Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Children of Abraham

This page is locked. Can someone able to edit mention that we are the Asshurim (אשורם), children of Dedan son of Jokshan son of Abraham please? Also that Rome named us after the Urfa-kasdim in recognition of this fact. Thank you.82.6.115.62 (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Genetics" section should be deleted

I have just edited the Genetics section to remove a Kevin B. MacDonald citation "proving" Assyrians' genetic homogeneity, as MacDonald's work on genetics and ethnicity has been highly controversial and is questionable, especially his work about Jews. However, I believe the "Genetics" section should be eliminated entirely. Reasons: 1) It is not relevant to a discussion of an ethnic group. Ethnic self-identity is complex, and there are many people who are "genetically" half Assyrian, for example, but think of themselves as Assyrian. 2) Proving genetic connections to people who lived thousands of years ago is impossible, and trying to prove it in a supposedly NPOV Wikipedia article is just shoddy work. I'll delete the section sometime soon unless someone can make a good case here as to why it should stay. Ab85 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Assyrian population on info-box

the 11-12 million population number is incorrect, the correct number is 5 million ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 05:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC) user:Assyrio


You didnt include the syriac people, alos the syriac orthodox and the syriac maronite churches. 8.85 million Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are right.

Look here:

3,5 million members of the Syriac Maronite church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church 2,25 million members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church 500.000 members of the Assyrian Church of the East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East 2.5 million members of the Chaldean Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church 100.000 members of the Syriac Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Catholic_Church

well, I guess we can include them in the number, but the Maronite churches don't exactly designate themselves as Assyrian/Chaldean or Aramean, nor Syriac. I thought the population number was for those who self-designate themselves as Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syriac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Who changes the population numers from 8.5 million to 5 million, 5 million are they without the members of the syriac maronite church, but the "maronites" are syriac too, like the members of the syriac orthodox church are "jakobites" the syriac maronite church are a part of the syriac orthodox church, and in this article in the selection "Self-designation" says that the "syriacs(suryoye)" are follower of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Syriac Catholic Church and Maronite Church. So the maronite church have currently 3.5 million members(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church)(http://www.maronite-heritage.com/LNE.php?page=Statistics). why you dont incluede this. Im gonna change th population number from 5million to 8.5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.146.161 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Elvis214 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


The Maronites don't see themselves as Assyrians/Chaldeans, they see themselves as Lebanese (Phoenician) , the population is 5 million. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Aramean people are correct

The people of Mesopotamia (Aram Nahrin), Lebanon and Syria (Aram)are the Aramean people and not pseudo("Assyrian"). The Assyrians no longer exists. The Assyrians are extinct. The today's "Assyrians" (Nestorians, East-Arameans) are ethnic Arameans. The Member of the Oriental Syriac (or Syrian) Churches are ethnic Arameans (self-designation Syriac) and the Language are Aramaic (Syriac).

The Anglican missionaries forced the Arameans who accepted them to believe that they are Assyrian.

Both historical claims are absolutely false and totally disastrous because they caused a trichotomy among the Arameans, shaping three national groups of the same nation, namely

1. those who rejecting the Western European fallacies preserved their Aramaean identity,

2. those who believe that they are Chaldaean, and

3. those who believe that they are Assyrian.

In fact, the Aramaeans are not the minority in the aforementioned area of the Asiatic Middle East. They are the absolute majority in terms of ethnicity because the Arabic speaking majority are not Arabs but Aramaeans, who gradually throughout centuries got arabized because they had adhered to Islam. But their arabization occured only at the linguistic level, because at the level of ethnic amalgamation there could not be any comparison between the Aramaeans and the Arabs at the times of the Prophet Muhammad as the former outnumbered the latter 20: 1 under most conservative estimates.

When the Catholic missionaries together with France in the 16th century succeed to brainwash a part of the East- Aramean nation and gave them the name "Chaldeans" and named their church "Chaldean church of Babylon", Great Britain could not permit to lag behind. Therefore, the English diplomats and Anglican missionaries started, as a countermove, to play the same game in the 19th century, now with the remaining part of the East- Aramean Nestorian tribes of Urmia (Iran) and Hakkaria (Turkey) who were brainwashed to call themselves "Assyrians" which later manifested itself in a horrible and perverse form of fanaticism which resulted amongst others in history distortion. Everywhere in the Aramean ecclesiastical and secular books they exchanged the words "Aramean", "Aramaic", "Syrians" for "Assyrian". Aramaic language they changed in "Assyrian" language, Aramean people in "Assyrian" people, etc.. etc.. Thus a kind of spiritual genocide took here place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

see (and read) names of Syriac Christians for this question. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


change the name from Assyrians to Arameans. Aramean are the correct name. "Assyrians" is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


STOP the PROPAGANDA. Wikipedia is not for propaganda. historically and ethnically correct name is ARAMEAN. read history books. read books of our fathers.

I ask for a correction. Please change the name right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.25.228 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the Map of John Speed clearly shows that people in that region were identifying with the Assyrian name, not Aramean, this is a false church name given to the Western Assyrians who belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church, the map is of Turkey year 1500AD and it clearly shows Assyrians as an ethnic minority living there alongside others,however no "Aramean" name is mentioned on this map. http://www.raremaps.com/maps/large/17920.jpg Also the ancient arameans were a tribe, not an empire, they were also assimilated into the Assyrian empire and became Assyrians, You "Arameans" want everyone to call themselves Aramean because they speak Aramaic? that makes no sense its like going up to an Australian and telling them they cant call themselves Australian and they should call themselves English because they speak English!, sounds ridiculous doesn't it. Aturaya (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian, Chaldean & Eastern Syriac People

I think the page Assyrian people is in detail correct.

Perhaps though, the name should be changed to Chaldo-Assyrian in order to preserve harmony.

The term Assyrian has been continually used since the fall of the Assyrian Empire.

The Persians had a province called Athura or Assuristan (Assyria), and Assyrian people with Assyrian names are attested throughout the period of Persian rule.

In addition, people such as Tatian and Lucian (who lived in the 2nd Century AD referred to themselves as Assyrians.

The Romans had a province called Assyria in 114AD.

Lucian described himself as - "an Assyrian ... still barbarous in speech and almost wearing a jacket in the Assyrian style. " Another second-century writer, a certain Iamblichus who wrote a novel set in Babylonia, "was Assyrian by race on both his father's and mother's side, not in the sense of the Greeks who have settled in Syria, but of the native ones, familiar with the Syriac language and living by their customs. "

Furthermore, typically Assyrian (and Babylonian) names have been recorded since BEFORE the British supposedly resurrected the term Assyrian, showing that an Assyrian-Mesopotamian conciousness was alive and well long before any contact with the West.

All this clearly shows a continual identity, unbroken through time.

The term "Chaldean" however, in modern terms, is purely theological. It was the term bestowed upon those Assyrians who converted to Catholicism in the 16th Century. Prior to this, no one used the term to describe themselves, nor did any external people use the term to describe the Aramaic speaking Christians of Mesopotamia.

Essentially, the Aramaic speaking Christians of Iraq, Iran, South East Turkey and North East Syria are essentially the SAME PEOPLE, descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians (Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylon,the Amorites Chaldea and Eastern Aramea).

With Syriacs, the line is less clear, the West Syriacs are likely pure Arameans, whereas the Eastern ones are more likely to be Assyrian (or Chaldo-Assyrian).

Differences between self designation of the people is more to do with Theological differences and NOT ethnic differences, and also due to external political pressure. Ottoman, Arab and Kurdish interests are served greatly by dividing the Ancient Mesopotamians (Assyrians/ChaldeansEast Syriacs), and causing frictions between them.

I do feel that all of these points should be pointed out.

In addition, it does appear to be a MINORITY of Chaldean Catholics and Eastern Syriacs who wish to dispute their ethnic commonality with Assyrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The term Syrian or Syriac is a Greek bastardisation of Assyrian, the term Syria evolved out of the term Assyria, though this does NOT mean that modern Syrians or Syriacs are Assyrians. Some are, however.

Syriac is a term used by Syriac Christians, it is not just a religious term, but an ethnic one, designed to differentiate them from Muslims and Arabs.

Some Syriacs regard themselves as ethnically Assyrian, others as Arameans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Could you please provide the names of sources, such as reliable books or articles, which we can use to verify this information, per Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability? --Elonka 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Much comes from the studies of Simo Parpola, also from recorded names for Assyria in Persian, Roman and Greek records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well basically the main portion of Assyrians that call themselves "Aramean" are from Turkey, they only started calling themselves Aramean after their church brainwashed them into doing so, however alot of their Church members do identify as Assyrians, for example the Syriac formed club of Assyriska is very pro-Assyrian, also if you check the map of John Speed you can see the ethnic minorities in turkey at the time of 1500AD and there is no mention of the word "Aramean" even when they claim to have such large numbers, however the name Assyrian appears clearly on this map. Aturaya (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Arameans of Aram Nahrin (greek. Mesopotamia)

There must be a new section about the The Indigenous Aramean people of Aram-Nahrin (Mesopotamia, Iraq).

The Aramean people of Mesopotamia are the indigenous people of Aram-Nahrin. The Aramean people, not to be confused with 'Armenians', speak Aramaic, the language spoken by Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ. Today's Arameans are divided into various denominations and called by different names.


The culture, history, language and faith of the Aramean people have attracted the attention of many people including scientists, artists, linguistics, clergy and laymen. The Italian film producer Giacomo Pezalli, for example, was so impressed by the history of one of the oldest existing Semitic people in the world that he decided to make a film about the Aramean people entitled The Hidden Pearl: The Aramaic Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The script for the film was written, amongst others, by professor Sebastian P. Brock, a professor at Oxford University. Professor Brock specializes in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syrian Orthodox Church history. This marvellous and breathtaking scientific multimedia project can serve as a source of information for those who are interested in the culture, religion and history of one of the oldest Semitic people of the Middle East, who have been living in this part of the world for thousands of years.

Aramean people and Christianity

After the coming of Jesus Christ, the Arameans of Aram-Naharaim accepted the teachings of Christ and established, together with the apostles of Jesus Christ and the converted Jews, the Syrian Church of Antioch, the second Patriarchy after Jerusalem, where, for the first time, the followers of Jesus Christ were called “Christians” (Acts 11:26). This church was the mother of all the Churches – and the first Church established outside Israel – whose Patriarch currently resides in Damascus , Syria .

The Semitic Arameans underwent a change of name after they had embraced Christianity and were then called “Syrians”, in order to be distinguished from the Arameans, who were not converted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but no thank you. We have had these name issues once and internationally the Suraya-Suroyo people are known as "Assyrians" in English and e.g. as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" in countries as Sweden.--Yohanun (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

They are actually known as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" in English, in "countries such as" the USA. They are not known as "Aramaeans" in English, you are right on that. The Aramaeans of antiquity are discussed under the title Aramaeans. The Aramaeanist narrative of Syriac origins is discussed under Aramaeanism, just like the Assyrianist narrative is found under Assyrianism. People should learn to read before complaining. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Deletion of talk page contents

The vandalism of this talk page has got to stop. People, whoever they are, no matter what their point of view, have the right to make comments about possible changes to the article. I know the name of this article has been discussed at some considerable length, you only need to look at the archives to see that, but new comments should be replied to in good faith by directing people to the past discussion in the archive and not simply be deleted as "propoganda", "unrelated", or "not for posting articles" - though the last is sort of true... discuss the article, don't post complete new versions of the article. Remember, Wikipedia should work by consensus and is not a battleground. Astronaut (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for that Astronaut, it was frustrating for me to be putting forward facts and stating my opinion to see others just delete it, i think some people here are scared of facts, when you present it to them, they try to delete it and act like it was never there, they were quick to delete my comments however no one has yet to reply on this issue of Assyrian/Aramean where the Assyrian name is mentioned and the "Aramean" name isn't during the 1600s in Turkey the mother land of the so called "Arameans". Im still waiting for a mature reply which doesn't consists of deleting my comments, once again thank you for pointing this out, deleting of others comments must stop. Aturaya (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you must keep discussing the naming issue, at least try to be aware of the facts that have already been established and discussed. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. We have an article dedicated to the naming thing, at names of Syriac Christians. Anyone discussing this needs to read that first, and then take their concerns to Talk:Names of Syriac Christians, not to Talk:Assyrian people. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

population

Hello,

if you inclued the syriac people in this article so you have do take they with in the population numbers.

So if syriacs and Assyrians are the same people, you have to inclued the population of the syriacs in this article too. So the Total populattion of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are more than 10 million and not 3.3 million.

ca. 4 million members of the syriac maronite church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church ca. 4 million members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church ca. 500.000 members of the Assyrian Church of the East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East ca. 1.5 million members of the Chaldean Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church ca. 100.000 members of the Syriac Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Catholic_Church -- Elvis214 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian genocide

The Assyrian Genocide (also known as Sayfo or Seyfo) was committed against the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac population of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The Assyrian population of northern Mesopotamia (the Tur Abdin, Hakkari, Van, Siirt regions of present-day southeastern Turkey and the Urmia region of northwestern Iran) was forcibly relocated and massacred by Ottoman (Turkish) and Kurdish forces between 1914 and 1920.

The death toll of the Assyrian genocide was approximately 250,000, according to contemporary and more recent sources. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1918 that US Ambassador Morgenthau said that the Ottoman Empire had "massacred fully 2,000,000 men, women, and children -- Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians; fully 1,500,000 Armenians."[1] With 250,000 Greeks among the dead, that makes Ambassador Morgenthau's estimate of Assyrian deaths about 250,000.[2]

In its December 4, 1922, memorandum, the Assyro-Chaldean National Council stated that the total death toll was unknown. It estimated that about 275,000 "Assyro-Chaldeans" died between 1914 and 1918.[3] The population of the Assyrians of the Ottoman Empire was about 500,000 before the genocide, and 100,000 to 250,000 after.[4]

The Assyrian genocide took place in the same context and time-period as the Armenian and Greek genocides.[5] Modern sources usually describe the events as an Assyrian genocide, along with the Armenian genocide and Greek genocide by the Ottoman Empire, listing the Greek Orthodox, Syriac Christian and Armenian Christian as victims together. For example, the International Association of Genocide Scholars reached a consensus that "the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks."[6] After this resolution, the Dictionary of Genocide, co-authored by eminent genocide scholar Samuel Totten, an expert on Holocaust education and the genocide in Darfur, contained an entry on the "Assyrian genocide."[7] The President of Genocide Watch endorsed the "repudiation by the world's leading genocide scholars of the Turkish government's ninety-year denial of the Ottoman Empire's genocides against its Christian populations, including Assyrians, Greeks, and Armenians."[6]

State your opinion as you wish, Above is reality with pictures and documented families that have been involved, many Assyrians lost their grandfathers and grandmothers during these GENOCIDES —Preceding unsigned comment added by AssyrianMedia (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The term assyrian genocide is nothing but created after some political conquests. The reffences given on the page is not objective and biased, at the same time "The Plight of Religious Minorities: Can Religious Pluralism Survive? - Page 51 by United States Congress" can not be given as an objective reffence since US holds a biased possition on todays world.The refference "The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization Or Premeditated Continuum" also uses the theme "Assyrian Genocide" in order to gain more concrete gound for the so called Armenian Genocide. I demand that Assyrian genocide in this text should be renamed as "so called assyrian genocide claims". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.48.236 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Trial Naming Poll

This is the first shot at finding a consensus for a naming for this article that all three groups can agree on without the awkwardness of Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac or Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac. Members of each of these three groups have been participating in a discussion and there seems to be a preliminary consensus building around using "East Syriac people" as the title of this article. This isn't a request for move yet, just another step in carefully building consensus among the affected editors. Should the title of this article be "East Syriac people"? (Taivo (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

  • Neutral. As the neutral party trying to help these gentlemen reach a difficult consensus, I will stay neutral. (Taivo (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC))
  • Support. I support renaming this article to "East Syriac People".--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I have nothing against it either. I also support renaming it to East Syriac People.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I hadn't yet contributed to the discussion here but my consideration is that Syriac people would be the ideal title for this article, though in its current form it only includes East Syriacs. I would also support a simple rename to East Syriac people, it would thereafter require a corresponding West Syriac people though. Another suitable title could be Eastern Syriacs, which similarly would require a Western Syriacs. The usage of "Syriac" here is neutral and is not in antithesis to "Assyrian". ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I and Triz said "East Syrian" is only used for the eastern part of the people (Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church), not the western (Syriac Orthodox Church). And Syriac is a new term. The use of the word spread after the Syrian Orthodox Church changed their name to Syriac, so it's a pretty new term (when it come to describing the people). Should aslo be mentioned that the Aramean side is using the name much more than any side, almost trying to take "patent" on it. For example the pro-Aramean organisation Syriac Universal Alliance. And see the pro-Aramean old article here on Wikipedia, called Syriac people (removed by admin, fork). "Syriac/Aramean" is much used among them. And last, it's not common name, not close too. "East Syriac" is a new name (first time used by Taivo here?), seems like I'm the only one tired of new names... Shmayo (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, TriZ said, "The name for the people prior to the rise of Assyrian and to (some extent) Chaldean nationalism in the 20th century, was simply Syrians. There are no discrepancies concerning this among schoolars. And it's still used in its modern form, i.e. Syriacs." (Taivo (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes, he said that too. But I just said that he agreed on that "East" meant the people of the Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church. Not just that, but also the rest I wrote shows why i'm opposing. Shmayo (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That is why I made the suggestion to have Syriac people including both east and west. "Syriac" is commensurate with the historical "Syrian". It is therefore neutral and is preferred by Chaldeans and Syriacs. If you find "Syriac" objectionable on the grounds that it is a recent modification of "Syrian", then the title: Syrian people (Syriac) should suffice, or for my other suggestion: Eastern Syrians (Syriacs). ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My answers are in my first post here. Shmayo (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose As the term "East Syrian" is only used to describe the part of the Assyrian people that speaks the eastern dialect. This article is about an ethnic group and therefore we will need to apply an ethnic term regarding their identity. And as "Shmayo" mentioned "Syriac" was invented in the year of 2000 when the Syriac Orthodox Synod decided that Syrian -> Syriac in order to not be confused with the Syrian Arab population in Syria. And user "King Of Babylonia"'s opposement will eventually be removed as it is not an established user. We will need to use a name that is internationally accepted and in the English language the Assyrian term is the most used term regarding this ethnic group. --Yohanun (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't base your remarks on a personal attack at another editor (King of Babylonia). This difficult issue is hard enough, so we must take extra care to remain civil. (Taivo (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
There is nothing personal in denouncing a non-established Wikipedia user his voting right. I'll bring it up with an admin if you believe it is correct to include non-established user's votes if you would disagree and want to have your opinion heard. --Yohanun (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There are no "rules" as to who can express their opinion in a poll and who cannot. This isn't a "vote", it's a simple polling of opinions. Wikipedia doesn't work on "votes", it works on building consensus. This isn't an election, it's an attempt to get a feel for where consensus may or may not lie. Once again, this isn't about making accusations against other editors. Please maintain a very high level of civility here. (Taivo (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
Assyria 90; please read my above response to Shmayo. "Assyrian" is neither the most common name in English, nor a neutral name. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the person above me stated, Assyrian is the term that should be used. Destudent (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — Destudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. To let you know where I stand, I've suggested several alternatives above, but in the event of a refusal to accept a neutral name for the article, then Assyrians can have their own article but I oppose the inclusion of Chaldeans under their name. It's a neutral name or two articles. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
ܥܝܪܐܩ, I have strong reasons to believe that User:Assyria 90 (or Yohanun as he prefers to be called) and Destudent are Sockpuppets of Shmayo. I have reported my claim here. I hope I am wrong; otherwise, things will have to change. This is why I am calm. I am just waiting for the results of the claim. The claim has been elevated for CU and Shmayo has been notified. I am withholding my comments on purpose until I find out if all these accounts are just one user or not.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see on that page, I am from a completely different country. As for the poll; I find it very strange that Tisqupnaia would accept this since he is the one who keeps on claiming to have a different ethnicity. What you are saying here is that all of the sudden there are East Syrian/c people and West Syriac. The lines between these groups would also be very difficult to make. What makes a person West Syriac. If it is their church; there are already pages for that. If it is their dialect than a lot of Assyrians (from western Syriac speakers) are being cut loose from their Eastern Syriac speaking brothers. I also agree with what Shmayo and Yohanun said above. Another very important fact to consider is that Syrian comes from Assyrian, the scientific community is at this time sure of this. We shouldn't change the most used name of a people, because there are a few who seem to get sick by just hearing/seeing Assyrian. Destudent (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Trial Poll

So it seemed pretty clear from the preceding that there is a problem with "East" in the previous poll. So what are your thoughts on "Syriac people"? From my point of view, this is a linguistically good term since the common speech form of the Mesopotamian Christian communities was Syriac. So please comment here. I urge all of you to keep extra civil during this. Please don't comment on other editors--it does nothing to further the discussion. Remember that this isn't a "vote". It's a poll to see where consensus might lie. (Taivo (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

  • Neutral. As above, I will stay neutral for now. (Taivo (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
  • Oppose. The disucssion about the first poll was much about just this term. I stated what I thought about it; "And Syriac is a new term. The use of the word spread after the Syrian Orthodox Church changed their name to Syriac, so it's a pretty new term (when it come to describing the people). Should aslo be mentioned that the Aramean side is using the name much more than any side, almost trying to take "patent" on it. For example the pro-Aramean organisation Syriac Universal Alliance. And see the pro-Aramean old article here on Wikipedia, called Syriac people (removed by admin, fork). "Syriac/Aramean" is much used among them." Shmayo (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have had these discussion for many times and each and every time we agreed on using the Assyrian term as it is the most widespread ethnic term regarding this nation in the English language. There is a lack of scholar work that support a "Syriac" people as the term was as prevously stated invented in year 2000 by the Syriac Orthodox Church in order to not be confused with the Syrian Arab population. Let us instead improve the article and keep away from the name until a Internationally Recognised Assyrian (Syriac and Chaldean) Association concerning these matters is established and we can follow their recommendations.--Yohanun (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually both of you (assuming that you are different editors) are wrong about the origin of the term "Syriac". Syriac is an old term used for the language of the Mesopotamian Christians in the Middle Ages. There's nothing new about it. I would like to see a survey of usage in English. Use this survey as a model. If someone has already done such a thing, then I'd like to see a link to it. Until a definitive analysis is done, the conflicting claims of all parties are just claims. (And, remember, this about English terminology, not the terms used in Neo-Aramaic languages.) (Taivo (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
I did write "...so it's a pretty new term (when it come to describing the people)". So I know that it has been used for the language. But this is not about renamning the language-article, it's about the ethnic people article, and when it comes to that "Syriacs" is a new term. Shmayo (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The test proved us to be different persons, it is hilarious that one has to protect his own identity even though I have been here since 2005. We are not stating claims, we have provided academical works supporting our claims throughout most of the time. And regarding Syriac here is a official letter from the SOC, http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/currentevents/Census/bishopseng.html --Yohanun (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Assyria90, that link you provided does not prove anything about what the common English name is. It is a "dictate" not a measure of actual usage. All we are interested in here is actual usage by academics, in news media, etc. If you've "provided academical [sic] works" then you can surely just cut and paste a list of the most relevant ones here. And individual works are good, but we're looking for patterns of usage. What does AP use? What does the NY Times use? What does the London Times use? One scholar saying X isn't as important as a pattern of usage in the English language. (Taivo (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

In the English language the most used ethnic term for our people is "Assyrian". NY times:

Washington Post:

Winnipeg Free Press:

Others:

And my "copy and paste" from the "Assyrianization" article:

  • There is a user here claiming that "Assyrians" did not exist prior to the British involvement in Mesopotamia. In John Speed's map dating from 1627 we found the term "Assyrian" as labelled to a ethnic group inhabiting northern Mesopotamia.
  • Bishop Mor Michael of the Syriac Orthodox defended the Jacobite Assyrian sect towards Greek claims and writes in the 9th century " Assyrians, who were called 'Syrians' by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean 'Assyrians' from 'Assure' who built the city of Nineveh". - Ibid P: 748
  • When Horatio Southgate visited the Syrian Orthodox communities of Turkey in 1843 he reported that its followers were calling themselves Assyrians in the form of "Suryoye Othoroye". He writes: "I began to make inquiries for the Syrians. The people informed me that there were about one hundred families of them in the town of Kharpout, and a village inhabited by them on the plain. I observed that the Armenians did not know them under the name which I used, SYRIANI; but called them ASSOURI, which struck me the more at the moment from its resemblance to our English name ASSYRIANS, from whom they claim their origin, being sons, as they say, of Assour, (Asshur,) who 'out of the land of Shinar went forth, and build Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resin between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city..." -Horatio Southgate, "Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobites] Church", 1844 P 80

Notice that this was in 1843 and before Layard arrived to Mesopotamia, and even if Layard would be in Mesopotamia he would be far away from Turabdin in modern SE Turkey.

  • On November 3 year 1612 the Persian Shah Abbas I. is criticised by the then Pope Paul V. for his unfair treatment of "those who are called Assyrians or Jacobites". This quote is found in - H. Chick: A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1939, 100.

Here are some academical works:

  • "Today the ethnic category Assyrian is used for indigenous Christian peoples living in Kurdistan and northern Mesopotamia who speak (or once spoke) an Aramaic Semitic language. They were among the first peoples to become Christians and have kept ancient theologies, which came to differ very much from European Christianity."

- David Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press 2006).

  • "Another point which has been raised is the confusion between the modern

terms Syria and Syrian and Assyrian. The former is a geographic designation while the latter is an ethnic or linguistic name. Obviously before the ancient Assyrian Empire was in a sense brought back to life by archaeologists no one paid any attention to a difference in designation between Syrian and Assyrian, since that geographical designation called Syria was an ancient Greek and Roman, hence modern Western usage of the name. The term Syria was not used in the east and Syrians or Assyrians were simply those groups which spoke neo- Aramaic or neo-Syriac dialects (to use the terms of modern linguists). When the designation of that land of which Damascus became the capital, namely Syria, came to be used everywhere after the fall of the Ottoman empire, then the traditional Syrians/Assyrians had to concentrate on the latter name to distinguish themselves from the inhabitants of modern Syria who predominantly spoke Arabic." - Richard N. Frye, Ph.D., Harvard University, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms

  • "Phonologically, Modern Assyrian Sūrāyā perfectly agrees with Neo-Assyrian

[Sūrāyu], while Syriac Sūryōyō displays an intrusive yod, which it shares with Greek Súrios and Suría. This intrusive yod surely is due to Greek influence, since in classical Syriac the word also occurs in the form Sūrōyō, in perfect agreement with the Modern Assyrian Sūrāyā.58 It is worth noting that Sūrāyā is reported to have a variant with initial A-, but this is avoided in careful speech, since it instinctively sounds incorrect in view of the classical Syriac Sūryōyō.59 Since omission of initial vowels is not a feature of Aramaic phonology, the lack of the initial A- in Sūrāyā/Sūr(y)ōyō cannot be due to internal Aramaic development but must go back directly to Neo-Assyrian...Today, the Assyrian nation largely lives in diaspora, split into rivaling churches and political factions. The fortunes of the people that constitute it have gone different ways over the millennia, and their identities have changed accordingly. The Syriacs in the West have absorbed many influences from the Greeks, while the Assyrians in the East have since ancient times been under Iranian cultural influence. Ironically, as members of the Chaldean Catholic Church established in 1553, many modern Assyrians originating from central Assyria now identify themselves as “Chaldeans”, a term inevitably associated with the Babylonian dynasty that destroyed Nineveh and the Assyrian Empire!85 Disunited, dispersed in exile, and as dwindling minorities without full civil rights in their homelands, the Assyrians of today are in grave danger of total assimilation and extinction.86 In order to survive as a nation, they must now unite under the Assyrian identity of their ancestors. It is the only identity that can help them to transcend the differences between them, speak with one voice again, catch the attention of the world, and regain their place among the nations." - Professor Simo Parpola, (University of Helsinki), National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times§

  • "The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has voted overwhelmingly to recognize the genocides inflicted on Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire between 1914 and 1923."

- International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), Press Release, December 16, 2007

Parliamentary statements:

  • " Iraq: Situation in prisons and the Assyrian community

Parliament's resolution on Iraq was adopted with 86 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention. It covers two issues: the situation of the Assyrian community and Iraqi prisons. Regarding the Assyrian community (Chaldeans, Syriacs and other Christian minorities) MEPs strongly condemn all acts of violence against them. They urge the Iraqi authorities and the Multi-National Force (MNF-I) to find the perpetrators of these serious crimes and bring them to justice as soon as possible. MEPs urge Iraq’s authorities to protect the Assyrians from discrimination, in accordance with their international obligations. Parliament urges Iraq’s authorities to improve the security situation of the Assyrians and to facilitate the return and resettlement of Assyrian refugees in a secure environment where their customs and way of life are respected. It calls for the involvement of the Christians in Iraq in the reconstruction and administration of their land and villages in Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region in order to preserve their cultural, religious and ethnic identity within one undivided country. MEPs strongly support calls by most Iraqi political and religious leaders for restraint and urges the communities in Iraq to come together in a spirit of dialogue and mutual respect; expresses its full support for the efforts of the UN in promoting intercommunal dialogue within the framework of a national dialogue; welcomes the initiative by the League of Arab States to hold a second conference on national reconciliation with the participation of all Iraqi communities. They urge the Constitutional Committee of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to preserve the cultural and religious rights of all Iraqi communities in its proposals for a constitutional amendment. MEPs call on the Commission and the Council to take all necessary measures to assist and protect the Assyrians." - European Parliament Strasbourg, 6th of April 2005 --Yohanun (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Other quotes: "As for the fighting men, you shall have 40,000 to meet you at the end of the six days journey; the “Assyrians” and Yezidy Curds are likewise ready to join us" -Vardapet Hovnan, head of the St. John the Baptist Monastery in Mush 1763 A.D --Yohanun (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Assyrian is still the best title in my opinion. There are, apart from the sources above, more sources providing actual proof for the use of Assyrian. Many are from esteemed Assyriologists. The "needs attention from an expert" is therefore strange to me and I don't see why this can't be removed (the experts attention is given in their scholarly papers/journals/books).

As for what is most in use; this has been tested before I think and Assyrian is used more often, again Assyria 90 provided a few examples, but there are many more. Syriac people isn't in use if it is about a people. I would like to add one more point to this here. This is from my own observation. Among the people who attend the Chaldean Catholic and Syriac Ortodox church, there are obviously groups saying they are Assyrian (from the other churches all people say they are Assyrian). The other big group in the two churches I mentioned (chaldean catholic and syriac orthodox) is people who don't say anything about their ethnicity; they only say to wich church they belong. They therefore say Chaldean Catholic or Syriac Orthodox(not as an ethnicity). The churches already have their own pages, so the title Assyrian (for the people) seems to be perfect. People who claim things like a chaldean/aramean ethnicity are an absolute minority. The very small group of people who do claim a different ethnicity get more than enough (imo) attention in the Assyrian people article.

Anyway: back to what is most used. I am still new and I don't know how to do this the way Taivo did this in the Kiev thing. I also didn't do this as thoroughly as you did there (lack of time), but i think a pattern is already visible.

United States
Newspapers
  • The New York Times: All Results Since 1851: Assyrian: 4120, Syriac: 546
  • LA times: All dates, 1985-present: Assyrian: 428, Syriac: 32
  • Chicago Tribune Between: 01/01/2000 and 04/21/2010: Assyrian: 258, Syriac: 14
Television News
Canada
Australia
United Kingdom

Some notes: - I did not include a search for AssyrianS, so not all articles are counted. - Most search results for Assyrian are for the modern group, but some are also about ancient Assyrians (in my eyes it doesn't matter, because we are descendants of the ancient group, but for others these don't count). - Syriac is mostly about the church or the language, not a people. In many cases the article is about Assyrians and it says something like Assyrians who speak Syriac.Destudent (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen, for providing real data. As Destudent notes, there is a problem with "Assyrian" as an adjective describing the ancient kingdom. I don't know how to sort out how much the numbers need to be reduced to eliminate that option without examining each article. And, the ancient Assyrians are not the modern Assyrians. I know that the nationalistic propaganda says otherwise, but please leave that notion at the door during this discussion. The use of "Assyrian" ceased in the 6th century BCE and was not resumed until the Middle Ages at the earliest. As such, the discussion of any ancient connections is irrelevant to this discussion. We're focusing only on contemporary English usage. (Taivo (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC))
Actually most scientists involved in the Assyrian question and Assyrology would today disagre with you. If you would have said that 10 years ago a lot of them would agree with you but things have certainly changed with the founding of Ziyaret Tepe, the Cineköy rock which proved that Suraya is equivalent to Assuraya, the Mor Gabriel and Dayrul Za'faran monasteries being built on ancient Assyrian-Babylonian worshipping buildings, DNA analysis etc. --Yohanun (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
First about the "propraganda". This looks like an accusation (as if I am trying to mislead people), if that's the case then that's the second in the short time I have been active here. I do not want to leave this at the door either, because we are not making things up here. Assyriologists agree with the continuity and the evidence is there for you to review. The name of Assyrian and Suraye, dit not disappear as you say. With respect, but I value the (well founded) analysis of the Assyriologists more than yours in this case.
Second what you are more interested in: I am not going to just make up percentages without reviewing it more thorougly, but a quick analysis of the search results learns that, especially in the more current articles (!), the majority of the articles is about the modern Assyrians. This seems logical since I only looked at news sources and not historical sources. In any event it is much much more than Syriac. Like I said in my notes above Syriac is never (or hardly ever; I did not look at all of the results) used to define us as a people, Assyrian is (and was). I also asked something about the "needs attention from an expert": can this be removed? Destudent (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got some few comments on what have been said that I want to share. First of all, the question of the word Syrian being derived from Assyrian or not, is completly irrelevant, please don't even mention it, because it doesn't prove anything at all. To quote a sentence written in this article for example; "Meanwhile, some scholars has disclaimed the theory of Syrian being derived from Assyrian as "simply naive", and detracted its importance to the naming conflict.[55]".
Second, saying the members of the Syriac churches either identify with their churches or with the Assyrian name, is a blatant lie and part of the Assyrian nationalistic propaganda.
Third, comparing the frequency of the Assyrian name with Syriac dating back to the early 20th century is just wrong from a statistically point of wiew. The Syriac name is in comparission a new term, so in order to be fair, you would have to compare the frequency of Assyrian with the Syriac name and the Syrian name for the years before the modern state of Syria was created.
Fourth, the Syriac name was introduced in 1983 by the SUA (read more about it here [1])
Lastly, I to can provide you with many, many links to newspapers and governments using the Syriac name for the people, and I've already done it before. In example, the European Commission is using the Syriac name to describe the people; [2],[3],[4], [5]. Examples of the Syrian name being in use before the founding of the modern state of Syria; [6],[7] a proclaimation by the president of the United States Woodrow Wilson. The TriZ (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The word Syrian coming from Assyrian is not irrelevant to the discussion. Most established scientists in the area acknowledge the fact that the modern Assyrians are descendants of the ancient Assyrians whereas the linguistic connection has also played it's role. We are however speaking of the most common English name for this people and you have not provided any statistics revealing that "Syriac" is the most used one. When it comes to the Syriac denomiation being used in resolutions regarding Turkey this is due to the neutrality of the European Syriac Union which in origin is an Assyrian political party, however that is not our issue. The Syriac name may have been introduced in 1983 but it was not until 2000 the name officially gained strength through the then Syrian Orthodox Synod. And your personal attacks regarding Assyrian nationalists is not correct. You're from Sweden I believe? Facts remain that around 40% of the Syriac Orthodox community in Sweden view themselves as Assyrians and not "Syriacs" or "Syriacs/Arameans". When adding the Church of The East's members and the amountof Assyrians in the Chaldean Church the Assyrian fraction suddenly has got a absolute majority as a unifying one. It is also essential to mention that I would not be against calling this ethnic people "Syrians" if the modern Arab state of Syria would not have applied the term to designate their inhabitants. --Yohanun (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I will respond to the points by the TriZ in his/her order. The first point: Suraye and Syrian coming from Assuraye is very relevant and actually vertually everybody agrees that Syrian does come from Assyrian. The second point: yet another accusation. You are not assuming good faith, not being welcoming, not being polite (see rules above) but my answer is that here in the Netherlands I have met many people who reply to questions about who they are with "Syrisch ortodox" and I did say that it was from my own observation. This point is actually less relevant anyway (because I was talking about my observation). The third point makes no sense because we are looking at what is in use now. However if you would look at the timeframe you gave, Assyrian would still be used more. The fourth point is irrelevant. The last point: I only looked at the first link to be honest and I admit it does look sometimes like they use Syriac for a people. However when you go to the website of the European Commission and look things up: Assyrian gets fourteen hits and Syriac only five, so you really didn't support the case for Syriac here. Destudent (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. As Taivo explained, the result-counts from searches for "Assyrians" and "Assyrian people" contain a large - though indeterminable number of references outside the context at hand, ie. removed from the ancient Assyrians. With that in mind; some Google book searches: "Assyrian people" (671), "East Syrians" (671), "Syriac Christians" (651). Considering that the latter two terms lack the ambiguity of the former; I would say this demonstrates that the current title "Assyrian people" is not the most common English term. A book search for "Syriacs" (647) - an unambiguous term, which corresponds with the title Syriac people has an almost equal measure. 'Assyrian' has no monopoly in English scholarly usage.

If Assyrians want to have their own article then fine: I don't see Chaldeans and Syriacs wishing to deny them their identity, but I do see Assyrians doing their damnedest to deny Chaldeans and Syriacs their identities. If a name cannot be agreed upon, then splitting the articles is the solution. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not say "contain a large...number of references". I said that to determine the exact number of references outside the context at hand would take examining each individual article. I did not characterize how many of the "Assyrian" references might be to the ancient Assyrians which are irrelevant to this discussion. (Taivo (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
Yes, though I characterized the number as large as checking over the results lends that impression. In fact after further checking I would say the number is very large. A more appropriate term for the purposes of this survey and one which inherently does give an accurate measure is "Modern Assyrians" (431). ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's try not to make the statistics say what we want them to say. With the quotation marks around Assyrian people you are throwing away tons of references about Assyrians, people talk about Assyrian(s) they don't just say and write "Assyrian people" everywhere. I don't want to accuse you of anything, but it looks like you are being creative with the numbers. "Syriac people" with quotation marks gets 77 hits with the google books search (and this IS a direct comparison with "Assyrian people"). Like I said when I first gave the hits from newspapers/channels: Assyrians is used far more often. Syriac, Syriacs don't even add up to the use of Assyrian. Even when I would be creative with the statistics and leave out a lot of references to Assyrians and count all of the references to Syriac (wich isn't correct either because Syriac refers mostly to the church and language but nobody else said anything about that; people only repeated what would help their case). It baffles me that people could actually argue this (not directed at one person), people can just make the searches themselves and they would see that Assyrian is the term used most and the other terms don't even come close. Destudent (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This can be worth reading about most common name. And there are more old discussions about it. Shmayo (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading facts are not the solution ܥܝܪܐܩ. When typing "Assyrian people" on Google books there are 17,100 results. When typing "Syriac people" we find 4,010 results and when typing "Chaldean people" we find 5,320 results. The most common word in the English language for this Mesopotamian ethnicity is "Assyrian". When designating people as "Syriacs" it is more a religious term that designated merely west Assyrians and when using the term "Chaldean" we merely designate the Assyrian Catholics. Assyrian nationalists are found in each of the mentioned churches, however Syriac or Chaldean nationalists are not. In your case it is worth mentioning that the previous Chaldean Patriarch Mar Bedaweed I officially declared himself as an ethnic Assyrian but adherent to Chaldean Catholicism. --Yohanun (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Doing web searches to see which term is most frequently used is pointless. These terms refer to different things. There are, without question, Syriac Christians. A majority (I think we can say) consider themselves Assyrians. A sizeable chunk do not, however. Proving ethnic descent is impossible. Look at all the people who consider themselves "ethnic Arabs". It's fairly obvious that they cannot possibly be merely "ethnic Arabs" -- and yet they are "Arab" because they consider themselves so. The same thing applies to every "ethnicity": Turk, Greek, Bulgarian, Assyrian etc etc. For an Encyclopedia, we must consider definable groups. A definable group is "Syriac Christian". Members of this group adhere to several different branches of Christianity and have different national identities: Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean. It is not our job to determine which identity is correct (by forcing a single identity/name on all Syriac Christians). Most serious academic work on Syriac Christianity does not employ any of the ethnic epithets and neither should Wikipedia. Ordtoy (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All names are acceptable. The Ancient Assyrians themselves were not a pure race. I mean does anyone recall the history of Iraq. I mean Amorites came from the west. Hamurabbi was an Amorite yet he was Babylonian. Assyrian is a nationality. Assyrians of the ancient may have come from all over the ancient world. For a great example just look at Babylon or Babel as it is known in Semitic languages. The city was a basteon of diversity. Aramaeans and Assyrians and Chaldeans or Syrians were different groups of similar people never truly united. Even the ancient kings had to battle to keep lands under their dominion. This is rediculous and insane that like people would like to distance themselves from each other. Divided a nation falls. This nation hath fallen.01:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not correct that this nation is only made up by Syriac Christians, and therefore the term can not be used. There are thousands of Assyrian Yezidis and Assyrian Muslims (Mhalmoye) who til this day designate themselves as Assyrians. Read: The Assyrian Origin of the Izedis or Yezidis-the So-Called "Devil Worshippers", by W. Francis Ainsworth © 1861.

As you say, the ethnic Arab term is not correct but it can not be comparable to the Assyrian ethnic identity. Arabs are compromised by different peoples and many considered as Arabs do not designate themselves as Arabs e.g. Maronites. An article about Syriac Christanity exists, however this is a ethnic article and not solely a religious one. I am an Agnostic, am I no Assyrian and will not be included in the Syriac Christian people therefore? This is not the 18th century. The Syriac, Chaldean and Arameans terms were not used to describe west or east Assyrians but have during the latest decades come in use whereas the Assyrian term has been the most common name in regard to this people. --Yohanun (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Per above. The TriZ (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Religion asside Syriac actually refers to the language. It was only recently used to designate a group of people. Syrian designates the people just as Aramaean designates the people as Aramaic designates the language. Syriac was an alteration in the US Census form so as not to confuse Syrian (Arab) nationals with Syrian Christian Ethnic groups. Assyrian was actually used for the same purpose otherwise everyone of the group including Chaldeans would be using the designation "Syrian." Souraya or Souryoyo is what every person of these three groups refers to themselves as. Assyrian coincendentally also is used by all the groups of people that fall under all three categories but not by everyone. However the Chaldean and Syriac are only used by ones who fall in to those groups. These are facts. Though all terms are acceptable only the Assyrian name is accepted by many members of the many different Syrian Christian communities.Sharru Kinnu III (talk)

Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans and Arameans - All the same!!

OK, here goes...As i see it the Assyrians and Babylonians were originally Akkadians, Yes? After that they got mixed with other Semites called Amorites, Yes? After that they got mixed with Arameans, Yes?

So by the time Assyria and Babylonia fell, the native Semitic Akkadian folk were already mixed with Aramean people, so they were a kind of hybrid of ancient Semitic people.

Assyria and Babylon carried on existing after they both fell, thats obvious. They seem to have become Christians pretty early. And the Persians sem to have kept the name Assyria, while the Greeks altered it, thats how the name Syria came about, it originally did mean Assyria. It was only after the Arabs arrived in the early middle ages that those names disappeared, the Arabs seem to have dissolved the provinces.

But logically, you cant equate the disappearing of the names with the dissapearing of the people. And as others have pointed out, theres plenty of references to Assyrians in the records of all sorts of peoples, Arabs, Armenians, Iranians, Russians, Georgians etc etc etc, and Assyrian names seem to have been continually used. Also, there seems to be a lot of very respectable scholars and historians who back that up, and theyre none of them Assyrians, and i think thats pretty important.

So, those people in Iraq, and i think in Iran and bits of Syria and Turkey that border Iraq who still speak Aramaic (or Syriac if you like) who call themselves Assyrian probably are just that, Assyrians, BUT, these Assyrians as ive already said also have Aramaic and Amorite blood in there as well, and some of them would have originated outside Assyria in what was Babylonia, but who cares as the Assyrians and Babylonians were pretty much the same people anyway!

So people arguing about whether the Assyrians are really Arameans are wasting their time! Because they have both peoples blood, and they had both as far back as 3000 years ago!

People arguing over whether theyre Assyrian or Syriac is stupid too, because the name Syria means Assyria anyway.

People arguing over whether theyre Assyrian or Chaldean, yup silly again. Chaldean just means the Assyrians who became Catholics about 3 or 4 hundred years back.

Whatever you call them, the Christian Aramaic speaking Semites in Iraq and bordering it are all the same people, and all have the blood of the Akkadian, Amorite and Aramean people in them.

Sure, if we talk about Christians from Lebanon, western Syria, Jordan, Israel, theyre not Assyrians, in fact those ones from West Syria probably ARE Arameans, and the Lebanese are probably Phonecians!

Some Assyrians try to claim ANY Christian Semite in the mid east is Assyrian, theyre wrong! But theyre right about the ones in what was old Mesopotamia, so long as they accept theyre mixed with Arameans and other old Semitic peoples.

Unless you are from a remote tribe in Borneo or Papua New Guinea, lets face it, were all mixed. But that doesnt mean an Assyrian cant call himself Assyrian any more than a Frenchman cant call himself French, and both can be proud of their heritages and histories.

If people want to call themselves Assyrian, Aramean, Chaldean, Syrian whatever, its up to them, who cares, but respect the rights of others.

If one group in say Iraq or Iran says theyre Assyrian, then let them, and let them have their identity, ancient and modern, if some other group wants to say theyre Aramean, then let them, let them have their own Aramean history, but neither should interfere with the other one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Identity confusion

Jesus Christ if Assyrians weren't already confused about their identity you guys just ad to make it more confusing?, why in gods name did you add "Lebanese Maronite" to our population? this is just insane, first you add two church names (Chaldean, Syriac) to a ethnicity name (Assyrian) then now you add Lebanese Maronite to the list?, If you want to add Lebanese people into our ethnicity might as well add 80 percent of Europe into our nations name since current DNA testing has shown they have mixed with populations from Assyria/Babylonia. This whole article is a complete joke now, I'd be more confident to direct people who want to learn about Assyrians to a random 12 year old on the street than i would to Wikipedia. Aturaya (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the confusion and vitriol is entirely that of the people in question, not Wikipedia's. We are merely reporting on the confusion.

Genetics has nothing to do with this. This group is essentially defined by its religion, which is unsurprising seeing that they are a tiny Christian minority within the Islamic Near East. Identity after all works via contrast to an outgroup. This article's title was changed to "Assyrian people" after a lot of effort went into a disingenious campaign, but it remains undisputed that all Syriac Christians, no matter whether they are "Assyrianists", fall within the scope of this article. --dab (𒁳) 17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes i understand that the confusion is within the people and not Wikipedia, i cant believe Wikipedia has let it get to this extent, i just wonder how other people who know little about Assyrians will end up after reading this article, Assyrians already have an identity issue and are confused as being "Syrian Arabs" in the general public, now the Lebanese name is added to the population of Assyrians?, to me this doesn't make sense to include a different ethnicity to another ethnicity article just because they follow Syriac Christianity. Aturaya (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assyrians are the closest group to Iraqis and Jordanians

can someone add this source please to the article, it says that 'The closest genetic relationships of the Assyrians are with the native populations of Jordan and Iraq' the source is: http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html it seems that some editors just pick and choose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.144.254 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Assyrian people → Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people — Starting discssion following a copy and paste move which was likely against previous consensus. Personally, I'm neutral. Dpmuk (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Two relevant comments from Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide (the second comment was posted in multiple places) that were made during the mess that was created by the copy and paste moves:

From The author Dollareuro (talk · contribs) already mentioned the reason for redirection :" in order to inlude all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" btw these three groups consider themselves to be one ethnic group, therefore it will be a good thing to be under the one common name Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac.
Yadamavu (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am a Syriac or Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean, please for the unity of our nation, put the entire name of our people, I am not the author of this act, in fact, i am the author of the french version, i complete the french version thanks to the English version. In french, i tried to put the differents names of our people like Assyrian or Aramean and I think is very important to put all the names. Now we need unity, we are one people, one nation and we have one language, one culture and one religion so for the future of our nation, please put all the names of our people. Thanks AlexSuryoyo (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose on wiki-related grounds firstly: I think the assertion (I don't know all the specific facts on the topic) would provoke substantial argument and objection under things like WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and all that malarky, secondly: the proposed headings, if they were to be accepted, are ugly and unwieldy. As a redirect they would be CSD'd as an unlikely search term I am sure. I am also concerned, though I'm all about the WP:AGF, that there may be some SPA/meat accounts possible on route to this discussion. I fully admit I was the admin who first undid these cut-and-paste moves and gave the user a warning. S.G.(GH) ping! 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I also raised a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for guidance. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title is rather unwieldy option, not to mention this request naturally affects a large number of other article titles and should be discussed in a wider context. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oppression in History section

The following sentence should be deleted: "Leadership of Pan-Arabism among others, has been persecuting Assyrians.[30]"

Reasons:

Persecution is previously addressed in this section.

The sentence is poorly constructed.

Pan-Arabism is no longer a significant movement.

The reference is to a website that seems to be far from NPOV.

Theplantman (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mongoloid admixture

According to autosomal testings based on 23andme data, we have about 5% mongoloid admixture . Could we put it in the article ?ASY3.86.219.24.173 (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.231.75 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_10&oldid=1073752470"