Where is your evidence?

You also wrote: "I understand the political agenda behind those claims, but Wikipedia should not be the place for political propaganda." There is no political agenda behind this. Just because you do not have sufficient knowledge about the Christian Assyrian history it does not make you are an expert in this field.

Besides, such crude propaganda will not help the authors to achieve their aims. The article should be balanced, with opposite views expressed.

I'll second anonymous User: 192.117.3.155 on that point. Wetman 01:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is unbalanced about presenting dozens of historical references to prove that John Joseph and his student Dr. Ross have misrepresented the contemporary Assyrian identity. Thousands of references identifying the so-called Nestorians, Jacobites and Chaldeans as Assyrians long before Lyrard and the English prove this. Those who express doubts seem to have difficulty to reconcile these facts Historical references to Assyrians with the opinions of uninformed writers. Let us compare the information provided at the fore mentioned site with what John Joseph wrote in his “Assyrian and their Moslem Neighbors”.

His intentions were to prove that the contemporary Assyrians are not related to the ancient nation. He wrote : Nestorians were never called Assyrians by themselves or anyone else until the English and Layrad gave them that name in mid 19th century. Hundreds if not thousands of references in all centuries contradict such claim. Joseph wrote: These people have been known as Nestorians therefore they can not be considered Assyrians. Was Joseph unaware of the fact that the name Nestorian is a religious denomination and was given as a matter of insult to the members of the Church of the East when it separated form the the Roman Catholic Church in the 5th century AD? Were the Lutheran of Germany no longer German because they were known by their religious affiliation?

It is amazing that even educated people agreed when Joseph wrote; the Armenian “Asori” for the Christian Assyrians ,used forever, means Syrian and not Assyrian. He reasoned the right name for Assyrian in the Armenian language is Asori-stantji . Why should ‘Asori’ by itself not mean Assyrian but as part of Asori-stanji do so? His claim is contrary to the grammar rules of the Indo European languages which includes Armenian. According to this formula Asori means Assyrian, Asoristani means citizen of Assyria, just as Persian Armani means Armenian, Armanistani means citizen of Armenia. Hindi means Indian, Hidustani means citizen of India.

These evidences show that Joseph was either unaware of such facts or intentionally disregarded them. What contributed to the survival of the Assyrians after their fall was their isolation from the rest of the world and having a different language and religion from the people who conquered them. Today citizenship is wrongly equated with national identity and religion no longer divides people but it was not always the case especially in the Middle East. Such factors however contributed to the Assyrian survival before and during Christian era.warda

I agree that the current Assyrians descent from the populations of old Assyria that merged with Aramaic populations at some point (around 8th century BC). While it is correct to say that current Iraqis descent from Arab conquerors and converted Assyrians, the opposite is less true. While it is possible that some Assyria-Arab weddings gave birth to Christian children, these case are more likely to remain exception. Indeed, because of the Islamic law, Assyrians who married Arab Muslims had Muslims children and were assimilated by the Arab group. The only way to remain Christian would be to marry another Christian (thus another Assyrian) which means that the current Assyrian Christians descent almost exclusively from the pre-Arabic population.

Also, they are somewhat distinct of the Syriacs when you use the more narrow definition of Syriac (western Aramaic), though both people are very closely related since they spoke dialects of Aramaics since the antiquity. The Assyrian eastern Aramaic is more influenced by the original Assyrian language (who was not Aramaic). I believe that it would be accurate to draw a parallel between Syriac/Assyrian Aramaic and higher/lower German: closely related languages, nevertheless different. Syriac in Arabic is said 'suri', and in Syriac itself 'suryoyo' which is distinct of asuri/ashuri (assyrian in arabic). As I quoted from the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic page (see disambiguation) :

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is a modern Eastern Aramaic or Assyrian language. Assyrian Neo Aramaic is not to be confused with Assyrian Akkadian, or the Old Aramaic dialect that was adopted as a lingua franca in Assyria in the 8th century BC. Originally, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic was spoken in the area between Lake Urmia, north-western Iran, and Siirt, south-eastern Turkey, but it is now the language of a worldwide diaspora. Most speakers are members of the Assyrian Church of the East.

Syriac/Assyrian distinction is not very relevant IMHO since both population share a strong feeling of common identity.

--equitor 20:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Assyrians did not disappear

Assyrians did not disappear from the region after the fall of Nineveh their capital. Although it is true that some did blend into the new more powerful cultures many did not. Further in their history the reason for not assimilating with these new cultures was mostly religious, as Assyrians were amongst the worlds first people to convert and one of the few in the region and thus inter marriage and assimilation where never encouraged, which resulted in the continues persecution of these people who are much too familiar with the concept of jihad which the west has most recently been introduced too.

From the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Christian conversion of the "Assyrians" in the 2nd century AD is a long stretch of time, just in itself. This is like modern Greeks being "true sons of Homer", or Mussolini the direct heir of Rome. It's not history, and besides we've heard it all before... --Wetman 10:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are defintily right it is indeed a long stretch of time, I just wonder how it could be possible for a whole group of people to simply disappear after the fall of their government.

Its my understanding that this stretch of time is often referred to as the First dark age which lasted from 612BC to 33AD

The Assyrian people survived the loss of their state, and they remained mostly inconspicuous for the next 600 years. The Persians mention employing Assyrians as troops, and there is the failed attempt at reestablishing an Assyrian Kingdom in 350 B.C.; the Persians squelched this attempt and castrated 400 Assyrian leaders as punishment

To assume the fall of a representative body causes a nation to become extinct is some what irrational. As the "modern" Assyrians for centuries have and still live in areas that were the heart of ancient Assyira, (eg. Mosul which is Nineveh)

I guess it all depends on what one means by "disappear." The references to "Assyrians" in Persian chronicles need to be entered into the revised version of the article at Assyrian/Revision, as long as you can supply the names and approximate dates (century) of the texts, as with all the good history articles at Wikipedia. These mentions would form a background to the story of modern Assyrians, even if the connection with Nineveh remains tenuous. Some Ottoman mentions of Assyrians pre-1900 would be even more important. --Wetman 03:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC).

[Welman]Per your request here is an article dedicated to refrences to the Assyrians and Assyria after the fall of Nineveh upto recent centuries. "Based on scant knowledge of the Assyrian history some have asserted that the contemporary Assyrians never called themselves or were known by that name, before it was bestowed on them by the Anglican missionaries, or the Archaeologist Henry Austen Layrad in the 19th century. Such statements have been repeated so often that they have been accepted as fact by the misinformed, but historical evidences prove otherwise. Attacks against the Assyrian identity in recent decades has been driven partly by misguided writers such as John Joseph, and a small segment of the Syrian Orthodox Church members who identify themselves as Arameans because their Patriarch Aprim Barsoum in 1952 decided to distance his church from its Assyrian heritage for religious and political reasons. [Assyrian historical facts http://christiansofiraq.com/facts.html]

Alternative point of view

In a timid effort to balance somewhat this very unbalanced article I have added a link to an alternative point of view. I do not want to edit the text itself, being no expert on Modern Assyrians. (anon. reader)

Don't be so shy! Dr Ross' article is an excellent link. This entry currently makes no distinctions between Aramaeans and Chaldeans, as Dr Ross does. Merely exchanging one label for another or asserting a single nationalist view is not enough: some editing is needed. So I have made a working-space Assyrian/Revision where we can all work peacefully behind-the-scenes, until we get this entry balanced and correct and agree that it can be posted in lieu of the unsatisfactory present one. Wetman 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Text for Assyrian/Revision

Note: The revision text has been worked on— by too few people— since 23 September 2004. By 23 February 2005 it really should be ready to take the place of the current text here. Any objections? --Wetman 22:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An addition made here, with some of its too-partisan wording removed runs as follows:

The Assyrians of today are originally Aramean. The label "Assyrian" divides the Aramaean (Syrian, Nestorian, Caldean, Marunite, Melkites). Therefore most of Arameans condemn the pseudonym Assyrian.

This above statement is not true. The term Aramean For the members of the Syrian Orthodox Church has come in use only since 1952 when Patriarch Aprim Barsoum for religious and political reasons decided to distance his church from its Assyrian identity. The reality is that Christians of Mesopotamia have not historically called themselvs Arameans. They have used two specific terms: Syrian i.e. Suraya and suryoyo which are abreviated froms for Assyrian and Athuraya which is Assyrian. For more information about how Patriarch Aprim Barsoum renamed the identity of his church to Aramean read the following articles. [The first article http://christiansofiraq.com/joseph/reply2.html] [The second article: http://christiansofiraq.com/barsoum.html]

If more competent people than I would vet this for historical accuracy and edit it, it could be added to the revision that is shaping up at Assyrian/Revision --Wetman 06:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An Anon. User:213.114.242.55 has reverted it from the text. Perhaps that's as much commentary as can be expected here. --Wetman 15:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK the choice is labels highly disputed and both camp will endlessly revert back and forth Also note how the question of ethnicity and religion is intertwined, as Syrian, Nestorian, Caldean, Marunite, Melkitesa all refer to different christian churches. --Pjacobi 18:23, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

The current draft now begins: "Assyrians" is a collective term used to identify indigenous peoples of northern Iraq and neighboring areas of Syria and Turkey, who also identify themselves as Aramaeans and Chaldeans. So the issue is neutrally covered already. In seems to be a red herring, thankfully. --Wetman 18:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

It is certainly difficult to get an objective view here. I think it is fair to say that the use and meaning of the name is disputed, and then to say that the article is going to document the various uses and meanings and some of the disputes, without trying to suggest that a Wikipedia article is aiming at a watertight definition. I would like to find some time in the next few days to review the revision. I think it's fair to say that academic opinion on modern Assyrians has warmed over the last few years, and would be good to catch this drift. Gareth Hughes 23:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A move in the right direction would be for Assyrian and Aramaean to link to each other as alternative labels. My own interest is cooling, however, for lack of any objective information, and I'll be glad to remove this from my Watchlist. Good luck all! Over and out! --Wetman 03:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having an article split into two independant parallel versions for six whole months like this doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. Considering that nothing much seems to be going on on any of the articles or talk pages, how about I just be bold and merge everything back into the main article now? I'm a complete outsider who's stumbled across this dispute by happenstance, I've got nothing invested in any "sides" (I haven't even bothered to read what the dispute's about yet :). I did this once before with Continuation War, which was similarly split into two distinct versions when I stumbled across it, and it seemed to work out quite well. If there are no major objections in the next few days I'll just go ahead with it. Bryan 07:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good call, Bryan. The revision is in a better state than the current article. I would suggest that you keep a copy of the old article somewhere as some revisions have been made to it while we were trying to work with its replacement. I've got a few ideas about how to progress with this article, but it is a hot political subject, and it will be vandalised. Gareth Hughes 14:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the two versions line-by-line, matching up and eliminating duplicated material, and I found that the current "main" version was basically a subset of the /Revision version. I also did a little merging along the way when it seemed appropriate, untrained though I am in this field. In the end, this was the only paragraph from the main version which I could find no analogue for in the /Revision version:

As recently as December 2000, a Syriac Orthodox priest, Fr. Yusuf Akbulut,[5] stood before the Turkish public security court to answer for an interview in the newspaper Hurriyet, in which he reaffirmed the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey, which was under discussion at the time in the Congress of the United States. Additionally he said that in the "Year of the Sword" (1915), Assyrians were also murdered. The incident provoked a request in Sweden's parliament for an investigation, since Turkey is an applicant for membership in the European Union.

I don't know whether this is appropriate to merge into the /Revision version, so I'm putting it here in talk: for the time being. The rest of my work is done; I've replaced the main article and redirected the /Revision subpage to it. Hopefully I haven't stepped on too many toes in the process, but even if I have at least now all the arguing and editing will be done on just one version. :) Bryan 04:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Bryan. You've done a good job with this article. There has been a steady stream on POV edits to this and related articles: some by Assyrians who want to exaggerate various claims (which, I feel, has a negative effect to their cause) and some by others who wish to deny Assyrians an identity. It is entirely appropriate that the account of the trial be included here: it is relevent and noteworthy. However, I expect someone won't like it, so it would need careful handling from the outset. --Gareth Hughes 12:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Pov Check

Modern Assyrians have nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians. The ancient Assyrians were exterminated, and that has beem clearly illustrated in the Bible. The New Assyrians can be traced to the Syriac Arameans of Levant, They were called Athuri to designate the Arameans(Suriyanees) of Athur region around Mosul. Then the Protestant missionaries(especially Wigram) came to set up a counter attack against the Catholic church who turned some of Suriyanees into Catholicsm and were given the name Chaldean Church(has also nothing to do with ancient Chaldeans). The british empire invented this new identity to justify a Christian rule over the not so lang migrated Arabs and Turks. But It resulted in uneefective mobilisation of the Christians and were bloodly massacred in 1933, at the hands of the Iraqi government then. Modern Assyrians are less in numbers comparing to their Chaldean counterpart, who make up the majority of Iraq's Christian population. Most of the current Assyrians(Suriyanees) were brought from to Turkey to Iraq, and populated the Kurdish villages around Mosul.

First of all, apologies for disturbing you, but I feel that recent changes (12 August) of user Assyria 90 may have reverted the article from a Neutral Point of View to a very biased one, thus making the former effort on this work worth nothing. However, as I am new to Wikipedia, I would like to hear your opinnion first. Thanks in advance

Jamuki

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've been here for a few months, but this is the first time I've ever seen "POV Check". It sounds pretty scary and formidable to me. I noticed you didn't even use a real template, but made up something just for this page that "looks" like a template... Generally, the procedure here is, if there is any specific issue with the text, you can specifically change it yourself, or else you can specifically address the specific parts that you feel are not NPOV, here on the discussion page. I'm not sure what throwing up a blanket banner without specifying anything would accomplish. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 16:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks a lot for your warm welcome and your kind words. I just copied the text from Template:POV-check, but I realize that it's basically bad and I should add a reference to the template itself. I am changing that, thanks a lot for noticing.

My doubt is the following: I am not an expert on this issue, but it looks like to me hat user Asyria 90's contributions are very biased and should be reverted. That's my humble opinion but I would like to hear other's people opinion. From WP:NPOV, it appears that Template:POV check should be ussed to "mark articles that may be biased". After the changes of Assyria 90 I think it is biased. What are your thoughts on this? Is there any preferred procedure?

Thanks a lot for your help, Jamuki

Well, at least the template does point to this page, and the preferred procedure is to use this page first to discuss any specific, significant changes you feel should be made to the text as it now stands... Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 17:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I am looking for The Flag of Assyria. If found please contact me at:crackwindobe@voila.fr

First of all the Assyrians did not disappear and the Bible does not say anything about Assyrians disappearing. The three 3 wisemen who came to visit Mary when she had borned Jesus said "Greetings from Assyria and Persia". It is also proved that the Persians let 400 Assyrian "politicans" executed since they wanted to establish a reborn Assyria since we had 2 kingdoms left of our glory empire.This occured in the 4th century. My reverts are not biased although your are. You make it seem as Assyrians today have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians and thats a bit of insulting to me. There are no proves for claiming that, and a lot of experts are involved in Assyrianism, for example Simon Parpola, a well known expert. Most experts know that modern and ancient Assyrians have the same blood. And I would also like to give you some fact about the villages "we populated" in the Kurdish areas as you say. The Kurds are Iranians originally living in the Zagros Mountaints. It was not until the 19th century the Kurds moved from the Zagros mountains to Turkey and Iraq this because Iran wanted to minimize the Assyrian Christians numbers in the area we call Mesopotamia. We have lived in Mesopotamia since thousands of years and now your claiming it was Kurds that settled in our homecountry, and that we the original people of Mesopotamia invanded it? If im not wrong The Chaldean Church has more members than the Assyrian Church of the East but you musnt forget that a lot of members in the Chaldean Church see themselves as Assyrians, for example Tareq Aziz.--Yohanun 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

Yohanun: "Most experts know that modern and ancient Assyrians have the same blood."

Where did these experts get an ancient Assyrian blood sample?

Also, suppsing why are modern Assyrians descendants from the acnient Assyrians, but not other Iraqis?

From what I've read, the genetic differences between the various Mid-Eastern populations is so small, that there is hardly any difference, so genetic tests probably wouldn't give clear answers. And physically, despite some extravagant claims, I don't see much physical difference between modern Assyians, and other Iraqis, keeping in mind that the Iraqis (like many other peoples) don't come in just one type, but vary in looks, hair-type, skin tone, nose shape, etc...

Basically, what is the basis of this claim that the modern Assyians, and only the modern Assyrians, are descendants of the acnients, and no one else?

MYLO 09:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

essays

Assyrian Identity is an essay. Such facts as it contains should be merged into this article. dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The term Assyrian carries a lot of meaning. It is ambiguous and the reason why people are fighting here is because they are mixing the different meanings of the term. It can mean:

• -Member of the Assyrian church of the East
• -Speaker of eastern syriac or assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Assyrian speak an eastern dialect of syriac/aramean. But sometimes they are all called Syriac (western and eastern speaker of syriac). This definition would include the members of the Chaldean_Catholic_Church, the catholic version of the Assyrian church.
• -Member of the antique assyrian civilisation. Note that initially, antique Assyrians did not speak an aramaic language. They had their own different semitic language which was called Assyrian and was not related to aramaic. Text below is copied from the page Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is a modern Eastern Aramaic or Assyrian language. Assyrian Neo Aramaic is not to be confused with Assyrian Akkadian, or the Old Aramaic dialect that was adopted as a lingua franca in Assyria in the 8th century BC. Originally, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic was spoken in the area between Lake Urmia, north-western Iran, and Siirt, south-eastern Turkey, but it is now the language of a worldwide diaspora. Most speakers are members of the Assyrian Church of the East.

In their majority, modern assyrians come from the North of Iraq, where they were ethnically 'cleansed' from the region now known as kurdistan. As an aramean speaking people, they are closely related to the ancient Ninive civilisation but they likely descent from a mix of Northern arameans, some or most of these aramean populations were under the control of old Assyrian empire. Bear in mind that this is simplification as identities are partially built on a myth : modern jews claim to descent from ancient hebrews (partially true), same for modern arabs and ethnic arabs (very partially true). And evey modern american can claim the original founding fahters as their cultural ancestors. --equitor 16:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Where are your ancient historical references for the above claim? Let us not confuse a 20th cnetury writer's opinion with historical facts. You write "Assyrians were ethnically 'cleansed' from the region now known as kurdistan". What does that means and when did it happen? The Reason Assyrians speak the Aramean languaue is because it was the policy of the Assyrian empire to make the Aramean language lingua Franka especially since it had an easy to write alphabet. In later centuries the Aramean language was spoken by the Jews, Cannanites, Egytions, Etiuopian, even Chrisitans of Indea. It is absurd to call all these people arameans. The language Modern Assyrians speak includes thousands of Akkadian words.Check a list of them As far as Assyrians having assimilating Arameans it did not alter their Assyrian identity. All nations have assimilated others from time to time without losing their heritage. The homeland of the Arameans was in syria and not Assyria. Those who lived in Assyria after the 612 B.C. defeat never identified themselves as Arameans. The term Syrian or Syriac have derived from Assyrian and not from Aramean. The fact that Arameans were called by these other names is because They did not have a strong national identity and the region west of Euphrates was part of the Assyrian empire. warda

The mid 19th century translation of the Persian inscriptions attest to the existence of Assyria and Assyrians as part of the Persian empire.

The Nagshe Rostam inscription by Darius (512-48) which lists the national types of the Persian Empire includes the Assyrians . A reference to them reads as: "Iyam Asuryah", "this is an Assyrian" which is very similar to the term "Suryah" a name christian Assyrians have identified themselves by. (Sukumar Sen, "Old Persian Inscriptions of the Achamenian Emperors," University of Calcutta 1941 p. 107)

The Behistun inscription of Darius in the beginning of his rule lists 23 countries as part of his empire including: "Persis, Huza (Elam), Babiru (Babylon), Athura (Assyria)...."(Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)

"Proclaims Xerexes, the king: "By the favor of Ahura Meazda; these are the people/countries of which I was king of....Persia, Media, Elam, Armenia, Drangiana, parhia, Aria, Bactri a, Sogdia, Choresmia, Babylonia, ASSYRIA, Stagydia, Lydia, Egypt......" (Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)

The fifth century B.C. Herodotus describes the Assyrian troops as part of the Persian empire's army of king xerexes (486-465/4): "The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe. .... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians." Assyrians and babylonians together consisted of five infantries and were led by Otaspes son of Artchaies. The Herodotus Barbarians meant the Persians, the Armenians and other none Greek.

Those who question the identity of the contemporary Assyrians justify it by the fact that they been known primarily as Syrians and Suraye during most of the christian Era. The critics seem to be unaware that after the defeat of the Persians by Alexander, his generals ruled Mesopotamia and the land west of Euphrates from 330 to 145 B.C. and called them collectively Syria which according to their historians and ordinary people it meant the Assyrian empire.

The first century B.C. Strabo attests to this fact when he writes:" When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrian no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus; and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus [Nineveh], in Aturia..[Assyria]. (H.L. Jones Translation of "Geography of Strabo", New York 1916, Vol. VIII p.195)

While one has to admit that inhabitants west of Euphrates were not Assyrians, there is no reaon to doubt the Assyrian identity of those living in the Assyria proper. According to Strabo the country of the Assyrians at his time included babylon and Aturia [Assyria]. Later he writes the name 'Syrians' extends from Babylon to the Gulf of Issus [the Mediteranean Sea]. (Strabo p.193) This was the extent of the Assyrian empire before its fall.

The third century Roman historian Justinus also attests to this fact. He wrote: "The Assyrians, who were afterwards called Syrians, held their empire thirteen hundred years." (Marcus Junianus Justinus Epitome of the Philippic, "History of Pompeius Trogus", translated by Rev. John Selby Watson. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853)

The above refences clearly prove that the term Syrians and Suraye applied to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia denoted Assyrians who later became Christians.

Archaeological discoveries also indicate that the Assyrian community in Ashur "[c]ontinued to worship it's national god and his consort, on the same spot as their ancestors had done before the disasters of 612 B.C., although in a new temple. As late as AD 200-28, they were using such grand old personal names as Sin/ahe/erba, even Esarhaddon...." (Malcom A.R. Colledge, "The Parthians", Praegr, New York 1967, p.46.)

Iraqi Department of Antiquities between 1951 and 1955, discovered nine temples in the city of Hatra dedicated to the Assyrian deities such as Shamash, Sin, Nergal and one to the Assyrian God, "Ashur Bel " The head of the Ashur Bel's statue found in Hatra is broken, but the remaining curled square beard is characteristically similar to the imperial Assyrian kings. (Edward Bacon, "Digging for History", Archaeological Discoveries Throughout the World, 1945 to 1959", New York 1960, p. 205.)

I am not denying any of these facts, on the contrary. What I meant is that in recent history, Assyrians were mainly present in the upper part of Iraq and Eastern Turkey because they were progressively driven out by Auslims/Arabs from the plains. They went through large-scale massacres in 1915 (under Ottoman Empire) and in the 30's (in Iraq). This is a fact and is not a controversial issue. Also Assyrians or Syriacs or whatever we name them, while retaining a strong ethnic/national identity remain divided along religious lines (Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian church of the east etc...) --equitor 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV banner

The NPOV banner has been here for two months now. Most of the article was modified since then. Is anyone opposed to removing te banner and if yes, can this persons specify what is to be debated so we can continue in improving the article? Cause I lost the track. Thanks--equitor 21:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So I guess that everything has been resolved? I'll remove the POV tag this week in this case.--equitor 18:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is still not neutral. "Original inhabitants"? With all due respect, almost nowhere on Earth can anyone claim to be original inhabitants. The original inhabitants of northern Iraq were probably some Homo Erectus. Move forward in time, some Neanderthals lived there. Then Cro-Magnon moves in. Then the first agriculture peoples, identities relatively unknown. Then the early Sumerian types. Finally a group is known as the Assyrians. This is just one example... the article still needs work.

Merging?

Hi,

Assyrian Identity has been marked for a merge; whoever marked it suggested that it be merged with Assyrian, but someone (more rightly, I think) suggested that it be merged into this article. I'm hesitant to merge it without input, though. Assyrian Identity has issues with neutral point of view, and it looks like people have spent a lot of time trying to fix that on this page already. Would anyone more familiar with the issues at hand here be interested in either just merging the two articles or working with me to merge them?

Thanks, Hbackman 03:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I have removed two entire sections from this article as they are obvious copyright violations. I removed the section entitled Assyrians In Ancient Times And Today. You will find the text word for word in the last section of the copyrighted document http://www.nineveh.com/parpola_eng.pdf. I also removed the entire lead section, which is from http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrians.htm, and is also copyrighted material. I replaced it with the lead section in existence before the violation took place (this diff). I hope that explains my rather drastic edits. --Gareth Hughes 15:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

About the copyright violation of Simon parpolas work.It wasnt any copyright vioaltion of "The Assyrians in Ancient Times and Today" since his work has been published in many assyrian websites and people are free to copy his work and articles since he doesnt have any Copyright on his work.So i hope its okey by you that i put the article back in the Assyrian people.--Sargon 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand copyright. The copyright symbol does not need to be present for the work to be copyright: if it is present, it is as a reminder. The websites that use this work may equally be violating the copyright of the original author. To reproduce this material in Wikipedia, you need permission to do so. This permission can be specific — the original author gives written permission to Wikipeidia — or general — the original work carries a message the the work is public domain or otherwise reproducable under GFDL. Most editors of Wikipedia try to write their own material rather than copying from others. The presumedly copyright material must be removed until it can be proved otherwise. --Gareth Hughes 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I'm not sure that merging this article with Syriacs (talk · history · watch) is such a good idea: there's a lot of political baggage attached to both terms. I tend to prefer Syriacs because it refers to those who have the Syriac language as their heritage. Assyrian is probably the more political term; it is associated with political nationalism. --Gareth Hughes 23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the two should remain separate, but more on the grounds that Assyrian encompasses the whole scope of ethno-political meanings from history/mythology to language to communal identity, whereas Syriac as I understand is merely implies use of a liturgical language and script by people who may or may not use Arabic or Suryoyo or any other neo-Aramaic variety. (I could be mistaken though...) //Big Adamsky 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the name Syriacs refers to the language in use by the people involved, and is not an ethnical identification. Many Syriacs claim they are the direct descendants of, and ethnically identical to the ancient Assyrians, many others trace their origins back to the ancient Arameans. Syriacs leaves the question of ethnicity in the middle. --Benne 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should not be merged in with Syriacs. Syriac is the language of our nation, the Assyrian term is a national term and political. Most of the "Syriacs" (Chaldeans, Arameans , Suryoye , Assyrians) see themselves as Assyrians, although some refer themselves as the anceint Arameans or ancient Chaldeans. Syriac is once and fore all more seen as a language.--Sargon 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm far more familiar with the use of Assyrian to denote the members of the Assyrian Church of the East, than to denote all members of churches that traditionally use a Syriac liturgy. As far as I know, in works on the history of Iraq this usage is almost universal. I'm not at all used to seeing it used to refer to members of the Syrian Orthodox or Catholic churches. Neither is it, as far as I know, commonly used to refer to the Greek Orthodox and Muslim speakers of modern Armenian in the Rif Dimashq governorate. Can anyone elucidate? Palmiro | Talk 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The US government decided that the members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church will be denoted as only Assyrians in the US. Syriac is the liturgy language of the churchs and should not be seen as a national term for all Assyrians, Arameans, Suryoye and Chaldeans. Although I can agree with Palmiro that many are familiar with the use of Assyrians to denote the members of the Assyrian Church, but if you see on the Assyrian poulation it denotes all of the 3 different churchs as Assyrians in every population static. In the Syriac & Chaldean Church many of the members are Assyrians, not only Arameans/Syriacs or Chaldeans.--Sargon 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. (And even if it were right, is it up to the US goverment to determine the identity of its citizens??) The bishops of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the US advised its members to register as "Syriac" in the 2000 US census. [6] So I guess it's left up to the people to decide under which name they would like to be listed.

You say it yourself, there are members of the SOC who consider themselves to be Assyrians. Therefore, the name "Assyrians" can be used to refer to all Syriacs. --Benne 16:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose dealing with the history of the Assyrian people under the article with that name, and possibly transferring paragraphs concering their ancient state to Assyrian Empire. Having a separate entry on ancient Assyrians seems redundant to me. Big Adamsky 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense to the contributers of this article.

This is VERY poorly constructed and biased. This needs heavy revision.

Move Most historical referrences to a different page.

I suggest removing most ancient historical data to Assyrians.

I propose keeping it here, in a section about History. //Big Adamsky 23:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

the talk About the ottoman genocide should not have been published as the issue is still under debate

Historical referrences

Start moving historic data to the Assyrians page.

Our Future Nation

Assyria is our nation. Syriac Aramaic is our Language. Christianity is our Religion! These are the facts. Aram/Syria was never independant of Assyria, after the fall of Nineveh and eventually the fall of Babylon it was incorporated into Greco-Roman Empires. Even Phoenecia/Canaan eventually became an Assyrian colony. The inhabitants were deported to Nineveh and Babylon and merged into Assyrian culture. That is the fact.

That's also part of Jewish history. Although I wouldn't say merged in the traditional sense. The Jewish population that didn't return, went on to become todays Syrian Jews. There are probally archeological sources to support this, but I'm just to lazy to look for them.

- - - -

So Imperial control of a region automatically means it belong to the conquering nation forever?

Thae act is, Syria was under Anatolian Ottoman rule for longer than Neo-Assyrian rule, does that mean Syria is forver now a part of Turkey?

MYLO 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it

I really dont see anything wrong with this entry? "Assyrian" is an ethnicity. "Syriac" is a language. Why would you want to merge it? That is like merging the "English_language" page with the "USA" wiki entry.

Also, there have been many references to people calling themselves Assyrians hundreds of years ago (e.g. in years 967-1000 AD and 1072-1090 AD, the Assyrian Church of the East had 2 patriarchs with "Aturaya" in their names, which means "Assyrian" in the Syriac language, Mari Aturaya and Odishu Aturaya II respectivly) so you can't really say they have no connection to the ancient Assyrians.

...and could people please actualy point out what is wrong with the article rather than just posting a one line "this article is false"?

202.7.166.169 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

hi'

according to english vocabulary, syriac is a name pertaining to the language of syria and syrian to it's inhibitants so only the citizens of syria are syrian regardless their sects and religions, even the muslim who is citizen in syria is syrian.now concerning the socalled syriacs or syrians(those who belong to the syriac orthodoxe church) by error and ignorance they should rather be called assyrians .the person who wants to go deeper in the origins of syrian or syriac name should be a very well experienced person in the assyrian language (the eastern accent and the western accent). for the syrian orthodoxe church i prefer a more reasonnable and accademic name (western assyrian chuch), and it's members the "western assyrians", since the origin of the word syria is assyria since the name was called by the greeks indicating the assyrians.

i give an example here:
ashour danapal was called in greek scripts sourdanapal,thus ashuria(assyria in english) becomes souria or sourya.

best regards
sargon6719a@yahoo.com

Category:Assyrian people?

Why is there no category specifically for Assyrian people? I know there is one for Syriacs, but many do not identify themselves as such, preferring "Assyrian." SouthernComfort 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page of Syriacs/miniproject, you'll understand what's going on: some activists have decided to change all mentions of "Assyrian" into "Syriacs", included for the Assyrian genocide, now "Syriac genocide". As they're discussing and modifying articles and templates among themselves without any "higher" interference, you'll see that Maronites, and even all Lebanese, have now suddenly become "Syriacs" without being aware of it... Next on line, the Mandeans and the Targumic Jews because they speak (or spoke) aramaic ? --Pylambert 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading through some of the discussions, I have to say that all this is going to needlessly confuse the reader, especially considering the terms "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" are far more prevalent and familiar than "Syriac," which from what I understand is solely a linguistic term - not an actual ethnic grouping. Mind you I am far from being an expert in this topic, but amongst Assyrians/Chaldeans in Iran (and those of Iranian descent here in N. America) I have never heard anyone identify as "Syriac." If there is precedent for usage of the term "Syriac" as an umbrella term for a group of peoples (like Iranian peoples, for instance), that's fine, but that shouldn't mean that "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" suddenly become non-existent on WP. SouthernComfort 12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy problems

Assyrians is the most used term in Iran and the former Russian/Soviet Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia), Assyro-Chaldeans, and more recently Chaldeo-Assyrians or Chaldo-Assyrians in Iraq. In Syria and Lebanon, there are also people, both from the Assyrian or Chaldean churches and from the Syriac churches, plus secularized groups, who use the term for themselves, even if others, in the Middle East and the diaspora, use other ethnonyms, mostly because their identity is often mostly religious and local more than "ethnic" or "national".

There are also attempts to revive a literary Assyrian language as a Dachsprache, just like Standard Arabic (fusha) but the linguistic denomination of the spoken dialects are NOT Assyrian languages, they are Eastern Neo-Aramaic languages or dialects: up to now, linguists call Assyrian language the ancient (extinct)language of the Assyrian Empire.

Modern Assyrianism is an ideology striving towards nation-building while the target people who are to form this Assyrian nation are scattered territorially as well as religiously, not only in the Middle East, living in ethnically mixed territories, under governments whose sympathy for minority ethnic groups is not the best-known quality.

There is no such thing as a Syriac ethnic or national identity encompassing all the ethnic groups and religious communities as the Assyrian identity does. Syriac only refers to the (ethno)religious identity of members of the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic churches.

As for the inclusion of Maronites and other Syro-Lebanese Christians into the Syriacs category, this is based on a very local anti-Arab gesture of an extremist Maronite prelate in North America (and his followers) in prevision of the 2000 US Census. Most Maronites consider themselves first as Maronites, or Lebanese (or Syrian) Christians, or Lebanese (or Syrians) tout court, some of them also accept the Arab national identity (the Bustani brothers were among the initiators of the Arab renaissance, Al-Nahda, in the XIXth century), and tiny groups tried to set up separate identities based on mythical ancestry, like Phoenicianism or Mardaism.

All this is already quite complex, but if nationalists from various sides begin to introduce, as they've been doing for a while, inaccurate informations on several articles of Wikipedia, the nonspecialized reader will be totally lost, and risks to be misled. --Pylambert 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job clarifying the article and improving it. I'm certainly learning a great deal more about this subject. Perhaps there should be a disambig for Assyrians as well (using the intro list for the disambig page)? I think that would help in making things easier to understand for the average reader. SouthernComfort 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think Assyrians should be a dab page though, because its most common meaning is the Assyrian people. Besdies, Assyrian is already a disambig page.--Khoikhoi 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question on this subject however: What's the difference between the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Assyro-Chaldeans, and the Syriacs? --Khoikhoi 00:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Chaldean I will answer that :).

1. We are all ethnically the same. We look the same. Have the same skin tone. The same kind of hair. The same type of speaking way. Physically we are the same and we stand out from the arabs, in Iraq that is.

2. Before the 7th century, their was no such thing as a chaldean, but later on as more and more missionaries from the vatican succeded in the region, half of mesopotamia's population became Catholic. So by the 16th century (1543 I think,) the pope decided to call those catholics of Mesopotamia as Chaldean. Now as the centuries went by, the catholics started to live just with the cathlic villages and the Assyrians of orthodox faith stayed by themselfs as well. As thh centuries went by, the two communities started to be more and more separted with each other in terms of society, culture, and the language )Today we speak the same language, but a different dialect. So its kinda hard to understand a Assyrian for me, even thou if he is from Iraq too.) This lead to slowly to some Chaldeans believe that they are not ethnically Assyrian. This idea is only popular among desporora Chaldeans, who live in Detroit, and other western cities. But the ones in Iraq, think of themselfs as in the same boat as Assyrians.

3. I dont know about Syriacs. Their are very very few of them in Iraq. Like only 5% of christians of Iraq are syriacs. They only exist in Mosul.

4. Assyro-Chaldean is a term first used by Syriac Orthodox bishop Mor Afram Barsom in 1920 wrote a letter on behalf of the Assyrians to the League of Nations. Check it out: [[7]]. the term was used to summerize the two people. It was not a political idea by him, but it was simply hard to keep on saying "Chaldeans and Assyrians." Today howerever, Assyrian politicians created the term "ChaldoAssyrian" in order to unite the twos sides politically. So this term is kind of used everywhere these days; on TV and newspapers.

If anybody can add more, please do so Chaldean 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the genocide on the Assyrians in 1914 there were a lot of Assyrians living in southeast Turkey with the Syriacs. After the genocide the Assyrians in Turkey moved to Iraq. Many Syriacs in Turkey moved to Syria and found the town of Kamishli. But Turkey still had Syriacs. Syriacs speak Suryoyo (Turoyo). Suryoyo and Assyrian(Sureth) are both dialects and I've learned to understand both dialects, its not hard for an Sureth speaking to learn Suryoyo or opposite. Most of the Syriacs belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church and some of the members have in the last 30 years called themselves Arameans since all the Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans Church language is Aramaic. The Aramaic all the Churches use is principle the same. I know some Chaldeans and Assyrians who speak Sureth and they understand eachother with almost no problem. As dear Chaldean said "We are ethnically the same" and that is correct. --Yohanun 14:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Either?

"Assyrians are either: the inhabitants of the ancient empire of Assyria the followers of the Assyrian Church of the East" How about either or both? Chaldean 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Assyrians are not only the followers of the Assyrian Church of the East since I myself is a follower of the Syriac Orthodox Church but im Assyrian. Assyrians are considered as those who speak the language (sureth or suryoyo), belong to one of the Churches in our people and of course see themselves as Assyrians. They are the inhabitants of the ancient empire Assyria too.--Yohanun 14:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

they can't be both, as there was no Assyrian Church of the East at the time of the ancients. Agathoclea 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The reason why it's "either" is because there isn't concrete proof and not everyone agrees that modern Assyrians descended from ancient Assyrians. One of the reasons the NPOV banner is there is because the article boldly states (or stated) that "[Assyrians] are descended of the indegenous inhabitants of the former Assyrian Empire." --3345345335534 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Well i dont think anyone in the world can give u concrete proof who their own descendents are. They mostly base it on the land they currently reside in. Assyrians are all in the land were Assyria once stood. They also speak the same language that was spoken many years ago in those lands (although dialect has changed over the years), hence they are Assyrian. 202.7.166.168 14:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can prove any people today descendents from the people 6000 years ago. So if it will be like this we can change every article where it says "They descendents from .....". The Kurds doesnt have evidence about their origin although nobody complains when they write they are descendendents by ancient Medians or what they ever write. When an Assyrian claims his people is ancient he gets everybody on him since its something wrong with people today. Instead of helping their Christian brothers & sisters they want to destroy for them. --Yohanun 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Why is the lead paragraph of this article disambiguation-like, especially when Assyrian is already a disambiguation page? Wouldn't it be easier to add something along the lines of "For other uses of the term, see Assyrian" at the top of the page? --3345345335534 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Assyrian_people What links here

My comments

I already made two or even more comments. Its very strange that you did not see them, Pylambert and Khoikhoi. I will quote them:

Nobody can prove any people today descendents from the people 6000 years ago. So if it will be like this we can change every article where it says "They descendents from .....". The Kurds doesnt have evidence about their origin although nobody complains when they write they are descendents by ancient Medians or what they ever write. When an Assyrian claims his people is ancient he gets everybody on him since its something wrong with people today. Instead of helping their Christian brothers & sisters they want to destroy for them. --Yohanun 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all the Assyrians did not disappear and the Bible does not say anything about Assyrians disappearing. The three 3 wisemen who came to visit Mary when she had borned Jesus said "Greetings from Assyria and Persia". It is also proved that the Persians let 400 Assyrian "politicans" executed since they wanted to establish a reborn Assyria since we had 2 kingdoms left of our glory empire, Osroene and Adiabene.This occured in the 4th century. My reverts are not biased although your are. You make it seem as Assyrians today have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians and thats a bit of insulting to me. There are no proves for claiming that, and a lot of experts are involved in Assyrianism, for example Simon Parpola, a well known expert. Most experts know that modern and ancient Assyrians have the same blood. And I would also like to give you some fact about the villages "we populated" in the Kurdish areas as you say. The Kurds are Iranians originally living in the Zagros Mountaints. It was not until the 19th century the Kurds moved from the Zagros mountains to Turkey and Iraq this because Iran wanted to minimize the Assyrian Christians numbers in the area we call Mesopotamia. We have lived in Mesopotamia since thousands of years and now your claiming it was Kurds that settled in our homecountry, and that we the original people of Mesopotamia invanded it? If im not wrong The Chaldean Church has more members than the Assyrian Church of the East but you musnt forget that a lot of members in the Chaldean Church see themselves as Assyrians, for example Tareq Aziz.--Yohanun 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As my dear friend wrote to me: "I can't stand non-Assyrians trying to teach us our own history". --Yohanun 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Assyria 90 is 100% right.

http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/Shop/Music/NinosYosipImpulse/CDReview.html

Check out the link. It is an Assyrian language.

Assyrian Cuisine

Anyone that is Assyrian. Please, only Assyrians or people used to eating the food on a regular basis. Help with the article!

assyrian cuisine

Read khoikhoi's section under Assyrians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pylambert

He claims we are not an ethnic group. I hope that an administrator that reads it bans him from contributing to any articles related to Assyrian.

When did I say that you're not an ethnic group? --Khoikhoi 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

" I'm sure that people like User:Assyria 90 believe that his people are an ethnic group" And you personally don't? Chaldean 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi didn't write Assyrians are not an ethnic group, he merely answered my statement on his talk page: "Assyrians don't actually exist as an ethnic group, it is a national category not recognized as such by all the people whom Assyrianists claim as Assyrians.". As there's no credible alternate name (Arameans and Syriacs are only used in some diaspora circles), I use Assyrians, but I am well aware that many people included in this category don't feel like being members of a larger ethnic group, they are e.g. Syrian or Turkish nationals and followers of one of the Oriental (uniate or independent) churches and they speak a neo-Aramaic language/dialect, but for many their distaste for those from the rival church is so great that they don't want to be associated with them. Thence the use of "Syriacs" or "Arameans" by some church dignitaries to stress the sectarian particularisms. I think the article Ethnic group should include a section about the post-Ottoman (and surrounding) countries, or maybe a separate article, but I'm afraid it would need much work to make this all clear. There's need to explain e.g. the ethnic- and nation-related terms in every language there, like taifa, watan, qawm in Arabic, eda, shevatim and le'om in Hebrew. But this would be on the fringe of original research. --Pylambert 11:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me first start off by saing I always get so impressed when I see a non-Assyrian knowing so much about the our situation, since no light has ever been shed on it in the west. Here is the dillema; do people question the Greeks being connected to the ancient Greek civilization? Do people question Italians being connected to teh ancient Roman Empire? No. Why? Both of their empires fell like the Assyrian one. So just because we don't have our own country, our ethnicity should be questioned? If you are concerned about the possiblity of Assyrians been wipped out after their emprire in BC, then how come the Romans, some 800 years after the fall of the Assyrian Empire, decided to name one of their providence "Assyria"? Now, in all of the years of AD, you can look at any ancient AD map, incuding most important, the maps by the Greeks, you will always find a "Assyria" in the map, be it the year 700 or 1400. The last time Assyrians had independence was during the Ottoman Rule of 1500 - 1700, when clearly stated by the Ottomans, giving their rights to govern themselfs, and reffering to them as "Assyrians." So what is really hold you back? Chaldean 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Do people question the Greeks being connected to the ancient Greek civilization? Do people question Italians being connected to teh ancient Roman Empire?" Yes, of course, even if the present languages are derived from the ancient ones, no one would actually dare writing that Italians are the descendants of the ancient Romans or that modern Greeks are the descendans of ancient Greeks, though the latter is more common among some Greek nationalist circles (cf. the controversy over the name of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). It has been sciebntifically proved that modern Greeks are the descendants of hellenized Slavs, Albanians and whatsoever (existing or extinct) ethnic groups present in what's nowadays Greece and Turkey, be they Lydians or Goths and even Turks and Gauls. --Pylambert 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Syriacs/Arameans

It is true that there are members of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches who call themselves "Assyrians", but certainly not all of them. Many prefer different names: "Arameans" or "Suryoye/Suryâye" (in English often referred to as "Syriacs"). This should be reflected in the article. The fact that some scientists use the name "Assyrians" to refer to all people in the West Syrian and East Syrian traditions, does not mean that it is a neutral, and scientifically sound name! --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to give scientific references (sociology, political science, history) where "Arameans" and "Syriacs" are used for this metaethnic category. The only ethnic censuses in the region were the Russian and Soviet ones, they used the Assyrian (Aisor) ethnonym. In all the other countries, only the religious categories were - and are - used and people aren't allowed (except in the US-occupied Iraq)to express anything else than religious minority identities by nationalist (and often not much democratic) regimes. The Syriacs/Aramean/Assyrian dispute is more a diaspora problem than a Middle East one, except in Iraq where most organisations have chosen Chald(e)o-Assyrians. Somewhat like some Berber movements in France and elsewhere outside Maghreb who try to build a Berber national identity, with also a Berber TV channel. Another example is the concept of "Bretons": either all the inhabitants of Brittany or only those, including outside Brittany, who listen to Breton music, try to learn back the Breton language etc. --Pylambert 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Syriacs/Aramean/Assyrian dispute is more a diaspora problem than a Middle East one, except in Iraq where most organisations have chosen Chald(e)o-Assyrians." I am suprised you are aware of this. Indeed, back home, everyone calls themselfs Ashuri. The ChaldoAssyrian term is not used by normal civilians, it is only used by Assyrian politicians who kinda worry loosing their grip on the Chaldean population. But indeed, this name despote is only in diaspora. Now, speaking of this, what in the world is the "Syriac Genocide"? It has never ever been called this, and I have never in my life seen this term ever used. It has always been the "Ashuri Mota" - the killing of the Assyrians in our Syriac language. Chaldean 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you and A2raya07 seem to be the only scientifically honest Assyrians here on wikipedia, others like Assyria 90, Sargonious and Benne have made a mess of many articles just to push their (opposite) political or religious agendas. The ethnic, national and religious mosaic in the post-Ottoman countries is very complex but widely accepted scientific concepts must be used to describe it, while keeping in mind that about every individual seems to have his own home-made identity-kit with or without references from Antiquity or elsewhere. --Pylambert 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And lets get this one thing straight, Suroyo/Suraya or Syriac in English is mainly used by diaspora Merotines/Christian Lebanese who refuse to be called arab. The people of the Syriac Ortodox/Catholic in Iraq make up only 5% of the Christians in Iraq (they don't number more then 20,000.) About more then half of these people indeed to call themselfs Ashuri. The rest call themselfs Suraya. But thats 10,000 out of the 1 million Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac population! And of course, the Term Syriac is nowhere to be found in Southern Turkey or Iran. In Syria, some do use it, but a very small minority. So I dont understand how everything here now has become "Syriac"? And since I haven't addressed the question by benne yet; I dont think I even have too, because obviously this is a joke. Where are you getting all these theories Benne? Aramean? Who in the world calls themselfs aramean? Chaldean 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So many things here about us is so misleading. Related ethnic groups: Arameans, Chaldeans, Syriacs

Related? So now were all different ethnic groups? In the Syriac page you have population of "5-7 million." Obviously you are adding everyone (Assyrian, Chaldean, "Aramean", and Christian Lebanese) all together. If so, then how can "Syriac" and "Assyrian" be two different ethnicities? Many things are wrong here. I want to correct many things, but do not have the time right now. Chaldean 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Chaldean, dear khon. Assyrian is the right term for our people although it has always been conflicts about it. Suraya is used by every single Assyrian/Chaldean. I see no point of reverting misleading facts on this wikipedia nomore. I will first try to convince my people that we are ethnically the same and our right name is Assyrian. When that is done I wont even bother all of you on this wikipedia, because on that time our people will be united and we dont need anybodys opinions. Now Pylambert & co you may do whatever you want concerning the Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans and mislead other people into your false facts. Thats your problem now. Syriac and Chaldean came in a religious term at first but now they are ethnic-religious terms. All the new numbers of Assyrians estimated at 5-7 million are a lie. I can assure you that we not more than 2.5 million, but of course everybody wants to exaggerate their population and we must follow the facts we are given. It seem as our people in Iraq have given up, if they give up in our homelands we have nothing to struggle for. The Arameans converts from being Syriacs to Arameans. All Arameans are Syriacs and thats fact. A Syriac begins to read about the Arameans and the Aramaic language and decides to become an Aramean. The Assyrians are not related ethnic groups to Arameans, Chaldeans, Syriacs. They are in the same ethnic group. And to you, Pylambert, I really hope that one day you will see the truth in your face and see how much you insult people. --Yohanun 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Population numbers

I think it would be useful to add a specific section about this with all the official available data, including Church statistics. I sincerely doubt there are 5 - 7 Million Assyrians in the world, but it would be more useful to begin with every country before giving a total number. In Armenia there are about 4,000 Assyrians and in Georgia about 6,000, both according to scientific or official sources, but elsewhere ? --Pylambert 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A good suggestion. I would like to see something like the Italians have done. List the countries and numbers, and in the end the total.

• Iraq - 750,000 is the number listed on the Iraqi paage
• Syria - It says it has a 10% Christian population ( or 1.8 million,) but more then half of those are arab descent. I read a UN report in 2003 once stating that about 700,000 Christians in Syria belong to some type of Assyrian Church. That number has gone way up since the migration of Assyrians from Iraq to Syria since the war. But lets just put the number at 700,000 for now.
• Lebanon - now it is True that 5,000 Christians of Lebanon do belong to the Assyrian Church. But if we also count the Meronites, 640,000 to 850,00 [8] then we could round it to around 700,000. Its important to note that many Meronite politicians do publicly claim themselfs to be Assyrians as well. - "Prof. Walid Phares of the World Lebanese Cultural Union (WLCU), began his presentation by asking why he as a Lebanese Maronite ought to be speaking on the political future of Assyrians in Iraq. "Simply," he answered, "because we are one people. We believe we are the Western Assyrians and you are the Eastern Assyrians." But lets be serious, when you ask a Meronite his ethnicity, he will reply "Surayne." So Lebanon, should have a aster next to it.
• Iran - Does not do Ethnic census, but the number that is being kicked around is 15,000 - 20,000
• Turkey - Someone maybe can look this one up. It can't be more then 8,000
• Armenia - 7,000 source - Assyrians of Armenia - [9]
• Australia - 18,368 - The census 2001 http://www.abs.gov.au/
• New Zealand - 1,200 - 2001Census http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/988C1E07-45FD-4A14-8164-393B5CFDF513/0/EthnicGroups01.pdf (another census will be done this year in March, so the numbers should be much larger soon)
• United States - The last census 6 years ago, revealed 90,000. This number is at minimum tripled by now, since the mass immigration of Iraq to the States. On a side note, the largest Chaldean church opened its doors last month in Detroit. This church has 5 masses every Sunday, each mass has 1,500 people attending. And this is only one of 7 Chaldean churches in Detroit area. So you can only imagine how big of a population of Assyrians is these days in the States. It should read 90,000 (2000 census - link to census) and underneath it 250,000 (estimates)

Gotta go for now, please anyone, kindly help out :)Chaldean 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a beginning. Let's hope we'll find more reliable statistics.

• Australia: 2001 Census Ancestry Count: 18,667 Assyrian/Chaldean
• Syria, Iraq, Lebanon: I suggest we begin with the last official numbers, i.e. religious censuses, quite old but at least they're official (from Albert Hourani's Minorities in the Arab World, 1947), after that there are only estimates, without any verifiability -> as a massive exodus seem to be currently taking place from Iraq I guess anyway all statistics will have to be revised there
• Maronites: I'm afraid I don't agree with you on the inclusion of Maronites or other Lebanese Christians into the Assyrian ethnic group, Walid Fares and his World Lebanese Cultural Union are diaspora Maronites, but in Lebanon there has never been a Maronite identification with Assyrians, some Maronites tried to develop phoenicianism, some even identified with Mardaites, and others with Lebanese, or even Arab nationalism.
• Turkey: there are indeed not many Assyrians left there
• Iran: all sources say less than 20,000 but this was already the numbers given around 1970, and many left after 1979, including many in America and Australia, so I wonder if there are more left there than a few thousands. There was a language census in 1956, about 70,000 persons were then listed as Aramaic-speakers (Statistics on Iran, 1960).

Well, much work left to do... --Pylambert 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I do agree you on the Meronites. They don't consider themselfs as Assyrians, but I was just saying that in reality they could possibly well be descents of Assyrians. Nevertheless, they should not be counted. Chaldean 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I created a new talk page on this subject, as this one is already quite long: Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics. --Pylambert 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Food

I've requested time and time again. I need assistance with the Assyrian cuisine page. My fellow Assyrians, I know you eat reza-u-šorba everyday. HELP!

I've devised a Romanized Assyrian Alphabet.

User_talk:Sargonious#I.27ve_devised_a_Romanized_Assyrian_Alphabet.

You could translate directly from Syriac script with ease.

eg. Marun Jšui Mšjxa mere:

O d'la etle xţjta maxe/patel kepa qamaja.

Sj maxa Catana!

Alahj, Alahj, La ma šabaqt anj?

Sargonious

Population info

http://www.unpo.org/member.php?arg=08

Who removed the flag?

Put it back. Please. I'm asking nicely.

It doesn't have its place here but in Assyrian independence, here it is an article over an ethnic group (or rather a meta-ethnic group), not over Assyrianism nor over plans for an Assyrian state. --Pylambert 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag needs to be removed. Guys we have to be constant with the rest of wiki. Look at any other ethnic page: German people, Greek people, Polish - no ethnic page has a flag. They have 4-5 historic people of that ethnicity. I have been thinking of doing such thing with the Assyrian page as well. So the Assyrian flag needs to be removed. Chaldean 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Aramaic (Syriac) contains a heavy Akkadian Lexicon

That is the difference between Aramaic and Syriac. Akkadian is also referred to as the old Assyro-Babylonian Language. Sumerian language affected Akkadian language as it affected Aramaic.

Well, this simply is not true. Akkadian was influenced somewhat by Sumerian. For centuries, Imperial Aramaic and Akkadian were in a sybiotic relationship: late Babylonian was influenced by Aramaic, and Aramaic contained a few Babylonian loanwords (argwānā 'purple', parzel 'iron', šêziv 'to save', zîw 'features'). However, Akkadian belongs to a distinct stream of development of Semitic languages (e.g. Akkadian has no ayin). Assyrian Suret has no more Akkadian influence than any other Aramaic language. Standard Assyrian is based around the colloquial dialect of Urmia (Urmežnaya) with heavy influence from the classical dialect of Edessa (Orhaya). --Gareth Hughes 22:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic and Farsi as spoken languages

I removed Arabic and Persian (Farsi) from the language box because a) those languages are not native to Assyrians, b) virtually no Assyrians speak Arabic or Persian as a first language, and c) if you're going to add languages to the list based solely on members who speak it, then English would be the primary non-native language spoken. --3345345335534 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are my sources:

• http://www.aina.org/articles/akkadianwords.html
• http://www.christiansofiraq.com/assyria1.html

King Legit

This has to do with the Akkadian subject oopsy. Farsy and Arabic are not first languages for Assyrian.

Calling the Persian language Farsi would be like referring to German as Deutsch ... --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag and Name

Firstly, as someone who can write Syriac, "Atoraya" (ܐܬܘܪܝܐ) was ridiculously disproportionate to "Assyrians," so I have reason to suspect anyone who reverts that edit is either nearly blind or can't understand Syriac (latter probably being the case). Secondly, the Assyrian flag is NOT a nationalist flag since it is used to represent the Assyrian people, not (a) political group(s). --3345345335534 22:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ܐܬܘܪܝܐ, Atoraya, is the correct Syriac for 'Assyrian', and the flag is a symbol of Assyrian self-identification (which is what the article is all about). Both should be present, I believe. --Gareth Hughes 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Garth, we have to be constant with the rest of Wiki. No other ethnic page has a flag, instead they have 4-5 historic people of that ethnic group. Which I think we should do the same. I think our buddy kiokoly wouldn't mind being in charge of this? :)

I suggest to start nominating people. I would first like to nominate

• Mar Benyamin Shimun [[10]]Chaldean 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ammo Baba [[11]](first one on the left) is a must. He must be their. He was the Assyrian icon for the last 50 years of the 20th century. Chaldean 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• King Sargon [[12]], king
• Hormuzd Rassam [13], explorier
• Janan Sawa, singer or Juliana Jindo, singer (would be nice to have one singer
• Agha Petros

---

I agree that the flag should be replaced with people (that's actually what I originally wanted) but besides Mar Shimun and Ammo Baba, who are you going to put? Ramona Amiri and Tariq Aziz??? It has to stay within neutral boundaries; that is, no images of ancient Assyrians. --3345345335534 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Having a Assyrian king in their is a must as well. Why do the Greek people get to have Pericles? Why do the Armenians get to have tehir king, Tigranes the Great? A image of king Ashur or any other king is a must. I would like to see King Sargon Chaldean 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased?

Why is this article nominated biased? What baised about it? Chaldean 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's too bad. I wouldn't mind the removal of the banner from the top. --Gareth Hughes 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Actually, I wonder what's the use of it: have a look at the Arab, Sephardi Jews, Berber people, Kurdish people, Armenians or Greeks articles, sometimes the linguistic proximity is used, sometimes something else, there's no rule. I guess that's enough to say "other groups who speak Semitic languages", but even that is not really accurate for an ethnic group. --Pylambert 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

I really believe it would be wise first to put together all official statistics on the Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics before adding totally inaccurate statistics in the article. For instance, how is it possible that the Annuario Pontifico stated in 1982 that there were 351,000 Catholics of all denominations in Iraq and a 1987 census (where is it comprehensively available, not just through indirect quotations) would give a number as high as 1.4 million Christians in Iraq ? There are too many discrepancies, let's first add all official data, then it'll be possible to give a "fork number". --Pylambert 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. There is far too much reason for certain organisations to want to inflate figures that we should be wary quoting them. --Gareth Hughes 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the UN regufee in last December reported that at least 500,000 Christians of Iraq are asking for tempurary assylum in Syria Chaldean 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Census figures are never correct. They undercount non-participants and discount corruption that leads to number inflation serving political purposes. 12.15.7.70 00:46, 14 February 2006

Please, Sargon aka Sargonious (proof here), stop writing on this page without signing and stop using an IP identity 12.15.7.70 to hide yourself. Besides, there's a special page about statistics, Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics, so stop trying to insert statistics coming from nowhere (like from the UNPO, how did they count Assyrians ?) and try to make this article better by adding valuable statistics (from censuses or scientific estimates or even official church estimates) on the page Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics. --Pylambert 01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

merges, redirects and proposed suppression of the Syriacs template

I modified the Assyrian people article so as to include Syriacs and Chaldeans, and these two pages are now just redirect pages towards Assyrian people, as well as Assyro-Chaldeans and (new) redirect pages Syriac people, Chaldean people and Chaldoassyrian people. I guess the "Syriacs" activist will try to revert all the modifications, but this time the Assyrian people article includes enough elements to let lay people understand the nature of the problem. The Syriacs box is now proposed for deletion here. --Pylambert 11:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to combine these articles. However, I find such unilateral action distasteful, and ask Pylambert not to continue to dictate terms on this issue. Also, I would encourage all parties not to overturn this merger immediately, as that does not help one bit. I suggest that we work together to edit this article into mutually acceptable shape. Conflating our articles here will also mean that the Syriacs Box is not needed. --Gareth Hughes 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the sentiments about unilateral action being not nice. Some comments I just made on your page (and then realised it was your personal page):

The whole thing is altogether very unfortunate - I got drawn into this when Pylambert took out the Chaldan chategory from ancient Chaldean characters - but having one article for what are one people, despite the many possible names that could be given to them is better than having 4 or 5 POV-forks. Work out together, what is scientificaly acceptable, when there are different - referencable - opinons be man enaugh to allow the other view as well in that article. Once you gotten that far it might not be so difficult anymore to find a common consensus for the main article name with the other options as redirect. Allow that time to work things out. And I don't just mean Benne. I mean all of the ones involved.

Another thing to consider is the way things are categorized. Have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories where it says "Ideally , an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are many occasions when the ideal can and should be ignored.". Personally I think some of the categories could be unwound but have a read of that page for some examples of when the rule needs not to apply. Again a consensus would be very important. It would also be an option to untangle the modern people from the ancient people without implying either a connection or denying it.

I think there is a consensus that something needs to be done. But it will take a while until a compromise can be found is correct and encompasses varying view. So please listen to Gareth and don't undo the article merger - work out a page together!

Agathoclea 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not beleive that the title of this article is a closed subject, and think that we should discuss sane and encyclopaedic alterantives — i.e. not one thing or the other, and not so neologism either. I am happier that we now have one article rather than several, and I don't think it reads too badly. I've added prominent notices about this article including other 'designations', and I hope this helps in the meantime. — Gareth Hughes 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Victory

I declare this the first vicotry for Assyria since the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC. First Wikipedia, next Iraq! King Legit

A small battle provisionally won against obscurantism and bigotry, that's already enough for me, no use trying to recycle this into a nationalist victory of any kind. The purpose was to stick to scientific standards and prevent students and other lay users of wikipedia to read various biased and inaccurate articles on Assyrian-related subjects. Pylambert 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I urge you to change your tone, Pylambert. Your judgements and personal attacks are a disgrace to Wikipedia. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

People like you, who are not able to sustain any of your "Syriacs" nonsense by scientific references, ought to go back to your studies. The presence of your likes is a disgrace to wikipedia. Your only purpose was to impose the "Syriacs" ethnonym, you never added anything useful on these articles, so keep a lower tone, more befitting the level of your "contributions". --Pylambert 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This was the right thing to do. I am very happy. I still can't believe, Assyro-Chaldean used to be its own page? This is a step in the right direction. One last thing, who in this world consider themselfs "Aramean"? That name needs to be deleted from the top page. Aramean are not present in our time. How many call themselfs aramean today, couple hundred - and you want to give those couple hundred equal status to the 2 million Assyrians? Doesn't make sence. Aramean, needs its own page, were it talks about them, in a historic way. Chaldean 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Pylambert, no personal attacks. Do you get pleasure out of insulting others? --Khoikhoi 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Friends, when our people protest a latest church bombings, we dont wave non other then Assyrian flags [14] (pics from Chaldeans and Assyrians in Moscow)Chaldean 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Arameans

In Syriac when you say: Ana Suray ewin. It means I am a Christian. It started as a synonym for Christian durring the days of early Christianity when the old Assyro-Babylonian Religion was still in practice. The term Aramaya meant you were a pagan, Suraya on the other hand meant you were Christian. If you, a Syriac speaking Christian were to refer to yourself as an Aramean it would mean you are pagan; as far as I know there are no living members that follow the old gods. The term Syriac was used by the Greeks to refer to Arameans whom at the time were pagan and a part of the Assyrian Nation. There never has been an independant Aramean nation. It was the Assyrains that first institued Aramaic as an official language of any nation. The name Assyria is derived from the name of the Sky God...

"In Syriac when you say: Ana Suray ewin. It means I am a Christian - this is what I was trying to explain to Garzo in the Syriac page. Chaldean 06:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Focus here

I am getting totally fed up with the lot of you. King Legit/Sargonious's comment about winning a war is totally out of order: yet another inflammatory remark. Pylambert's comments about Syriacs are totally ill-informed. Chaldean's comments just don't make sense, and he has reverted the merger of articles after I had asked everyone not to do this. I want us to edit this article to represent all Neo-Aramaic-speaking groups. All the other article will remain redirects here. If you want to object to that situation, write your proposal here, and let's vote on it. If anyone takes unilateral action over this it will be reverted. If reverts continue, I can protect the page so that no one can edit it. I would prefer not to do that, but it's there as last resort. Right, now I'll go and revert the mess made since I last logged in. — Gareth Hughes 11:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why "Pylambert's comments about Syriacs are totally ill-informed" ? --Pylambert 11:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. My interpretation of a number of your discussion posts and edit summaries suggests that you see Syriacs is a new-fangled fabrication. Whereas Syriac Sûryoyē, Arabic Sūryanī and Turkish Sürianiler are all usual terms for West Syriacs, and sometimes East Syriacs as well. -- Gareth Hughes 11:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in English nor in French, where Syriac/Syriaque is only a Church denomination or a liturgical language, never an ethnic group or a nation: will you call the Flemish people "Vlemings" in place of Flemings because in their language they call themselves Vlamingen ? Idem for Greeks, they don't call themselves so, should we change everywhere all mentions of Greeks into Hellenes ? Let's stay rational here ! Besides, look at the discussions between the "Syriacists" here on wikipedia (including in Swedish) and you'll see that they indeed coined the term in the meaning they use for it. --Pylambert 13:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what did I do wrong? By the way, I think it was not a good desicion of you making the Syriac page a direct link to Assyrians. Chaldean 15:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree. I suggest that we have one article rather than several conflicting ones. As this is article is more complete, the redirect comes here. Please propose an alternative name here. As to the nature of the word Syriac, I'm afraid that Pylambert has misinterpreted its nature. Church membership and ethnicity are very closely intertwined among Middle-Eastern Christians. This is part of the problem, and it probably dates back to the millet system. There are plenty of documents dating back to fourth century that talk about Συροι/Συριακοι, Sūryanī, Sürianiler and Sûryāyē as the Aramaic-speaking Christian people. Assyrians and Chaldeans have also historically been known as Syriacs. In English, we tend to use Syriac rather than Syrian to avoid the link with the nation state Syria. Syriac is the English translation of all of these ancient words. It is definitely not made up. Obviously, your information is only partial if you do not have in front of you an entire historic literature in several languages that uses this word. This continued arguing over words is not helpful. All of these words have significant use and history, and should be included. Let's try to keep to the facts, rather have individuals arguing from bits of hearsay they've picked up. — Gareth Hughes 16:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep to the facts <-- this is what I have beeing crying out the whole time. We can't just make up things in order to "make everyone happy." Gareth, if you want to stick to facts, then I would like you to see you say that Syriac is NOT a ethnicity. But the people under the name of Syriac are ethnically Assyrian. Sureth is our language. Suraya is our religion. But it does not competly replace our identity.

You still haven't told me what I did wrong. I didn't revert anything. Chaldean 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's an entire historical literature that calls Aramaic-speaking Christians Syriacs. You cannot discount any one of these names like that. You are dividing up the meaning of these names in a way that was never intended. There are thousands of people who call themselves Syriac and do not wish to call themselves Assyrian. I have spoken with them in Europe, Syria and Turkey, I have translated fourth century texts in Syriac and Greek that talk about Syriacs, and I have made recordings of Neo-Aramaic spoken in Tur `Abdin and the Jazira. I have been doing this for a few years, so please give me some credit. — Gareth Hughes 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please dont think that I have no respect of you and I have never neglected your knowledge of this topic. I know people who don't like to be called Assyrians too. But this is a minority in the population. So where going to change the whole system, because of a small minority? What does it matter what we like to call ourself? How does one changing the name he likes to be called, can lead to the changing of his ethnicity? Yes, their are thousands who clal themselves Syriac. But they are 1. for the majority, in deaspora 2. are a very small minority in the Assyrian/Syriac population. Chaldean 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Tur Abdin, did you hear what happend their last week? Very said indeed. I have updated that page. Chaldean 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance.

Ignorance is what caused all this. The Assyrian Dark Ages between the Islamic conquest of Mesopotamia up until the early 20th century.

I've said this before.

Syriac is the language. eg English (There is no language called Canadian or American)

Assyrian Church of the East/Chaldean Church of Babylon, Syriac Orthodox/Catholic are Religions. eg Roman Catholics (They're not actually Roman although they may have some Roman anscestory.)

Assyria is the Nation. eg Canada (They don't call themselves North Americans.)

Assyrian is the Nationality. eg Canadian or American (They aren't English.)

Beth Nahrain is a geographic region (Mesopotamia). eg Siberia or Appalachia

The branch of Studies that deals with the ancient Near East is called Assyriology, not Syriology, not Arameology, nor Chaldeology. However there is no way to prove lineage. No one knows exactly what their anscestors were doing 100 years ago let alone 1000-10000 years ago. Intermixing happens, people aren't different from animals when it comes to instinct and mating isn't discriminatory. I'm very sure that people mixed. Durring the golden age of Syriac Christianity when most of the Middle East was Christian; Persians mixed with Assyrians and other Christians, Arabs mixed, There were Christian Arabs too, the Ghassanids. At first the Mongolian invaders embraced Christianity, etc.

There is no proving 100% lineage of any race. However the most appropriate term is what applies in which for this case is Assyrian. Yes Assyrians may have Aramean blood, Chaldean blood, Sumerian blood, maybe even Arab (Ghassanid) or Persian. The other names aren't befitting because the Arab and Persian nations are already established and are different cultures altogether. The terms Aramean and Chaldean were mainly exonyms given by other people primarily the Greeks and Romans. The Roman empire had a province called Assyria by the way. The old Assyrian language is Akkadian and the Neo-Assyrian language is Aramaic. That doesn't make us Akkadian or Aramean just as much that the English language doesn't make a Canadian or American English. King Legit

The Assyrian name can be traced back to the name Ashur which was derived from the Sumerian Anshar who was the Sky god and later the supreme Assyrian god. Ansharru, Ashurru, or Sharru meant of royal/holy lineage. eg Sharru Kinnu, the True King whom I'm named after Sargon. Therefore the terms Assyrian, Syrian, Syriac are all derivatives of the title of Sargon. The first King of Akkad and Sumer aka the King of Babylonia. The King of Assyria.King Legit

Yup, that pretty much shows it. — Gareth Hughes 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

proposed move and cut

I feel that the following should be moved to the language section, and any duplication cut. Currently it is in the identity section

"Among linguists, supporters of the term "Assyrian" (such as Edward Odisho The sound system of Modern Assyrian Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz 1988) admit that linguistically the term is misleading, because in linguistics the name "Assyrian" is reserved for the extinct language of ancient Assyrians, while the modern Aramaic dialects belong to a different branch. He further argues that ancient Assyrians could be among the ancestors of modern Arameans in Iraq.

Assyrians are divided among several churches (see below). They read and write various dialects of neo-Aramaic, a Semitic language which in the form of Syriac is used in their religious observances."

Agathoclea 11:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I already just put the references under adequate brackets, so that they appear at the bottom of the page. The whole article needs to be cleaned up, with more references (there are already 13) and a statistics section. And it needs to stay under constant scrutiny, otherwise it'll become messy again (some, on their talk page, have already expressed their intention to change everything "as soon as Pylambert and Chaldean will be away"). I'm sure it is possible to make it a good article, as well as related ones (Assyrians in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Assyrian diaspora). And I agree with your proposal that Assyrians should work on the German-Austrian articles and vice versa, maybe they would find some interesting new angles of reflexion. --Pylambert 15:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: merge with Syriac Christianity; separate articles for Aramaeans, Assyrians

I support the idea of having a single article that deals with the Suryoye/Suryāye (in English historically referred to as Syrians, and more recently also as Syriacs), but strongly object to naming that particular article Assyrian people.

My suggestion is to merge the information about the Suryoye/Suryāye into Syriac Christianity, and to have both sections within that article and separate articles about:

Aramaeans -- with new sections about the references to the Aramaean heritage in Syriac literature, and one about the modern concept of Aramaean ethnicity, including the Aramaean political and activist organisations, and the flag of the Aramaeans;

Assyrians -- with sections about Assyrian nationalism and the idea of Assyrian independence, and again modern concepts of Assyrian ethnicity; this way the article could have the Assyrian flag back as well;

Chaldeans -- idem; again, the Chaldean flag could appear in this article;

A section could mention the Maronites as a separate, though largely arabised group, with a Template:Main referring to the Maronite Catholic Church article. I also think the Melkites deserve their own section (the Melkite article could be used), with again references to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and other churches mentioned in Melkite).

I think the article should also include summaries of the articles Syriac (obviously), Syriac literature, Syriac music, Sayfo a.k.a. Assyrian genocide, and a section about Syriac Christianity in India (stating their members are generally not seen as Suryoye/Suryāye).

It is in my opinion simply impossible to categorise the Suryoye/Suryāye under a single ethnicity. Ethnic identity is not a one-dimensional concept, in fact, I believe it can have three or even four dimensions. Ethnicities do not necessarily mutually exclude one another. People can belong to different, related groups, not exclusively adhering to one way of defining their identity.

E.g., a Syriac Orthodox might identify himself/herself foremost as a Syriac Orthodox, because it is the values and traditions of this particular church that he/she has learnt and that he/she shares with their co-religionists, as a Suryoyo/Suryayto, because he/she feels part of the larger community that is called Syriac Christianity, and at the same time he/she might ethnically defining himself/herself as an Oromoyo (Aramaean), since that is what he/she believes to be his/her heritage in genetical terms. Others might differ with that last account, and call themselves Othuroyo (Assyrian).

Also, there are Chaldeans who define themselves as a separate group in terms of heritage, others who think it's only a religious label indicating their membership of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and find it more fit to adhere to the Assyrian idea of nation.

A modus should be found to refer to the people concerned in other articles. Simply and solely referring to Syriac Christians as Assyrians will not suffice.

I think everyone will agree that the Suryoye/Suryāye are historically inextricably linked to Christianity, hence my suggestion to merge with Syriac Christianity. At the same time, not all of them consider themselves Assyrians, and not all Assyrians consider themselves Suryoye/Suryāye. Probably, there are also Assyrians who do not think of themselves as Christians at all. That's why a separate article about the Assyrian nation serves its purpose, separate from the article that deals with the Suryoye/Suryāye. I think it should be possible to reach consensus about how references should be made from the one article to the other.

I hope this suggestion could be a little step forward in dealing with these delicate issues. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am happy that you still want to negotiate about this. Friend, you need to get this one thing in your mind: Assyrian is a ethnicity. The rest of the names are alternative names for the Assyrians, be it religious name or political name. This page cannot change its title. Wikepedia must have a Assyrian page, that talks about the Assyrian ethnicity. Chaldean 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are Chaldeans who define themselves as a separate group in terms of heritage <-- deaspora people do not count. Only people who are still in their land. These same people that are living in the West who refuse to be called Assyrian, but Chaldean, had grandparents who never said such silly things when they were back home. Chaldean 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I thought you liked what I did, where I separted the names in this page, and each name can have its own article. So why don't you work on that Syriac section. Please, lets work together, dont be a extremist, but think in reality. Chaldean 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said, ahuno ... Let there be a separate article about the Assyrian ethnicity. But Suryoye/Suryāye is not synonymous with Assyrian', though there is an overlap between the two. Many Suryoye/Suryāye do not want to be called Assyrians, many Assyrians do not want to be referred to as Suryoye/Suryāye or Syriacs for that matter. That's a fact, and that's why I agree with your suggestion to move Template:Syriacs to Template:Syriac Christianity. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But Suryoye/Suryāye is not synonymous with Assyrian', though there is an overlap between the two I completly agree with you on this. And that is what I thought Garth's decision to merge Syriac page with Assyrians was not the best idea. Lets start the idea of moving the Syriac templete. I really dont want it to see it go. It is a very reasonable templete and it serves its cause. Chaldean 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to look at reality, you cannot simply ignore the diaspora. They are also part of the same people. Besides, also in Turkey, there are many Suryoye who call themselves Oromoye. This info could all be included in Syriac Christianity, and separate articles should be made about the Aramaeans and the Assyrian. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think Syriacs could redirect to Syriac Christianity as well, even though the two concepts are not exactly synonymous. An introductory section could explain the history of the terms Suryoye/Suryaye, Syrians/Syriacs, and its various meanings and interpretations. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to look at reality, you cannot simply ignore the diaspora No must not be taken into too much consideration. Like one line sentence is enought, but does not justify them to have something big. Indeed, deaspora do not count as much as people back home, because they Assyrian/Syriacs deaspora will not be known as Assyrian/Syriac in 300 years from now, since they will blend in with the rest of the population, and will be just known as American, Swedish, etc. This is reality (I sad one might I add.) I agree with you that, Syriac Christianity article should start off as the way the old Syriac page did, as in indroducing the term, its origin, where is it used, why is it used, etc, and then after that, Christianity can come in.

I think by now, the majority of the Suryoye live in the diaspora. This should be mentioned. And also their structures and their various concepts of identity deserve to be mentioned. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides, also in Turkey, there are many Suryoye who call themselves Oromoye. You cannot give equal a couple thousand to a potential 2 million. This is not fear/unreal. They deserve to be mentioned, in a small paragraph, but surely they do not deserve their own page. Chaldean 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is already a page Arameans. Both historical and modern concepts of Aramaean ethnicity could be mentioned there and in Syriac Christianity. Every group deserves to be mentioned, numbers shouldn't count. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We are waiting for your opinion Garth ;) Chaldean 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I started off Syriac Christianity (edit · talk · links · history · watch) to focus on the religious culture promulgated in Syriac. Granted it does have much to do with culture, it was not intended to get drawn into this debate over nomenclature. It is designed to discuss the historical development of churches that use, or have used, Syriac in their worship, and not touch on this identity stuff. In that light, I would prefer if no article was merged with it. It is true that the picture is very confused, but we are talking about people who share a significant proportion of their heritage, and, as such, I believe that we should have one article. Now, we might want to choose a neutral title like Aramaic-speaking Christian people, which describes in detail each of the different self-identifiers. As I've stated before, the articles were merged here because this is the better article, not because I support one name over any other. If you beleive that it's reasonable that all who bear these various identifiers are either the same or closely related people, then we should try for a single article that explains the various positions, rather than seeking to divide again. --Gareth Hughes 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted it does have much to do with culture, But it is. As I stated earlier, the most religious group of Christians in this world are Syriac-speaking people. This is very clear. And religion is a very big part of our culture and community. These communities celebrate by far more Christian festivals then anybody (including the leastest one, the Nineveh Feast [15]. Religion is also a big part of our identity as well, hence some Chaldeans going as far as saying they are ethnically Chaldean, etc. So in conclusion, yes, religion is a big part of everything with the Syriac speaking people.

Now, we might want to choose a neutral title like Aramaic-speaking Christian people But you gotta have a page that talks about the ethnic Assyrians = Assyrian page.

You seem to have misunderstood the sentence Granted it does have much to do with culture: I realise that the English in it is complicated, but it says that the Syriac Christianity article does have a lot to say about culture. Let me say this more clearly: this argument over labels of self-identification is destructive, it's banned from academic discourse about Syriac. I tried to make that article a haven from all of this. The statement the most religious group of Christians in this world are Syriac-speaking people is complete hyperbole: religiosity cannot be measured. The number of festivals is factually untrue. I think that this page would be the right place to talk about how the people identify with ancient Assyrians, Chaldeans and Aramaeans. --Gareth Hughes 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

I (re?)added the POV tag. Sentences like "Because the indigenous word in both dialects for the people themselves and for the language is "Suryoyo" or "Suryaye," some take the facile route of equating these terms with Syriac or Syrian without realizing that the terms Assyrian and Syrian are the same in origin." are disputed. It refers to but one of the various theories about the origin of the name "Syria". --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK so that is one theory. What is the other theory, your theory on the origin of the name Syria? Also explain why the Syriac Orthodox church went from Assyrian Orthodox to Syrian Orthodox, and now to Syriac Orthodox. It's obviously political to distance itself from Assyrian Nationalism so as to appease the Baath Parties of Syria and Iraq.King Legit

The Syriac Orthodox Church went from Assyrian Orthodox to Syrian Orthodox — historical fact: they didn't. Aramaic-speaking Christians have been called Syrian/Syriac from the early days of Christianity as an alternative to Aramaean, which was originally seen as pagan. After schism, Greeks referred to them as οι συροι/συριακοι. The name is far older than Ba'ath and Assyrian nationalism. The statement above is straightforward distortion of historical fact. --Gareth Hughes 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The term Assyrian is older then Syrian Garzo..can we get that straight? The term Assyrian never faded way, and was always used in every part of history since the creation of the ancient empire. Just look in all historic maps; where do you see a "Syriac"? You only see Assyria. Chaldean 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Assyrian is older Syrian, but your argument is full of misunderstandings. In the sentence above, I mentioned nothing about Assyria. However, King Legit is completely wrong to suggest that the Syriac Orthodox previously refered to themselves as Assyrian Orthodox: it's just untrue. All of these words are ancient, and it would be difficult to tell which is the older. However, a lot of the connotations of these different labels have changed significantly over time, and their modern ethno-nationalistic use began during the decline of the Ottoman Empire. For that reason the historic importance of millet and umta should be taken into account. This 'you don't see Syriac on a map' statement is nonsense: you see Syria on maps (Syriac and Syrian are adjectives). In the Books of the Maccabees, the Jews speaking Aramaic are said, in Greek, to be speaking η γλωσσα συριακη (which, if you can't read Greek, is: hē glōssa syriakē, the Syriac tongue). Now, I would always translate that as Aramaic language, as it fits better with modern nomenclature, but it shows that Greeks were calling Aram Syria and Aramaic Syriac before the rise of Christianity. At some early stage of Chrstian development, Aramaic-speaking Christians chose the Greek name Syriac in preference to the older name Aramaean/Aramaic. Now, it is highly likely that the Greek word comes from the Akkadian word Aššur, which gives us Assyria. However, Syria was applied to lands west of Mesopotamia and corresponded with the native Aram. This kind of historical overview seems to be lacking from most of the arguments I see being made on this page, most of which seem to come from Sunday-School learning. --Gareth Hughes 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to take personal shots like that in the end, but I agreed with most of your reply. I was just trying to say one thing in my previous statement; the word 'Assyria' never faded away in time. There is no period between 612BC up until now, the word Assyria was not visible in the region where most Assyrians are concentrated in today. Chaldean 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Benne, please stop it.

The indegenous word for CHRISTIAN is Suraya for the ethnicity it is Aturaya. Some say Kaldaya Aturaya for Chaldean Assyrian.

12.15.7.70, please GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER and log in. The literal meaning of Suryaya (classically spelled with two 'yodhin') is Syriac, and Aturaya is Assyrian. Any other meaning is subsequent to these basic meanings. So, before you start telling people to stop it: log in, learn learn classical Syriac, and get a good Syriac dictionary. Please, recognise that being Assyrian does not make you an expert. --Gareth Hughes 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well here's the thing. NO ONE SPEAKS CLASSICAL SYRIAC. IT IS ONLY USED IN THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCHES. Neo-Aramaic languages are only spoken today and in the contemporary lanuage, Suraya is synonymous with Christian.

There are quite a few speakers of Kthobonoyo who speak it as their first language. Most of them would have spoken the Tur `Abdin or Hakkari dialects, but the exodus to Jazira has brought about their use of the classical language as their first language. Again, Suryaya means Syriac or Syrian. The fact that it connotes Christian is secondary (this meaning isn't even mentioned in Payne Smith). The correct word in Syriac is Mashikhaya. --Gareth Hughes 23:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Msheehaye (Masihi in Arabic) or Kristyane (borrowed) is used, that is correct as well. user:king legit

Ottoman Assyrians

I moved the long section on Ottomans and Turkey to Assyrians in Turkey.King Legit

I think we should still have a paragraph that summarizes that page and have a link that says, "see main article, Assyrians in Turkey".

The Kurdish people article has a section about the Kurds in Turkey. See Kurdish_people#Kurds_in_Turkey. --Khoikhoi 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude that's because a significant portion of their pop lives in Turkey. Only 10,000 Assyrians remain there.King Legit

I do agree with summarizing though. The previous article was NOT a summarization.King Legit

Actually, I think I've changed my mind, mainly because I don't think it's necessary. --Khoikhoi 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Syriac Christianity Template

I dont know who removed it, but I would like to know why was it removed? Why isn't it appropeate on this page? Chaldean 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New Job

I will not have as much free time on my hand to contribute as much to this article. I wish everyone the best of luck on this.King Legit

I'm not quitting, just not contributing as much... to be continued.