Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The Children of Abraham Fallacy

According to historians Abraham if he was a real person existed about 2000 B.C.. "Archaeology reveals the site of the city was occupied by the middle of the third millennium BC. This was still the Sumerian period, before the Assyrian kingdom emerged. The oldest remains of the city were discovered in the foundations of the Ishtar temple, as well as at the Old Palace. In the following Old Akkadian period, the city was ruled by kings from Akkad. During the "Sumerian Renaissance", the city was ruled by a Sumerian governor." clearly the origin of the Assyrians dates back to the Sumerian period. It was the citizens of Ashur who established their own independent state and built it into an empire, just as the Roman empire started in the city of Rome. Given the fact that Assyrians existed at least a thousand years before Abraham it contradict the claim that we are sons of Abraham, which is merely a religious propaganda. Other Old Testament fallacy about Abraham is that he lived in the Ur of kasdim, meaning Chaldean and he was an Aramean, The first mention of Arameans in history dates back to 1300 B.C. which is 700 years after Abraham therefore it is not true. The first mention of Chaldeans appears in 900 years B.C. which is 1100 years after Abraham, which means the city of Ur at his time would have been a Sumerian city. There is no evidence that the city of Urfa existed 2000 years B.C.. The Old Testament was put together about 300 B.C. therefore its collectors mention the places they knew about at that time. That is why their facts are wrong. w.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilyana2 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fallacy of Aram Nahrain

There was no Aram Nahrain, it is a term used by a group of so-called Arameans based on a single term mentined in the Old Testement but not verified by any ancient historian. As for Christianity in Mesopotamia there is plenty of documented historical evidences that it was Assyrians who accepted Christianity. For example in the 4th century Syriac document titled Doctrine of Addai we read; "So also orientals with the appearance of merchants passed into the country of the Romans to see the signs which Addai did, and those of them who became disciples, received from them 63 the hand of the priesthood, and in their own country of the Assyrians they taught the sons of their people, and houses of prayer they built there secretly, because of the danger arising from the worshippers of fire and the adorers of water.64 But Nersai, the king of the Assyrians, when he had heard of these things which Addai the Apostle had done, he sent to Abgar, the king; either send me the man who |36 hath done these signs with thee, that I may see him and hear his discourse, or send me an account of all these things which thou hast seen him do in thy city. And Abgar wrote to Nersai and made him acquainted with the whole history of the affair of Addai from the beginning to the end, and he left not any thing which he did not write to him." Here is the source. Search for Assyrians, there is no mention of Arameans in this document. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/addai_2_text.htm . Here is another verification that Mesopotamia was called Assyria and not Aram Nahrain, and the its Christian inhabitants were Assyrians.

"Tatian the Assyrian[1][2][3][4] (c. 120–180) was an early Christian writer and theologian of the second century. Tatian's most influential work is the Diatessaron, a Biblical paraphrase, or "harmony", of the four gospels that became the standard text of the four gospels in the Syriac-speaking churches until the 5th-century, when it gave way to the four separate gospels in the Peshitta version.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian w.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilyana2 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Assyrian Cuisine

Who removed Assyrian Cuisine from the culture section of the article? --Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nonsense of the Aramean people are correct

The post "Aramean people are correct" provides no historical or archaeological evidence to prove any of its claims. No other historical source other than The Old Testament has made a mention of the so-called Aram Nahrain which no one knows what it meant or where it was or existed at all. The accuracy of history is not decided by a single mention. Inhabitants of Mesopotamia neither before nor after Christianity have identified themselves as Arameans. The Persians who ruled Mesopotamia do not mention Arameans as part of their empire. The idea that ancient Assyrians did not survive beyond their defeat in 612 or 609 B.c. has been discredited by Historical and archaeological evidences. For more information about this subject see; "Assyrians From the Fall of Nineveh to Present" at; http://christiansofiraq.com/facts.html . Given all the historical facts that attest to the existences of Assyrians as a distinct people from the fall of Nineveh to present one has to wonder why wiikipedia.org continues to cast doubt about their identity and provides a platform for people to post nonsense about this subject. Assyrians speak an Akkadian-influenced Aramaic which was promoted by the ancient Assyrians to facilitate communication within their empire. For more information see; Akkadean Words in the Contemporary Assyrian Language. http://www.christiansofiraq.com/assyria1.html

The term Arameans was imposed on the members of the Syrian Orthodox church starting in 1952 by Patriarch Aprim Barsum as mean to segregate members of his church from those belonging to the Church of the East. Read all about it at; "Assyrian Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church" http://christiansofiraq.com/joseph/reply2.html .w.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.211.21 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Since August 2009 the article has been tagged to be in need of expert advice. Needless to say that is should also be tagged NPOV, since it's very title is disputed. People may have grown weary of this discussion, but as long as this issue has not been solved, it will resurface every now and then.

Therefore I suggest to finally request an expert (or a few) to discuss the matter, and to propose a title that will satisfy Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Because the current title, even though it seems to be supported by a majority of those who engaged in a poll at some point of time, is heavily disputed and not neutral. This disputed should however not be resolved by democratic measures or statistics, but by applying to academical sources, most of which do not provide support for the current title. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Assyrians (ie those Semitic Christians fromIraq, south east Turkey, north west Iran and north east Syria are NOT NECESSARILY the same people as the Semitic Christians in the majority of Syria and in Lebanon. Perhaps there should be a seperate group for those identifying as Aramean or Phonecian? Syriac is a little different, as Syriac and Syrian are clearly originally derivations of Assyrian and originally meant Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Fallacy of Aram Nahrain.

There is no Aram Nahrain it is a fictitious term used by a bunch of historically ignorant people based on a single mention of the term in the Old Testament that has not been verified by any ancient historian. The idea that because there may have been few Arameans in Mesopotamia it means that the entire population was Aramean is an irrational fallacy. Aram Nahrain does not exist on any map, ancient, medieval or contemporary. The country of the Arameans was in Syria not Mesopotamia. Here is what a 4th century Syriac document known as the Doctrine of Addai says about the beginning of Christianity in Mesopotamia. "So also orientals with the appearance of merchants passed into the country of the Romans to see the signs which Addai did, and those of them who became disciples, received from them the hand of the priesthood, and in their own country of the Assyrians they taught the sons of their people, and houses of prayer they built there secretly, because of the danger arising from the worshippers of fire and the adorers of water."64See; p://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/addai_2_text.htm Search for Assyrians. There is no mention of Arameans in this historic document. Check it out. Here is more mention of Assyriansin the same document. "But Nersai,65 the king of the Assyrians, when he had heard of these things which Addai the Apostle had done, he sent to Abgar, the king; either send me the man who |36 hath done these signs with thee, that I may see him and hear his discourse, or send me an account of all these things which thou hast seen him do in thy city. And Abgar wrote to Nersai and made him acquainted with the whole history of the affair of Addai from the beginning to the end, and he left not any thing which he did not write to him." w.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.211.21 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Assyrian Fascism

I have noticed that many people kept on mentioning this page as a reference to the naming of our people. Even though I am open to a name that represents all of us, I can't tolerate this egregious fascist Assyrian naming of our people. You have to understand that Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Syriacs are different denominations and of different ethnicity. These people identify themselves as different, and others identify them as different. The Congress of the United States of America itself recognizes them as separate minorities. Needless to say, Assyrians have been, alone, spamming the web including Wikipedia with the idea that all three ethnic group are of Assyrian origin. This Assyrian Fascism have been used for years and it is based on the simple principle of: "Lie until the other people believe you". It is here where I should mention that Saddam Hussein himself used this kind of fascism to force all the minorities in Iraq to accept the Arab ethnicity as their own. Even though I am sure that Wikipedia will not prefer to be part of this Assyrian Fascism, I do believe that it is the duty of the other minorities to ensure that Assyrian Fascists will not get the chance to keep on lying. From the comments posted in this discussion, I can see that it is quite obvious that the other minorities are not buying into this Assyrian Fascism. They have clearly stated their objection to the Assyrian Fascists who are forcing a foreign name over the names of the other minorities. I believe that it is time for Wikipedians to eliminate Assyrian Fascism from their website.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrians and Chaldean Catholics are NOT a seperate people though. They are BOTH the descendants of the ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIANS, they are devided not by Ethnicity but by Theology. Originally both were members of the Eastern Rite Church of the East. The Term "Chaldean" only came into being in the 1600's and was invented by Rome to differentiate the catholics from thier own brothers!

The Iraqi government regards the people as "Chaldo-Assyrian", recognising that they are the SAME people.

You do realise I hope that the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians were BOTH Akkadian nations,and both became infused with Arameans later....saying Assyrians and Chaldeans area different ethnicity is like saying North and South Koreans are of different ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Equal or nothing

Dear Assyrian Nationalists,
As eager as I am to have our people united under one name, I would have to disagree with you on the naming of your article. It is quite obvious that you're biased toward a single name to represent all three ethnic groups. Moreover, beside the first sentence, the name "Chaldean" in the common name is never mentioned. You kept on saying "Assyrian/Syriac", which is perfectly fine with me. I totally acknowledge your right to write an article about your people; however, you shouldn't include others under an article that doesn't represent them. It is for this that I removed the word "Chaldean" from this article. Hopefully, one day, we will be able to create an article to represent us all equally. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)How come in the Bible all your read about is ASSYRIANS nothing does it say about chaldean all chaldean were ASSYRIAN they sold them selfs to become chaldean, ASSYRIAN people still live in this world without the ASSYRIANS you have no history chaldeans.

This articles contains much about Chaldean Catholics (of course, they're a big part of the peoplpe). The proposed Chaldean flag can even be found here. Just because "Assyrian people" is the common name for the people (one ethnic group, not three) does mean we're going to remove everything saying Chaldean. Please, do not remove things from the article if the discussion about it have not been finished. Shmayo (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your claim they are one ethnic group is Assyrian Nationalism POV. You can't include people in an article with a misleading name. Renaming this article is the right thing to do. If you really care about all the ethnic groups and you're not just pushing for your POV, you'll rename the article A/C/S and have all three redirect here.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Which way is it Assyrian Nationalism POV? Most of the Chaldean and Syriac nationalist also consider it the same people? Well, look back in the archive and see the voting about renaming it (because of WP:common name). The content of the article is about A/C/S. Shmayo (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Tisqupnaia2010, there is a general consensus that this article is about the combined ethnicity that encompasses Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs. The title may be a problem, but there is general consensus about that as well. We've tried to keep the religious distinctions separate from the ethnic commonality. Please stop removing "Chaldean" from this article without building a consensus for it. Your unilateral actions are not welcome. (Taivo (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

No general consensus can be based on renaming an entire ethnic group to another name. I deeply respect your approach Prof.; however, as long as the title is about "Assyrians", let the contents be about Assyrians as well. Just keep Chaldeans out of it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Without building a consensus, you cannot rearrange the contents of Wikipedia to suit your whim. Build a consensus. (Taivo (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

I agree with both Tisqupnaia; about the article naming, and Taivo; about the need for consensus, and I convey my support of Tisqupnaia to this end. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I see what's going around now. It seems that one user, Shmayo, has made all of Wikipedia think that Chaldeans are part of Assyrians. Yet, talk still lectures me about consensus!!! So, do you just ignore what Chaldeans say and stick with what one Assyrians @!#$ says!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Of Babylonia (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even so active in the discussions about the name of the article. So stop saying things that are not true. Shmayo (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

King of Babylonia, do you actually read your own Talk Page? I suggest you follow the advice of both your fellow Chaldeans concerning putting away your weapons and building consensus in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

Chaldean Catholics ARE Assyrians.....they were all one and the same people before part of the Church of The East split to join Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church created the term Chaldean, it was meant as a THEOLOGICAL term NOT an ETHNIC term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Before 16th century, what is best neutral term?

These three groups--Assyrians, Chaldean, and Syriacs--split religiously in the 16th century. After that point in time, "Assyrian", "Chaldean", and "Syriac" are appropriate labels. But before the split they are not appropriate labels. The Assyrians do not go back to ancient Assyria. The Chaldeans do not go back to ancient Babylon. That is just nationalistic chest-thumping propaganda. So what is the best term to use for the ethnicity prior to the 16th century? I have seen "Nestorian" used in writing about Mongolia in the 13th and 14th century. (Taivo (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

First note that the Assyrian Church of the East's current patriarch added Assyrian to the name. So Assyrian was used before any churched used it. It's hard to say what was used in other languages that early. Nestorian was used often, but it's not an ethnic term. And it was used to much other people at that time to. The Nestorian missionaries were successfull and the Nestorian church once had 80 million members, and of course the Nestorians in China were not the same as the original Nestorians in Mesopotamia. I would say that the few times this people was named by ethnicity "Syrian" and "Assyrian" was used. I've posted some sources in the talk page of Tel Skuf showing that "Assyrian" was used early. And "Syrian" was used too. And "Syrian" maybe the direct translation from what the people always have called themselves, Suraya/Sur(y)oyo. Syria/Syrian is derived from Assyria/Assyrian But just because Syrian is, or were, a common word for the people I do not think it should be used. I think most people would agree with me on this. It associates with the mordern arabic state Syria. This have been a big problem and 2000 the Syrian Orthodox Church changed name to the Syriac Orthodox Church. After this the term Syriacs have grown bigger. It was probably first used as an ethnic term by the Syriac Universal Alliance. So I doubt that we can find another early used term. But yes, Nestorian was much used, but it's not an ethnic term. Shmayo (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I will try to look at some English-language histories of the Middle East that talk about the non-Arab, non-Kurd, population of Mesopotamia from the 8th to the 16th centuries. That's the key here, not what Mesopotamian Christians say about themselves or what names they use in the Neo-Aramaic languages, but what (non-Assyrian, non-Chaldean) English speakers called them, especially in the 20th century before all the nationalism erupted. And religion, especially in this part of the world, is one important component of ethnicity. (Taivo (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Very nice of you that you're helping! Yes, it's true what you're saying about religion. But Nestorian is a term after Nestorius just as Jacobite sometimes is used as a synonym for Syriac Orthodox (after Jacob Baradaeus). I really hope that you will find something interesting, but I think it will mostly be "Syrian". The only early English I can think of right now is a map, but I'll also try to look for early wrintings in English. Shmayo (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The key isn't what was written early about the 8th-16th century period, but what was written in the 20th century about that period. We don't use Elizabethan terms today in English (for example, Mohammedan instead of Muslim). The early maps may be interesting, but they're not going to help the terminological issue as much as the terms that contemporary (non-sectarian) scholars are using. (Taivo (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Just to comment about what I've seen you doing lately. First, I agree with the other Chaldean (KOB) when he said the name Nestorian is offensive to Chaldeans. This name actually refers to broader people than the ones we want to address. Second, I agree with Shmayo about the name C/A/S. I have already stated that this is the current name agreed on in Iraq. So just renaming this article to C/A/S would probably solve the problem. Third, Assyrian Nationalists were more active in the 19th and 20th centuries. Because of this, you'll probably find the word "Assyrians" used more. This doesn't mean it represents the entire population. It simply means Chaldeans tend to be Iraqis rather than ask for a separate homeland of 40 square miles like Assyrians do. Finally, It sounds like "Mesopotamian Christians" would be a better term to describe our people. Instead of stating ethnicity, it states the place of origin, which we all agree on. As we all know, languages evolve. So, why not just introduce this term here to solve our warring and to add a new term that better describes our people. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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. The TriZ (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, it seems that The TriZ is somehow correct about the name, they actually are called East Syrians. As I said before, Nestorian is an offensive name. Here is a book that clearly states that Nestorian is offensive. Please read page "x" of the preface, the 6th sentence of the second paragraph. You'll find that the correct name of the people is in fact East Syrians. If Historians call these people East Syrians, then neither me, nor any of the other users could argue anymore. Regardless to my beliefs, I will support what Historians call these people.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds like "East Syrian" is a possibility, as is "Mesopotamian Christian". If modern historians who write about the period from the 8th century to the 16th century are using "East Syrian", then that is a preferable term at least when talking about the unified Church of the East prior to the splits. Is it an acceptable term for using for the modern period? Some of your comments seem to indicate that it might be an acceptable term for the modern people as well. (Taivo (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

The only thing that I can recall against this name, in my personal beliefs, is the fact that there is another church that incorporates this name in its title. However, I don't really see any reason that makes it unaccepted or insulting (As long as you keep "Nestorian" out of it) to the modern people.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As Triz said the new form Syriacs is used instead. This because Syrian associates with Syria. "...are using "East Syrian", then that is a preferable term at least when talking about the unified Church of the East prior to the splits." but don't forget that the Syriac Orthodox Church never was a part of this church. The people of the Church of the East is just one part of the people. Shmayo (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, the term East Syrian generally only includes members of the eastern churches, not the western, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Syriac Catholic Church. Simply Syrian was used for the entire people. Syrian is nowadays not used, and instead Syriac is used, as to disassociate the people from the Arab citizens of the modern state of Syria. The TriZ (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to my early comments with Shmayo, you'll see that I have told you "East Syrians" or "East Syriacs" is the correct name. I'm glad that you've finally got it. Anyway, the reference that KOB provided clearly says East Syrians became the current Assyrians and Chaldeans. It doesn't mention anything about other people. The name is not associated with any Church, and it is not political. It clearly names "The People" ,not churches. I don't think you guys should worry about other Churches/People. If this has been proven to be the correct name, then it should be used.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to add one more thing, I hope there is no such thing as Syriac Nationalists. If they exist, then "Mesopotamian Christians" would be a better term to keep us away from another warring. But to be frank, I have never heard of Syriac Nationalism. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Great consensus-building gentlemen. Just so I'm perfectly clear, the people before the 16th century should be called "East Syrians" or "East Syriac". Is that correct? After the 16th century split, does "East Syrians" or "East Syriac" or "Syriac" still apply to the group that includes both Assyrians and Chaldeans? (Taivo (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

As far as I can tell, Syriac alone indicates the Syriac part of the people. Stating the whole name East Syriac or Syrian should clarify they are all three later people, C/A/S. Also, I don't think there are Syriac Nationalists. The Syriac people are very nice and have never imposed their name over the rest of us. Just make sure to add East to Syriac or Syrian to make it clear they are the three people, C/A/S. --King Of Babylonia (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with KOB. Stating "East Syriac or Syrian" should be clear that they include the three ethnic groups (C/A/S). "Syriac" alone refers to the Syriac group only. I think "East Syriac" still applies to the group of Assyrians and Chaldeans. I don't recall anything against it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Giorgi Tserteli, among others, points out that the term "Assyrian" was used by Georgians, Armenians and later Russians from the middle ages onwards. Significant, i feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian anyway. They both refer to the same people, the Assyrians. Syrian is an Indo-European corruption of the term Assyrian. Please see the Wiki article on the Çineköy inscription which pretty much proves this. The general concensus among scholars was already strongly favouring the idea that Syrian/Syriac = Assyrian. In light of this, the term Assyrian is best.

References

Solution

I see there is alot of discussion going on in what this article should be named. My personal view in what the right name is for the people doesn't matter. What does matter is how you will handle with people who don't agree with the titel Assyrian. On the Dutch Wikipedia we have the simpel solution: Suryoyo. I see that it is a redirect to Assyrian People now. Suryoyo however is a neutral term to refer to the Syriac people. See also the Dutch nl:Suryoyo page. Michaelovic (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Suryoyo is regarded as a dialect. Has nothing to do with identity. It would be the equivalent of calling all Chinese people Mandarins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.185 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly not Assyrian nor Aramean. Turoyo is probably the dialect you mean. Suryoye or Suryaye means Christian Syrians. Both Assyrians and Arameans use the name Suryoyo. Assyrians call themselves Suryaya Athuraya and Arameans call themselves Suryoyo Oromoyo.213.46.53.120 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Syriacs Christians from the Syriac orthodoxe church call themselves (Both Arameans nationalist or Assyrians nationalist) Suryoye and the language Suryoyo or sometimes Sureyt. Watch this Video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFh3SHsP1bE&feature=player_embedded#! We can see assyriska(Football club founded by Syriacs orthodox) fans who shout SURYOYE , SURYOYE , SURYOYE!

And we all know that suryoye means assyrians but arameans nationalist don't understand.All suryoye in Turabdin call themselves Suryoye but they came to europe and some begins to associate aramean with suryoyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So are there any objections to rename this lemma to the more neutral term Suryoyo? Michaelovic (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a Syriac Catholic and I don't see Suryoyo as a neutral term. I personally am more inclined into using a unified term, preferably Assyrian, but since that is becoming increasingly less popular a combined name would also be ok, as long as it acknowledges that all names describe the same ethnic group. Creating a separate article for Chaldeans or Suryoye as a distinctive group is an absolute no-no. Rafy talk 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafy (talk • contribs)

Read this :http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/PZakka1/19811129Name.html Our Syriac Orthodox Church in 1981 did not accept the name assyrian and aramean, but today i don't know if there is an official paper on the name issue. Personally i think Assyrian (Chaldeans and Syriacs christians) is the best name for our people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe moving the article to Suryoyo or Suryoye is not ideal, but perhaps the best solution for now, in order to sort things out. Leaving the article where it is now, is definitely not a solution, as numerous Syriacs simply do not identify with that name. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

require editing

" After the Arab Islamic invasion and conquest of the 7th Century AD, the new arrivals began a process of Arabization and Islamification which is ongoing to this day. Assyria and Babylon were dissolved as entities and pressure was put on the native Mesopotamians to convert to Islam and adopt Arabic language and identity. Many refused and resisted this process,retaining a distinct Mesopotamian identity, Aramaic tongue and Christian faith. The modern Assyrians or Chaldo-Assyrians of today (and quite possibly the Mandeans also) are those people."

I detect no reference for this controversial claim without strong references, I would have to delete it , all sources I have viewed point to a extremely religiously tolerant Islamic state, certainly with its mistakes though progressive for its time, but not the kind of mistakes we see in the Roman , Byzantine "such as systematic force conversion" or for example the Assyrians ruthlessness around 883–859 BC". there was no Islamification according to western scholars in early Islam 7 Century AD.Progressive one (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that most Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphs were tolerant with some exceptions. Persecution didn't start until the coming of Seljuk and Kurdish tribes around 1000-1100. The turning point was the coming of Timurlane who massacred non-Muslims indistinguishably. The whole section needs to be rewritten. Rafy talk 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest this section to be rewritten completely. Its based on absurd claims. Arabization (if you want to call it) process actually started in 200's, if not earlier. Iraq (majority of it) was ruled by Lakhmids and Gassanids (Western part), both were Arab Rulers, from 2nd century till 600's, At 602, the last Arab Ruler of Lakhmids was killed by Persian Ruler Khosrau. Read more on Lakhmids and Gassanid. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I promise to rewrite the whole history section once I have time for. the terms "Arabisation" and "Islamisation" are indeed politically motivated and the section forgets to mention Osroene and Adiabene as main Syriac/Assyrian "political entities"... On the other hand, the mention of Babylon and Assyria as "entities" is also unheard of during the seventh century. You are welcome to contribute here though. Rafy talk 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions Islamification and Arabisation. Those criticising it ASSUME that the article is saying it was Violence based. But it does not say that at all! (although there were documented cases of violence, churches being converted to mosques, taxes levied against non MuslimsLaws made against them etc), In addition to this, Native Mesopotamians WERE subject to taxation and different laws as Non Muslims, this is pretty much fact, so the pressure WAS there to convert. I cant see any political motivation for the FACT that non Muslims were subject to prejudiciallaws and taxes and the FACT that pressure was brought to bear to convert to Islam. Likewise Arabization, Arabs were the new rulers, and to get on and succeeed people had to adopt Arab ways. In addition to this, after the 7th century AD Arabs began to move in and settle, all of that = Arabization. If Mesopotamia was not Arabized, it would not be Arab today would it?

Assyria and Babylon WERE Entities in the 7th Century...the Sassanids still ruled both until well into the 7th Century, yes? And the Sassanids called Assyria as Assuristan, meaning Assyria.....this province was dissolved only AFTER the Arab conquest.

Also Arabization did not start earlier, the vast majority of Mesopotamians prior to the 7th Century AD were Aramaic/Syriac speaking natives, not Arabs. The Ghassanids lived in Syria, the Lakhmids lived in Syria and the western deserts of Iraq, not in Assyria or Babylonia.

Finally,the article DOES mention Adiabene and Osroene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BethMido, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you guys please change the picture of andre agassi, he hardly deserves to be in the picture collage, please replace it with Shamoun Hanna Haydo

This needs to happen, andre agassi is not even an assyrian icon, Shamoun Hanna Haydo deserves to be on there!!! BethMido (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

His article is very short and poorly referenced. Could you please develop it first? -- Rafy talk 12:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Predominant religion at time of Muslim Conquest was Zoroastrianism

This article is full of historical errors, the most egregious being the assumption that the Near East was somehow "Christian" when the Muslim conquest occured. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of history knowns that the Near East was predominately Zorastrian and had been for centuries prior to the Muslim conquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremulus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please add a reliable reference to that claim? As far as I know Syriac Christianity and various Gnostic sects (Manichaeism for example) were predominant in Mesopotamia and Syria, Zoroastrianism and Mithraism were more or less restricted to the Iranian plateau.-- Rafy talk 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

M. Morony, “The Effects of the Muslim Conquest on the Persian Population of Iraq,” Iran 14 (1976): 41–59 Aremulus (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is somehow only true in southern Mesopotamia up to Ctesiphon probably. A little up north, the region of Tikrit was Jacobite centuries before the advent of Islam, Adiabene and Osroene have been Christian vassals of Persia since the 3rd-4th century. The authors himself states that Zoroastrian Persians were an elite minority in "Iraq".--Rafy talk 02:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in Mesopotamia and Assyria it wasnt. Christianity was by far the biggest religion among the NATIVE Assyrians/Mesopotamians, followed by Gnosticism, Judaism and Manicheanism. There may still have been remnants following the ancient religions too. Zoroastrianism was popular among the Persian ruling class, not the native peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Melkites from Lebanon and Syria are Syriacs

The Melkites Christians from Bekaa in Lebanon and from Syria majortiy are considered Syriac People and some of them speak aramaic language in villages in Lebanon and Syria. Like in Zahlé, Baalbeck ( In Lebanon) and Maaloula, Damascus and Homs (In Syria) The Melkites Syriacs in Lebanon are 5% of population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.254.31 (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do they (Melkites) see Assyrians(syriacs/chaldeans) and themselves as one nation ? where is your source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the Council of Chalcedon Melkites have been religiously separated from other Syriac Christians, and in contrast to Syriacs/Assyrians who largely retained a distinctive and close cultural identity due to lingual and religious ties, Melkites were subjects to heavy hellenisation and Arabisation. I doubt that there might be any religious or political entity from within the Melkites that would consider themselves Syriacs.--Rafy talk 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they are considered a ethnoreligius group in Lebanon Bekaa. Majority of melkites ( from Malchi Syriac) was from lebanese villages, they are considered a syriac/aramean and some pray in the mass the syriac language. The melkite people majority originality from Síria and went to Lebanon before 1800. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim1187 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do they speak Western Aramaic like those of Maloula ? I think the majority of Melkites don't consider themselves as part of Assyrian people(Syriacs/Chaldeans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As far i know the melkits are Syriac/Aramean, they speak in villages syriac dialect and some say descendent of Greeks or Phoenicians. melkit came from Syriac malkāyā. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.32.181 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Baathist rule

The baathist rule section sais:-

Ba'athist rule

The Ba'ath Party seized power in Iraq and Syria in 1963, which introduced laws that aimed at suppressing the Assyrian national identity, the Arab Nationalist policies of the Ba'athists included renewed attempts to "Arabize" the Assyrians. The giving of Assyrian/Akkadian and Aramaic versions of Biblical names was banned, Assyrian schools and literature were repressed and Assyrians were heavily pressured into identifying as Arab Christians. The Ba'athist regime refused to recognise Assyrians as an ethnic group.

The al-Anfal Campaign of 1986-1989 in Iraq saw many Assyrian towns and villages razed to the ground, a number of Assyrians were murdered, others were deported to large cities, their land and homes then being appropriated by Arabs and later Kurds.

Now this is pure propaganda and very disrespectful to all the victims that were Kurds as the anfal campaign was directly against Kurdish people to drive them out, and for you to claim that the anfal was directed at Assyrians and that homes were appropriated by Kurds is ridiculous and disgusting, also there is no source for it so I want it removed.

The anfal campaign is recognised as a genocide against KURDS by the Iraqi government.

Sources: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4877364.stm) (http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The KRG has passed a few laws that permit Kurds to appropriate lands owned by non-Kurds. This meant that virtually all lands owned by Assyrians in Nahla plains, Simele and Shaqlawa passed on to Kurds.[1][2][3].--Rafy talk 15:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anfal, your just manipulating the topic, the anfal was a genocide act against Kurds, and so slapping the word Kurd after discussing anfal gives the impression that Kurds had a hand in it against Assyrians. What you said are just claims and there is no actual evidence of that land being Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article are provided with names and pictures please do read them. I will rephrase the last sentence.--Rafy talk 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, like I said a biased nationalist Assyrian website is the last thing on earth to convince me, or maybe I should counter them with biased nationalistic Kurdish websites? will that do? there is an obvious agenda here to give Kurds a bad name in any possible way, and we have formed our own little defense group, so you should be expecting more... a lot more.. and trust me, we have sources from BBC and other accredited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Assyrian people in Jordan

Assyrians in Jordan aren't considered in diaspora or anything like that, Jordanian people are pure Assyrian by nature. Recent genetic studies have shown a strong genetic links between the modern Jordanian people and the core populations of the fertile crescent. A study published by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza found that the Jordanians have the closest genetics to the Assyrians among all other nations in the west of Asia. Jordan: Genetics Jordanianandproud (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jordanians are mainly muslims they have no links with us and they consider themselves as arabs, we share nothing with them. Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs share one language (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), one culture, one history, one religion (ܡܫܝܚܝܘܬܐ) and have suffered from genocide (ܣܝܦܐ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Assyrians in Canada

23 000 is underestimated, the true number is much higher since there are at least 38 000 Chaldean Catholics according to this source: http://www.radiovaticana.org/en1/articolo.asp?c=494962 Kaldaya (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Very Important issue about the Name of the Article

Hi,

i would like to ask that it would better to change the name of this article to "Syriac Christians" or "Syriac people" because in this article are all Syriac Churches listed, and we got the article Syriac language, Syriac Churches, Syriac Culture, West Syrian Rite, East Syrian Rite, Syriac Christianity and go on.... So i thought we should change the name to "Syriac Christians" or "Syriac people" it would be better and more neutral and would be accept by all Syriac Christians, and then we can inclued the Maronite Syriac Church because if you gon on the article of the Maronite Syriac Church the article says that the Maronites are a part of the Syriac people and if you click on link you be redirected to Assyrian people it could be bewildering for the some people to understand. Theses people are Syriac (Christians) and in history known as like that. It is very sad that there is no article on wikipedia that is about the syriac christians as a nation.

We can change it and than writte that the Syriac Christians are also known as Assyrians or Chaldo-Assyrians.

I want to know what you all think about this issue, its very importent.

Lets discuss about that.

Thanks Elvis214 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the so called "Syriac Christians" are not exactly the same people ethnically. Assyrians from Iraq, north east Syria, South East Turkey, north west Iran, Armenia, Georgia etc are Assyyrians, whereas those christiand in the rest of Syria (excluding the north east), and those from Lebanon are actually from a different ethnic group, Arameans or Phonecians in origin. The problem is actually that some people label all christians in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran as the same race, they are related sure, but they are not the same race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article titled Syriac Christianity, most of Syriac Christians are by the way either Indians on Maronites who don't share the cultural and linguistic ties that "Assyrians" (Call them Aramean, Syriacs, Chaldeans, whatever) do.--Rafy talk 00:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok Rafi your right many of the syriac maronites are Arabized today and dont speak the syriac language nor more (just as liturgie language) so the has not to be changed.

And at "81.106.116.120" its not true that the Syriac Christian people are not the same ethnically. They are suryoye/suroye and have always been called like that, since our people adopted the christianity , 2000 years, we have been one people with one name until our churches have split off from each other.

So the term (As)syrian(Syriac) arabic: "sirjan" have been always used for our people, but the terms "Aramean" "Chaldean" and "Phonecian" havent been used for our people just by some separte nationlists. Elvis214 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the question is: was it used in a religious sense or as an ethnic designation? Obviously the term "Assyrian" has been popularised during the second half of the 19th century to describe a nationalist/ethnic concept. But then the idea of an identity based on "nationhood" is quite different than the ancient millet grouping have been employed by the Ottomans. My view is that we have a Syriac religious/cultural tradition which can be found in articles such as Syriac Christianity and Syriac literature etc... and there is an ethnic/nationalist one found in the ideas of early nationalists (Naum Faiq, Farid Nazha, Yohanon Qashisho etc...), the same ideas are found in political non-religious entities (ADM, ADO, ArDO...). I hope I made myself clear here.--Rafy talk 18:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Elvis 214 - I would say that the term "Syrian" is a complete misnomer...originally, "Syrian" was an Indo-European corruption of "Assyrian"....the problem arose when the Seleucid Empire used the term "syrian" when describing not just Assyria and Assyrians in Mesopotamia(Iraq), but also Arameans in Aram (modern Syria), when they then lost control over the real Assyria, they kept their version of the name (syria) and applied it to Aramea, which they still controlled....these were not the same people, but both groups, in "western eyes" from that point onwards were called "syrians". The people of Mesopotamia were never the same ethnicity as those of ancient Aram (modern Syria), related for sure, but not the same. The term "syriac", as it means Assyrian originally, should not technically apply to most of the Christians in Syria, because they are in fact Arameans. Whereas, those in Iraq, Northeast Syria, northwest Iran and southeast Turkey ARE Assyrians (or as the Luwians, Cilecians and Greeks would say "syrians")......basically if we accept the fact that the terms syriac and syrian originally meant Assyrian, those terms should really only apply to Assyrians. In reality Syriac has become a "catch all" term, used to describe semitic christians all over the near east, and it no longer has ethnic meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Mongol Massacres" needs correction

For one thing, there is no mention of the Mongol Khans' devastation in this area during the mid-1200's (Hulegu, in particular). Secondly, Timur was NOT a Mongol (although he claimed to be a descendant of Ghenghiz, but that was for political reasons to gain 'honor' to his name) - he was a Turk, and the Timurids were bitter enemies of the surviving Mongol adjoining states, and the Ottoman Turks, etc., etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

 Done. The history section is very lacking. I will try translating from the Arabic article when I have time.--Rafy talk 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Maronite are ethnicly Syriac hence assyrian

The [Maronite]s of [lebanon] (also Syria, Israel, Cyprus....) Are part of the [Syriac People]. The [Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch] (syriac:īṯo suryaiṯo māronaiṯo d'anṭiokia) Is Syriac in tradition and culture. hence Maronite could be added as Assyrian. (recently efforts are being made to reconcile and reaffirm the Maronites with their Syriac identity) here is a link that could prove usefull http://books.google.com/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA303#v=onepage&q&f=false --Jadraad (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this point of view, which seems to be gaining prominence among Maronites.[4][5] We could add a section dealing with the modern Maronite identity.--Rafy talk 10:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The ethnicity of Chaldeans & Assyrians: The Nephtali lost tribe!

The ethnicity of Chaldeans & Assyrians is as follows. Both were falsely called Nestorians (They did not follow the teachings of Nestorius) by foreigners before a few hundred years ago when their names changed to Chaldean & Assyrian, depending on if they converted to Catholicism or not; Chaldean representing the converts. As all were "Nestorians" (a name they did not call themselves; they simply called themselves by whatever village or tribe they were from) before 1552, their descendants before then are commonly referred to as the original inhabitants of Mesopotamia: Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Akkadians, and Sumerians. There is no proof for this. In fact, there is much proof to show otherwise. Genetically, modern "Chaldeans & Assyrians" are not related to any other Mesopotamians, but are distantly related to Jordanians. This fits perfectly with a (little-known) book written by Asahel Grant in 1841 called, "The Nestorians, or The Lost Tribes"; a book that provides a large amount of evidence to prove that those who now call themselves "Chaldean & Assyrian" today were originally one of the Hebrew tribes displaced by the Assyrian Empire thousands of years ago, before they converted to Christianity. The "Chaldean & Assyrian" people are the Nephtali lost tribe of Israel. They are ethnically Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephtali4life (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, but this theory is based on a Classical 19th century view which was met by negligible interest by both Asssyrians and later researchers. We might want to put a paragraph regarding this theory somewhere in the article.--Rafy talk 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you accept the fact that we are Mesopotamians ? There is no proof to say we are not Assyrians/Syriacs or Arameans. We have retained one name which is Suryoyo/Suryaya and come from Ashur. We are not ethnically Hebrew, this theory is stupid, we have always been in Mesopotamia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

1) Rename the main article From "Assyrian people" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" because there is an highly sensitive and ongoing name conflict and the Assyrian name is not accepted by Chaldeans and Syriacs which combined are the vast majority of this ethnic group.

2) "The Assyrian people[23] (originally and most commonly known as Assyrians and other later variants of the name, such as; Syriacs, Atorayeh, Ashuriyun, Assouri, Syriac Christians, Suroye/Suryoye,[24] Chaldo-Assyrians, (see names of Syriac Christians)) are a distinct ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia."

Change to "Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Atorayeh, Ashuriyun, Assouri, Syriac Christians, Suroye/Suryoye,[24] Chaldo-Assyrians, (see names of Syriac Christians)) are a distinct ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia."

The initial statement is not accepted because the Syriacs and Chaldeans could make the same claim, and such statements cannot be verified. The article must keep same neutral approach to all three groups: Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac without favoring one over the other. SuryoyoGuardian (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I have removed the words "originally" and "later" from the lede. As for your first request you should take a look at WP:REQMOVE to make a move request although the outcome of this request will be probably to keep the current name as it was with previous requests.--Rafy talk 14:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Isnt the original term "Assyrian" though??? Syriac and Chaldean arent as old are they. Also, as far as i know most Chaldeans accept theyre rhe same people as Assyrians. To me Syriacs from Syria are vArameans anyway and theyre not the same people as Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well It's more complicated. The term "Assyrian", even though it had a historical background, was rarely used by Assyrians before the 19th century. They simply called themselves Christains Suryaye (Syriacs, from their literary language) or Aturaye (from Athur/Assyria the Persian province encompassing upper Mesopotamia). The popular nationalist definition "Assyria" (Ashur) had to be "re-discovered" later in the 19th century.--Rafy talk 00:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Syriacs orthodox have always used Suryoye(ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) for our people's name and SUROYE(ܣܘܪܝܐ) (or MSHIHOYE ܡܫܝܚܝܐ) for christians. Today the word Suryoye is used both by Arameans nationalists (for them it means arameans/syriac) and Assyrians nationalist (for them it comes from the akkadian word assurayu). BarNeshre (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Syriac from Tur abdin are Assyrians(the firsts Assyrians nationalist were member of the Syriac orthodox church) like other Syriacs from Syria, we are Assyrians. Majority of Syriacs in Syria comes from Tur abdin especially those in Qamishlo. Don't try to divide our people, even if there an anti-Assyrian movement which start no long ago in the Syriac orthodox church.BarNeshre (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this naming issue is that it is clear that a large number of people from Syria do NOT see themselves as Assyrians, but rather as Syriacs (even though the term Syriac is proven to be an Indo-European corruption of Assyrian in the first place) so surely they should be given their own section? Likewise those who use the term Aramean or Phoenician? My view is that all the Semitic Christians of the region are lumped together wrongly as an ethnic group purely because of Religeious commonality. It is doubtful that Christians from central, western, southern and north west Syria are Assyrians, this was an area traditionally inhabited by Arameans and was never part of Assyria or Mesopotamia, and Arameanists are probably correct in using the term Aramean for the christians of those regions.Most of these people speak Arabic, and when they still spoke their own language it was WESTERN Aramaic. To me, Assyrians (or Chaldo Assyrians if you like) are those who descend from the ancient Mesopotamians, that is those from Iraq, North east Syria, Iran and South east Turkey. This group speak dialects of EASTERN Aramaic which evolved from the Mesopotamian Aramaic and still contain Akkadian loan words. As for religion, it should be regarded as irrelevant to the discussion in terms of judging ethnicity, although most people calling themselves Assyrians are Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic etc, many are Orthodox or even Protestant.

As for the ORIGINAL name, yes the Original name WAS Assyrian, Syriac is a later term coined by Indo-Europeans and then established by the Greeks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 November 2011

We are not talking here about the ethnic identity of ancient Assyrians, this article covers a group of modern Syriac Christians which trace its roots to the Assyrians and Arameans who inhabited northern Mesopotamia in the 1st millennium BC. No one can claim of being of pure ancient Assyrian blood after 3000 years. Please read Simo Parpola's paper regarding this.

Clearly the identity of modern Assyrians is very much based of religion, language and common heritage of 2000 years of Syriac Christianity. It would be ridiculous to reject this in order to promote an ancient mythical nationalism.

By the way most promoters of Assyrian nationalism were not what you would consider pure Assyrians, Naum Faiq hails from Amid and Farid Nazha from Homs. I myself belong to a western Syriac Church (which is probably not "pure" Assyrian in your opinion) and I come from a region surrounded by Assyrian ruins, which happen to be historically of mixed "Jacobite" and "Nestorian" Christians.

You might find it it surprising, but do you know that Assyrians had a far more powerful presence in Tur Abdin than say Babylonia. Did you know for instance that their last capital was in Harran?--Rafy talk 14:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i completely agree that no one can claim to be 100% anything, everybody has mixing with other ethnicities somewhere. My point was really that people calling themselves Assyrians do indeed regard themselves as "at root" descendants of the ancient Assyrians and Mesopotamians, whereas the bulk of those in Syria (north east excluded) do not accept the term. As i mentioned previously, i think denomination and ethnicity are not synonymous anyway....an Assyrian can be a Catholic, Eastern Rite, Orthodox or even Protestant. Being western Syriac doesnt mean youre not Assyrian at all, i agree. I think determining Assyrian identity should be based on self identity, language and geography, not on religion. That was the point i was making. Also, this article throughout is not really one with a predominantly theological angle, it seems more an ethnic article with theology/religion included as an aside.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 November 2011‎

I'm glad that you're keen into this subject. Please feel free to rewrite/modify/add any sections, but don't forget to add proper references. You can use the following papers:

• The Origins and Development of Assyrian Nationalism
• The Historical Roots of Contemporary Controversies: National Revival and the Assyrian ‘Concept of Unity’
• ASSYRIAN IDENTITY IN ANCIENT TIMES AND TODAY

Using academic references will insure that your edits will not be speedily removed. b'Shaina.--Rafy talk 23:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the sensitive issue

First of all, I'd like to applaud the hard work other user such as Rafy, Elvis have picked up since my absentee. You guys have done a great job in fixing some of the problems with the project. However, some things still need to be dealt with.
A Syriacs page needs to be created as a religious group, and not as an ethnic one that covers the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic population. On similar to that of Chaldean Catholics and Maronites. Both of these groups and also the Syriacs are in the limbo of their identity - in that each of the group consists of people who either consider themselves Assyrians or identify themselves with their religious affiliation (Chaldean, Syriacs.) The creation of Syriacs would be a step in the right direction, and would possibly lead to less vandalism.
What the creation of this page means It is important to remember that with the creation of the Syriacs page, it doesn't make it ok to create mirror pages of current Assyrian pages. In other words, there won't be List of Syriac settlements, Syriac diaspora, Syriac history etc since they will be mirror of current pages (list of Assyrian settlements, Assyrian diaspora, History of the Assyrian people.
What needs to be fixed In doing the above, it would enable us to fix the current mess we have. It has been agreed upon on multiple votes that Assyrian is the most common term used in the English language, hence the name of this page. Thus, sub pages that were moved by either members who are now banned or moved without consent, should be moved back. (example: Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac diaspora. Pages like these need to be stored to their original names. This goes with Wikipedia's policy of sub pages being consistent with the main page (Assyrian people).

One last thing; random users are plugging the term Aramean in many pages in a ludicrous fashion such as "the Syriacs (Arameans)". First of all, this goes against Wikipedia's policy. Second, the vast majority don't actually identify themselves as "Aramean". Yes, there is a minority within their population in the diaspora, but that can be explained about and mentioned in the newrly formed Syriacs pages. It should in no way be written in subpages that makes them look tacky. So please change all "Syriacs (Arameans)" to Syriacs, like they used to be. Chaldean (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chaldean for your complement.

I have to disagree with your proposal though. To start with, why is there a Chaldean Christians page anyway? the way I see it it's simply a fork from this page that have to be redirected. We already have a Christian Church (Chaldean Catholic Church) whose members are identified as Assyrians (or Chaldean, Chaldo-Assyrians, Assyro-Chaldeans, whatever). The Maronites page is supposed to show non-ecclesiastical history and ethnic identity of the followers of the Maronite Church, for the Chaldean Catholic and the Syriac Orthodox Churches this page is more than enough to discus history and the naming conflict. A naming conflict doesn't necessarily warrant a new fork (read WP:CFORK for Wikipedia's policy here.)

By the way, all Assyrians are also Syriacs in a way or another. They follow Churches with Syriac Christian traditions, Speak forms of Syriac, and even sometimes identify themselves as Syriacs (ܣܘܪܝܐ Surāyé) in their mother tongue. On the other hand, the term "Assyrian" has been, for one reason or another, a more popular naming for this group in English, and complying with WP:COMMONNAME this page should also reflect this.--Rafy talk 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow!!! What an article!!! And the poor school kids who depend on it for completing school assignments! I just skimmed over it, but to an incredible degree it perpetuates the recent myth that people of a particular Christian sect, the Nestorians, who once were a major contender as the dominant form of Christianity but who are now vastly outnumbered by those who accept the early church councils held in places such as Chalcedon, are somehow the same as the ancient Assyrians! Like others (but very likely not more than) in the region, the so-called "Assyrians" today probably have some Assyrian ancestry. The term "Assyrian" has indeed stuck--to the extent that one careful scholar (John Joseph, himself a Nestorian) decided to go along with it in the title of a new edition of his history of this sect--on the ground that many people did not understand what his book was about when seeing the title of the first edition (a doctoral dissertation at Princeton, later published by Princeton UP). The identification of the Nestorians who held to their faith and those who united with Rome as a "uniate" church respectively as "Assyrians" and "Chaldeans" was simply a 19th century invention (admittedly, all "nations" and peoples are inventions). Another point: Although what happened to so many of these people in the post-WWI period in Iraq--refugees from Turkey and Iran used by the British to suppress the local population (Churchill, for example, declared that it was o.k. to use chemical weapons on "primitive tribes" such as Arabs and Kurds)--was horrible, one should look at such an objective work as Joseph's to understand the situation better. The title of John Joseph's first edition, as I remember, is The Nestorians and Their Muslim Neighbors. I believe he simply substituted "Assyrian" in the title of the 2nd ed. as a concession to the misunderstanding. I probably will leave the changes up to others. Eleanor1944 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You said it yourself, Assyrian nationalism is, just like most nationalist ideas, built on the myth of belonging to ancient Assyrians. This idea however have seen considerable support among many prominant Assyriologists such as Simo Parpola and Richard Frye to name a few. There are a couple of links posted above in case you're still interested about the development of the modern concept of Assyrian nationalism.

I believe that the reason why John Joseph used the term Nestoians in his book was because it only covered the historical Nestorians, (i.e. those living in Hakkari and Urmia). While the term Assyrian nowadays extends to all Middle-Eastern Syriac Christians excluding the Maronites.

The article is indeed in a bad shape, any help with improving it would be much appreciated.--Rafy talk 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

They, of course, were always called Nestorians. There were three branches of Christianity: (1)the Monophosytes, (2)the Nestorians, and (3)those who accepted the decision of the Council of Chalcedon that Christ is both God and Man. (Branch #3 includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Greek Orthodox today.) And of course there is some likelihood that they have some Assyrian genes, much like many other people in the region. And yes, all identities are mythhistorical. But an encyclopedia should distinguish between myth and history. Yes, myth is sometimes more important than history (in some ways). Actually, I came back to this page to cite the correct name of the 2nd edition of the Book: John Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: Encounters with Western Christian missions, archaeologists, and colonial powers (Brill Academic Publishers, 2000) and the url for it on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=79wj2hj4wKUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn%3D9004116419&hl=en#v=onepage&q=isbn%3D9004116419&f=false See the last part of Ch. 1 on the origin of the modern myth. Eleanor1944 (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Maronites?????????????????? They are Roman Catholics, although originally they represented a compromise between Chalcedonian and Monophysite (i.e., they were/have been everything but Nestorian/"Assyrian." Maybe there are some new myths, though. Eleanor1944 (talk)19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fully aware of the different schisms in the Syriac church, that's why I summarised it in this chart. Religion has nothing to do with ethnic identity by the way, I myself belong to the Syriac Catholic church but I also consider myself Assyrian.

Maronites are excluded because they have been Arabised early on, probably a process that started in the 14th century and ended in the 19th century, their identity is complex now although some still cling to their pre-Arab Syriac heritage.

I've skimmed the first chapter but I didn't find anything peculiar, could you point to the exact page number.--Rafy talk 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe you already knew that all this claim of one sect to a special connection with the Assyrians was a modern myth invented by Western missionaries. What about p. 17? For that matter, consult any standard source on these sects. Eleanor1944 (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of using multiple question marks? You sound like one frustrated person. I love your naive statement of "are somehow the same as the ancient Assyrians" because it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of today's modern Assyrians. "Somehow"? Yea, the same people whose villages and towns today are concentrated in the heart of what was the ancient Assyrian empire, and speak the same language of the ancient Assyrians. Yea, that sure sounds like "somehow". Go ridicule other groups of people who have far worse fabricated history. Chaldean (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I also find it strange that a retired professor expresses his disagreement with 18 consecutive question marks.

My position is that the modern Assyrians are closely related to the ancient ones, the mythical part lies in the association of modern nationalist sentements with the glory of the ancient empire and its kings.

John Joseph's works are full with errors and amateurism. In his refutation of the continuation of the Assyrians on page 18 for instance, he claims that the term "Aturaye" was first used by "Nestorian" immigrants to the United States in the late 19th century. This is simply wrong since the name Athuraye and Athur has been continuously used for thousands of years, this can be seen in another work of him when he tries to answer a paper attesting the continuation of the Assyrians by Richard N. Frye by claiming that when Michael the Syrian mentioned that "ܐܬܘܪܝܐ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ"[6] (it's hnwn not hywn by the way, another amateurish mistake) he meant the inhabitants of Mosul, but he forgets or ignores the fact that "ṯ/t" in Aramaic is a very popular cognate of the Akkadian "š" (šinā -> treyn, šalāš -> ṯalāṯ...) and the Aramaic/Syriac "Aṯur" is simply a cognate of the Akkadian "Ašur". Funny though that those who called themselves Aturaye (or Nestorians) didn't live in the city of Mosul itself but rather in an area stretching from Nisibis to Urmia.

Another shocking fact for you: The "Nestorians" of Hakkari and Urmia were not actually Nestorians and they never identified as such. They were taunted by this name by western Syrians (Jacobites), and it later come to be used by Europeans erroneously. The true creator of the Church of the East (its real name) was Babai the Great who was an opponent of Nestorian views.[7]

I could also go on for hours on how modern Assyrian settlements in Nineveh are surrounded by ancient Assyrian ruins, and how ancient Assyrian names such as Sargon, Sinharib and Shammiram have been continuously used for the last 2,000 years.--Rafy talk 17:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Chaldean Flag.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chaldean Flag.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)