Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

New pictures uploaded

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by King Legit (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 February 2006.

Thank you for pictures. You should always quote the source when uploading the images and give the right license. At the moment you have licensed all of these as you own personal work. This is fine if you took the photographs. However, if you found them on another website, you should give the URL of the page you got them from, so that we can check if they infringe copyright. If they are owned by someone else, and they don't give permission for their use here, then they'll have to be taken down. Please add the source and correct the license as appropriate now. If you don't do it I'll list them as unsourced images, and let them go through the deletion process. Still, nice images: just make sure they're yours to give. — Gareth Hughes 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I added some new pictures.--King Legit 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Solution

We should have one artile about Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs and mrege the information from Aramaeans and Chaldean into this article, then delete Aramaeans and Chaldean. We will have one page for everything. If you want to have 4 seperate pages, we will have to rebuild everything, this is the easiest solution. --Domthedude001 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibilities for a rename

I mentioned before, when the articles on Chaldeans and Syriacs were merged here, that it would only be fair that we reconsider the name of this article. I still think that we should try to have a single article rather than contradictory articles for each separate group. However, I believe that we should have an article itle that is fair to all. Here are some suggestions. Please refrain from screaming and shouting, and discuss the options calmly. Of course, if you can think of another alternative, please mention it.

  • Combine the names (possibly alphabetically):
    • Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac people
    • Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs
    • add Aramaean(s) to the list
  • Find a descriptive term to cover everyone (key features are language and religion):
    • Aramaic-speaking Christian people
    • Aramaic-speaking Christians

If the Assyrians call their language Assyrian, what right do you have to impose the name aramean on them or their language. Why don't you tell the Spaniards and the French to change the name of their langauge to Latin? You guys sound like a bunch of smug elitists who think you have the right to impose your opinions on others. The article about Assyrians is a travesty. Here is why.

Misrepresentation of the Assyrian history by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikidepia the free encyclopedia seems to think of itself as a source of accurate information but its entry about the Assyrians titled ‘Assyrian people’ can be described as a sham and contrary to the known facts. Its writer seems determent to redefine Assyrians as Arameans implying that ancient Assyrians did not survive after their 612 B.C. defeat, a fallacy that long has been repudiated by the Assyrialogists and recent Archaeological discoveries.

For example prominent Assyrialogist , H.W.F. Saggs, wrote: "The destruction of the Assyrian empire did not wipe out its population. They were predominantly peasant farmers, and since Assyria contains some of the best wheat land in the Near East, descendants of the Assyrian peasants would, as opportunity permitted, build new villages over the old cities and carry on with agricultural life, remembering traditions of the former cities. After seven or eight centuries and various vicissitudes, these people became Christians."(H.W.F. Saggs, "The Might that Was Assyria" p. 290)

The Wikidepia author begins to define the Christian Assyrians not by who they are, but by the language they speak to direct the readers to the conclusion that they are not who they claim to be. Along the way he adds other bits of information to lead them to the conclusion that Christian Assyrians are Arameans who after Christianity called themselves Suraye because the term Aramaye was equated with Paganism. He presents no historical evidence to support such opinion. This idea has been proposed by the pro Aramean faction but it is contrary to the known facts.

Ancient Assyrians like other nations of their time were considered Pagans by the Jews and Christians. They were strongly vilified in the Old Testament for that very reason but Arameans were exulted because according to the Jews, Abraham, the father of their religion and by extension Christianity “was a wondering Aramean". Another fallacy advanced by the writer is that the term ‘Suraya’ or ‘Syrian’ was used only after Christianity because it had no connection to the Pagans of pre Christianity and it meant Aramean.

We learn from the fifth century B.C. herodotus that while Greeks called Assyrians ‘Surioi’ their neighbors i.e. Persians and the Armenians called them Assuri-os i.e. Assyrian, therefore one can only conclude that ‘Surioi’, ‘Suraye’, and ‘Syrian’ meant primarily Assyrian and such terms were in use centuries before Christianity. This fact has been corroborated by Strabo, Justinus and other Greek and Persian historians. In fact Armenians still call both the ancient and the Christian Assyrians, Asori.

The land west of Euphrates known today as Syria was the homeland of the Arameans. Its inhabitants were also called; suros, Suroi, Assurios; by the Greeks equivliant to Syrian, Suraye, variations of Assyrian because the region did not have a specific national identity and had been part of the Assyrian empire for over 200 years. Assyrians, Babylonians and later Persians called the region ‘Abar-Nahra’ or ‘beyond the river’. To claim that Suraya, Syrian or any variations thereof means Aramean and not Assyrian is to confuse the difference between the cause and affect and believe that dog’s tail wags him rather than the other way around.

Simo Parpola presents a list of Greek and Roman writers who from the sixth century B.C. on refer to the Assyrians by the various versions of Greek pronunciation of their name, including ‘Suroi’ by the fourth century Aristoxennus which seems similar to “Suryaye” used by the Eastern Assyrians also known as Nestorians, and Suryoye for the western Assyrians also known as ‘Jacobites’ and ‘Syrian Orthodox’..Suria another variation of Greek term for Assyrian was used by the fourth century Cleitarchus, Suros was used by Cicero in the first century B.C. which attest to the fact that Suraya was in use long before Christianity [during Paganism] and meant Assyrian. (Simo Parpola, “Assyrian Identity in the Post Empire Time” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, 2004)

If Christians of Mesopotamia considered themselves Arameans there would have been no reason for them to call themselves by any other name. As Christians they would have been proud to be known as Arameans because it meant they were related not only to the prophet Abraham also to Jesus who spoke their language. It is primarily because of these two Biblical points that the name Aramean has been preserved to this day. It was not until 1952 that Aramean identity was attached to the Syrian Orthodox Church by its Patriarch Aphrem Barsoum who after World War One wanted to distance his people from the Nestorian Church not only religiously also ethnically. However a substantial percentage of that church’s members still identify themselves as Assyrians. For details about how and why the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch assumed the Aramean identity see; Syrian Orthodox Church

Here is how the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Michael the great (1126-99) explained the difference between Assyrians the primary inhabitants of mesopotamia and the Arameans who lived in Syria :

( In the first half of the 9th century "the Greeks were offending the Jacobites by saying: 'Your Syrian sect has no importance neither honor, and you did never have a kingdom, neither an honorable king'. the Jacobites answered them by Saying that even if their name is "Syrian", but they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honorable kings.... Syria is in the west of Euphrates, and its inhabitants who are talking our Aramaic language, and who are so-called 'Syrians', are only a part of the 'all', while the other part which was in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay. (History of Mikhael The Great" Chabot Edition (French) P: 750) as quoted by Addai Scher, Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie") This clearly dismisses the sometimes repeated refrain that Assyrian means Nestorian.)

The wikidepia’s article Treats the Christian Assyrian history as a matter of opinion rather than fact. Its writer implies that there were no mention of the Assyrians until 700 years after their defeat when the term "Assyria" was used by the the Roman Empire, for northern Mesopotamia, which became their fifty first province. Since he makes no mention of the inscriptions by the Persian kings who mention Assyria and Assyrians as part of their empire, long before Christianity, one has to assume he has no knowledge of such information or intentionally prefers to ignore it. In either case he proves himself not sufficiently knowledgeable to pass judgement about the ethnicity of the Christian Assyrians. Here are the Persian references.

The Nagshe Rostam inscription by Darius (512-486) lists Assyrians as one of the national types of the Persian Empire. A reference to them reads as: "Iyam Asuryah", "this is an Assyrian" which is very similar to the term "Suryah" a name christian Assyrians have identified themselves by. (Sukumar Sen, "Old Persian Inscriptions of the Achamenian Emperors," University of Calcutta 1941 p. 107)

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

In an inscription at Susa Darius writes; "The cedar timber, this -- a mountain named Lebanon -- from there was brought. The Assyrian people, it brought it to Babylon; from Babylon the Carians and the Ionians brought it to Susa. The yakâ-timber was brought from Gandara and from Carmania." Old Persian Texts: Asori

"Proclaims Xerxes, the king: (486-466 "By the favor of Ahura Meazda; these are the people / countries of which I was king of....Persia, Media, Elam, Armenia, Drangiana, parhia, Aria, Bactri a, Sogdia, Choresmia, Babylonia, ASSYRIA, Stagydia, Lydia, Egypt......" (Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)

In a Trilingual Persepolis inscription ARTAXERXES II (c. 436 - 358 BC) OR III ( BC. to 338 BC.). among the twenty throne-bearers of various nationalities Assyrian representative is identified as; “This is the Assyrian'. http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm

Assyrians are also mentioned by the Persian religious book of 'Zand-i Vohuman Yasht' in the Pahlavi language. In one section it accuses the Greeks (Yunan) who ruled in Asuristan (330-145 B.C.) were slaying the [Asori] Assyrian people and destroying their abode. Perisan One has to wonder what kind of credibility a writer could have who is unaware of such evidences and without cause wants to redefine Assyrians as ‘Arameans’? Wikipedia irresponsible entry could lead to further antagonism between the pro-Aramean faction and the rest of the Assyrians.

The fact that inhabitants of Mesopotamia spoke the Aramaic language does not make them Arameans because it was spoken by other none Aramean nations such as the Jews, the Arabs (Nabattians), the Egyptian Christians and later by the christians of India and other nations to a lesser degree. In fact it was the ancient Assyrians who elevated the Aramaic language to an international level and promoted its use. If nationality of a people is determent solely by the language it speaks then one has to conclude that the entire population of Southern America has descended from the Spaniard or portuguese since those are the languages spoken in the region. By such logic all the nations who presently speak languages derived from latin have to be considered nothing other than Romans.

Another example of the wikipedia willingness to manufacture excuses to redefine Christian Assyrians as “Arameans” is evident in the following quote by the writer; “ according to Tsereteli, a Georgian equivalent of "Assyrians" appears in Georgian documents from the 18th century, designating Eastern Arameans”.

Nowhere in his writing Konstantin Tesereteli equates Assyrians with the Eastern Arameans. In fact he begins his article by writing “As early as the 6th century [A.D.] Assyrian priests ventured to Georgia for the purpose of founding cloisters.” He goes on to mention other references to Assyrians by the Georgians in later centuries. See; (Konstantin Tsereteli, Assyrians in the Correspondence of Irakli II, King of Georgia” Journal of The Assyrian Academic Society, Vol. VIII, No.2, 1944 pp.4-11) According to him a document prepared by the court of Irakli II in 1769 reported that “Millions of Assyrians live in the mountains and Valley which straddle Persia and the Ottoman Empire.” Ibid.

The Vatican documents of the 16th century refer to the Christians of Mesopotamia both Nestorians and later Chaldeans as Assyrians. Syriac writers during the christian era also have identified their people as Assyrian side by side with Suraya. The wikidepia writer however makes no mention of hundreds of other references to the Assyrians by historians of many nationalities during all centuries from the fall of Nineveh to date as documented in a recent book by Fred Aprim. See additional references to Assyrians in all centuries at: refrences to Assyrians

In conclusion the Wikidepia article about Assyrians is full of erroneous claims attesting to the insufficiency of its writer’s knowledge about the subject or his desire to describe Assyrians as Arameans contrary to the known facts. All posting intended to inform the Wikipedia moderator of such inaccuracies were promptly removed and no effort was made to correct the very obvious errors. Even at the ‘Talk Page’, opposing comments were deleted as soon as posted even though the Page is supposedly intended to give others a chance to critic the article. Treating the Christian Assyrian identity as a matter of opinion or personal interpretation can hardly be considered fair or proper way of writing history. The present wikidepia article titled “Assyrian People” betrays the lack of knowledge of its writer and reveals his unshakable prejudices against the Assyrians and their heritage.

wm warda

I have no real preference here, and I'm not sure whether the guidelines for ethnic groups encourage adjectives or adjective people. However, the descriptive term (Aramaic-speaking Christians) could include the Melkites of Ma`loula (speaking Western Neo-Aramaic) and Maronites (historically speaking Aramaic, but all Arabic today). What are you thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion on including Maronites and Maloula, is stretching it. These people for the most part do not see themselves as being one with Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriacs. So, to be honest with you, I strongly dicourage silly made up titles like "Aramaic Speaking Christians". I do like this "Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs - Dont know why the "people" is needed to be added. Aramaic, as I mentioned should not be given the same status as the big 3, since only a couple thousand consider themselfs Aramiac today (comparing to million of each sect of Assyrian, Chaldean, Syraic.) So in conlucsion, I do like "Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriacs". These Maronites, Maloula, and Arameans, can be mentioned in this page, but should not be put in the same level and Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, for the reason I mentioned. (note how we have not included Maronites and Maloulas in the population statistics for a reason) Chaldean 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually meant to say that the Aramaic-speaking Christians would involve other groups, rather than suggesting that this what we necessarily want to do. WikiProject Ethnic groups has reached no consensus on whether to use the plural form or the word people, so, if we are using a long title, perhaps we should go for the shorter form: Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs. — Gareth Hughes 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to start a vote on this? Chaldean 02:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a vote if everyone can agree in the first place. Voting might actually be devisive. At the moment, it looks like Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs is generally acceptable. If it's not, people are not voicing their concerns. — Gareth Hughes 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The title Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs not only leaves out the Aramaeans, but also implies that the various labels mutually exclude one another. Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs comes closer, or perhaps Syriacs (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) or [[Syriac Christians (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans).

My problem with Aramaic speaking Christians is that quite a few Syriacs no longer actively speak modern Aramaic, having become more or less linguistically assimilated into their new cities or countries. This has been the case in Turkey for centuries, for example in Mardin, the Syriacs traditionally speak Qeltu Arabic among themselves, in cities like Diyarbakır and in some villages and towns in Tur Abdin (Kfarburan/Kerburan/Dargeçit), Kurmanji Kurdish had replaced Aramaic as a first language, and many youths in Istanbul now speak Turkish. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)

New Name

I wouldn't mind Aramaic speaking people or possibly Semitic Christians. Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac people is how the US Census has it. I would assume because of witnessing some of the mindless babel similar to the likes that we've had here.King Legit

Semitic Christians would be very general and could include even Arab Christians such as the Ghassanids at least in the Historic part of it. It could aslo link to Coptic Christians as relatives.

Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac people sounds good or just simply Assyro-Chaldo-Syriacs.

The problem I have with naming it Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac is that it's a "made-up" term. "Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac," although long, at this point seems to be the most suitable name. --3345345335534 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


It is true! Assyrian, Chaldean, syriac is a made up name. Assyrian is a national ethnicity, Chaldean is a religious denomination of the Assyrians and Syriac means member of the Syrian Orthodox Church who used to call themselves Assyrians. Contrary to some opinions Nestorian does not mean Assyrian because it is a religious denomination of Assyrians just as Chaldean and Syrian orthodox Church are. For more information about when, and why these names came into use see; The name issue

The term Arameans came into use in 1952 and Syriac was made the identity of members of the Syrian Orthodox Church during the 2000 US census because the clergies of the church were worried that Syrian would have been counted as the citizens of Syria. There has been a tendency for the clergies of the 3 main denominations to segregate their people from the others by identifying them by their religious identity and pretending that they are their national identity for fear that they may lose members to the other churches. As for Aramean it is a made up identity which was promoted by the Syrian Orthodox Church to stop the national integration which was in process between its members and that of the Church of the East also known as Nestorian. The Assyrian National Federation was established by the combined members of the two churches in response to the 1933 Assyrian massacre in Iraq. If left alone this would have undermined the separation of the two churches and would have united their people as Assyrians. IN the Middle East Clergies of the Chaldean church and the Syrian Orthodox Church began to distance themselves from their Assyrian identity hoping that it would save them from future massacres given the fact that the Iraqi Arab nationalist propaganda had painted the Assyrians as the enemy of the State.

Neither the Arameans would like to be associated with the Assyrians nor Assyrians with them. They are historically and culturally two different people. The Real Arameans have been mostly Arabized. Those who presently promote the Aramean name are mostly members of the Syrian Orthodox Church who were known as Assyrians before their Patriarch Aphrim Barsoum mandated they should not identify themselves As Assyrians starting in 1952. For more information about this subject see: Syrian Orthodox church Assyrians and Aphrim Barsoum wm warda

Some thoughts on neutrality

I believe there are a few things we can do to help keep this article neutral. I am sure that we can all agree that it is a controversial subject. Here are a few things that I would suggest we consider taking on board:

  1. Syriac language — I beleive that most native terms should be given in Classical Syriac with transliteration, as this is not either western or eastern. In this scheme, it is important to mark the two different a-vowels (ā and a) as they are pronounced differently in different dialects. Thus, we should write Suryāyā rather than Suryoyo, Suryaya or Suraya, as all of these reflect different dialects. In some case, however, it may be appropriate to give a word as spelled in one dialect if it is only relevant to that dialect. In each subsection on the different names we could give alternative spellings/pronunciations (e.g. Athoraya, Athuraya Aturaya Asuraya, Asoraya, Othuroyo).
  2. Each of the different identities has a complex history which should not be oversimplified or disparraged. Therefore, the article should not 'put down' the Assyrian identity, the Chaldean identity or the Syriac identity.
  3. That we try to remain neutral on the genetic relationship with ancient peoples. The article should talk about the importance of this in the culture and that some feel that it is politically motivated, but it should not state it either as true or false — a Wikipedia article is not the place to decide this matter, simply to report the situation.
  4. The various related articles on ancient peoples should mention that the identity continues to this day and link to this article, but I beleive the modern identity debate should be discussed fully here, and not in each of those articles.

I think these points are fair, and I hope you can see why I have stated them. They deal with some of the more controversial points in the article, which I believe need to be approached neutrally. What do you think? — Gareth Hughes 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


  1. I agree with you on this point. It makes Wikipedia more readable if not all the varying pronunciations are included all the time.
  2. True. But the Aramaean identity should also not be omitted. It has been mentioned throughout the history of the Syriac Christians, and is valued by a considerable part of them, so it is important to acknowledge that if we intend to present the entire picture of Syriacs.

Depends on what the subject of your article is. If it is about the Syriac speaking people then you mention the people who speak the Syriac language. If the subject matter is Assyrian, you write the Assyrian history not a biased opinion trying to prove that they are not Assyrians. That in my opinion is dishonest. The writer of the wikipedia article has demeaned the Assyrian identity based on his lack of knowledge of their history. When did Assyrians call themselves Arameans? ONe can expect a minority of another nationality in all countries but that does not change the national identity of the entire nation. A national identity among other things depends of Geography, history, ancestry and people's perception of their identity. One can not consider Mexican Spaniard or vice versa because they speak similar language. Why does your writer believes that Syrian, Suraya in the homeland of the Assyrians means Arameans when all the ancient writers have said it mean Assyrian. ? Where are your evidences that Assyrians disappeared in their own homeland and were replaced by the Arameans? Why no mentions is made of hundred even thousands of references to Assyrians during all centuries by themselves and writers of other nationalities? Why would Arameans observe the Ninevite fast which pretrains to Assyrians? Why would Arameans want to keep the memory of Nineveh alive when all other nations believed it no longer existed? How many Bishops of Nineveh can you name? Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to tell Assyrians that they are not Assyrians. Does the fact that Chrisians of Egypt are called Goptic mean they are not Egyptions? What I see here is the conceded mindset by some peole who knows very little about the Assyrians pretending to know more than they, about who they are. Indulging in such speculations have serious consequences for the Assryians of Iraq and their indegenous rights in that country. One has to ask why writers of Wikipedia would want to unflairly and mindlessly indulge in such pass times. Haven't Assryians suffered enough they have to be oppressed by the western intellectuals also? Please answer these questions based on historical evidences or remove the Wikipedia article as soon as possible. wm

  1. In accordance with Wikipedia's rules of engagement, we should take a neutral stance on all issues. The various theories about the genetic heritage of the Syriacs should therefore all be presented, accompanied by all the relevant pros and contras. But that does not mean that empirical data supporting one theory or another should be left out.
  2. I'm not so sure this is necessary. I think it would render a very lengthy article if the modern Aramaean, Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syriac identities and their respective organisations, flags, etc. were to be described in here. But let's see how the article turns out first. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)14:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. It seems that we are in overall agreement. I think the position of Aramaean identity should be included. I agree with you on the 'empirical data', but think that it should be handled with care, as such data are used to validate political standpoints. — Gareth Hughes 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no Aramean identity when it comes to the Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriac, Mixing Arameans with the other is like equating Australians with Americans. Historically and ethnically Arameans are different than the the Assyrian who also include Chaldeans and Syriac. Expanding the name to include Arameans only deepens the existing confusion about the history of these people. Form what I can see most of you who are commenting about this subject have meager knowledge about either of these people. The identity of a people is based not only on the language they speak also on their ancestry, geography, Culture, heritage, history and shared destiny. The homeland of the Assyrians including Chaldeans and Syriacs has been historically northern Mesopotamia but that of Arameans has been Syria. to mixed them together is like mixing English with Americans or equating Italians with Spaniards. wm

Everything well said. I have no rejections to what you have said. I would also like to see something like Kurdish culture for the Assyrians people. Chaldean 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Benne, I am getting very inpatent with you

Stop RVing everything I do. I am trying to be really nice with you, by letting you slide on something here and there, but PLEASE dont push it. Chaldean 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not revert everything you do. I deleted a sentence that did not add any new information to the article, because the fact that many Syriacs identify themselves with the ancient Assyrians was already stated further on. Besides, this article is not about the "Assyrians" only, in spite of what the title suggests. It's about the people referred to as Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and/or Syriacs.
Another thing I reverted was the changing of the order of the various self-appellations. You said there was an agreement on the order, but I do not recall any. Besides, due to a lack of statistical information, it's impossible to determine how many Syriacs call themselves Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, or Syriacs. From a neutral point of view, I think it is preferable to put everything in alphabetical order. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Garzo, dont you think that this:

During the first century AD, Aramaic was spoken throughout much of the Middle East by Christians, Jews and followers of various pagan religions. However, commuities separated by religion and geographical distance spoke quite different varieties of Aramaic, and intelligibility between them was in places low. The other main language of the region was Koine Greek, which was spoken in the upper echelons of society and in the major urban centres of the Levant. The establishment of churches in urban centres in the Levant, Asia Minor and Greece led to Greek becoming the dominant language of the early church. However, the Christian faith also spread rapidly among the Aramaic-speaking peoples in the smaller towns and farther east.

Belongs under the language paragraph? Chaldean 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And also:

Though the modern Assyrians assert their connections with the Assyrian Empire, direct genetic inheritance and authentic cultural continuity with any modern peoples are tenuous.[5] [6]

Ok, so we should put this sentence on every single Ethnicity page? The ancient Greeks with connection of modern Greeks? The Romans with Italians? Chaldean 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Chaldean is right. If you want to add the text about our ancient connections with our ancient empire on our ethnicity article you better do it on every ethnicity article, or you'll probably see some furious assyrians. This article about our identity have gone too far. Let me make one thing clear, we assyrians/arameans/chaldeans are all assyrians, as a result of persecution and opression we have got some other terms, as the Nasrani people. Another thing i want to express my feelings about is that our language do not belong in the identity section. Do you guys know what the funniest about this is? It's that you put both arameans and syriacs in here, now whats really funny is that arameans first are syriacs and when they read some propaganda on the net they become arameans, so arameans and syriacs are exactly the same, theres no different. Well theres a tiny different and that is that arameans hate the assyrian term and some syriacs dont, for example I. I think this article really stinks for now and I hope it will be fixed. We dont consider ourselves the inheritors of ancient Assyria, we are the inheritors of ancient Assyria.

Remember that this is an encyclopaedia article. "We are inheritors of ancient Assyria" is not a universally supported statement — that DOES NOT mean that I think it's wrong, but that I know for certain that many people think it's wrong. The article has to deal with facts, and fact is that it is a claim. The first quote that Chaldean brought up was written by me. I placed under identity because language is an important part of identity, and I used the passag to describe how an independent Aramaic-speaking Christian population arose in a Greek-dominated church. — Gareth Hughes 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

UTC' you wrote: "We [Assyrians] are inheritors of ancient Assyria" is not a universally supported statement"----Does it matter to you that they make such judgement based on lack of information or are motivated by other prejudices? Is writing about people's opinons rather than facts is Wikipedia about? Just look at the article about the 'Assyrian People'. Where are the ancient references attesting to the survival of the ancient Assyrians? where are his ancient refrences about their disapearance? Why emperical evidences attesting to the Assyrian survival is ignored but false opinion of a contemporary person not suported by facts is considered valid? This does not say much about the credibility of the Wikipedia Encyclopeadia. Should all histories be written about what various people think ?

Language is not the sole determinant of national identity. For example the inhabitants of Southern America speak Spanish and the Portuguese languages but there is no evidence that they are descendants of spaniard and portuguese? The Aramaic language was promoted by the Assyrians as an International language, during Christianity it was spoken by the Arabs, Jews, Egyptians and is even spoken by the Christians of India at the present time. Does it mean that all these people are Arameans? By the 15th century after the Tamurlane massacre, Christianity in southern Mesopotamia ceased to exist, it only survived in northern Mesopotamia the homeland of the Assyrians. The Assyrians cities still bear their ancient names but the name of the Babylonian cities had been long forgotten. This very fact attests to the continuation of the Assyrians in their cities after their defeat, Tikrit is Assyrian Tikriti, Arbil is the Assyrian Arba-illu, Nineveh the Assyrian Nineveh, Mosul Mospila, Nissibin Nissibini, Kirkuk is Assyrian Arapha, its name was changed to "Kirkha d bet Suluk" or 'the walled city of the House of Sulecus' in the fourth century B.C. This was gradually corrupted into Kirkuk. Some of the towns north of Nineveh occupied by Chaldean Assyrians still bear their ancient names. For example Algush was known as Algushta during the ancient Assyrian period, Karmalis is the ancient Assyrian “Kar-Mullissi”. During Shalmensser III (858-824 BC) rule his son Assur-Daneen-Ablo led a rebellion against his father in 27 cities including “Kar-Mullissi”. Even in Persia so many cities have not preserved their ancient names. In fact the language which Persians speak today is not the one that the ancient Persians spoke, Does this mean Wikipedia will tell the world that Persians of today are not related to the ancient Persians? I would like to see that. Is Wikipedia going to say that todays Turks are a compund of none Turkish nations such as Romans, Greeks, Assryians, Armenians, Persians and many more. Just look the green eyes of Atta-Turk does his look remind you of the Mongols which the original Turks were related to? Is the Wikipedia article going to describe why todays Arabs outside Saudi Arabia are not realy Arabs? I suggest you guys stop reading the useless books by John Joseph. wm

Concerning Benne's revert, he removed an addition to the opening section by 67.38.14.171 (is that Sargonious?), which repeated text further down the article. This sentence was readded by 68.73.5.184 (same person?). Does the person who supports this text realise that it already exists in the article? — Gareth Hughes 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That was me, forgetting to sign in. I think it should be in the beginning because it is a important statement that the reader needs to know from early on of the reading. I will delete the second one. Chaldean 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The first quote that Chaldean brought up was written by me. I placed under identity because language is an important part of identity true, but is it the main part of identity of a group of people? (because you made the identity paragraph start off with the language. Chaldean 16:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that the existence of a widespread Aramaic-speaking culture in the Middle East of the first century is important. The relation of Aramaic to Greek is also important, as Hellenistic culture was dominant then, just as Arabic culture is dominant now. In many ways, minority communities define themselves against majority ones. I have incorporated religion early on too. This, I believe, is the other major defining character of the culture — always defined apart from Aramaic-speakers of other religions, Jews and Armāyē. This double definition shows how a distinctive Aramaic-speaking Christian community began to define itself. — Gareth Hughes 17:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming

How about "Assyrians and Aramaeans" ? 1. Syriac reffers to both groups, so why do we have to state it again? 2. Chaldeans are a sect of Assyrians 3. The more I am reading, the more I am convinced that Aramaeans do not see themselves as the ethnically as Assyrians. So I think this title would be appropriate. 4. BUT, the page should be 90% about Assyrians, as the Assyrian population outnumbers Aramaeans by the hundreds. Chaldean 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that different people use these designations in quite different ways. This summer I was talking to a newly married couple. The husband, who spoke to me in Kthobonoyo, described them "Eno-no Suryoyo w-att šafirtoy Othuroyto: wa-ḥnan treyn-nan Oromoye". In context the whole thing made perfect sense. Some Chaldeans do not describe themselves as Assyrian, and do not wish to be associated wit Assyrianism. The reason for the rejection of their Assyrian identity is because of religious prejudous and porpaganda that if they call themselves Assyrian they will no longer be considered Catholic but will become Nestorian. Most people do not undreatad the reasons behind these names : who are Chaldeans wm. The 'level of ethnicity' is an odd idea — that certain people make more noise about who they are should not determine their importance. The idea of Assyrians outnumbering others is a bit odd, as lot depends on where people are from and what they choose to call themselves. In its strictest definition, that Assyrians are adherents of the Church of the East, they are not the largest group. You seem to be unaware of the fact that most of the members of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Europe identify themselves Assyrian. You may has heard of a team established by them called Assyriska. Assyrian does not mean Nestorian- the term Nestorian is a relgious identity like Chaldean, Syriacs and even Aramean used by a segment of the Syrian Orthodox Church for religeous reasons wm. still prefer Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs -it's long, but we cannot be accused of leaving anyone out. — Gareth Hughes 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)-------No you can not be accused of leaving anyone out but you need to write the facts and not an invetion of them. Assyrian is a national identity and the rest are religious identity like Nestorian It is like saying Americans, Catholics and Protestants are different national identities. Your western mind seems incapable of undrestanding how religious titles are being masquaraded as ethnic identities to segregate people according to who goes to what church and you seem to be perpetuating it. wm
Except for the and, I agree with you. I think a comma would be more appropriate in order to avoid the suggestion that the various self-identifications exclude one another. Indeed, the labels often overlap. Some Syriacs even combine the Aramaean and Assyrian identities.
And I also think that it should be either Aramaeans and Chaldaeans or Arameans and Chaldeans, to achieve uniformity in spelling. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets go through this one by one. By not putting Syriac in the title, which group of people are we leaving out? Chaldean 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Syriac Orthodox refer to themselves as Syriacs, and do not use any of the other labels. — Gareth Hughes 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea but, they use Syriac with Aramaean, like 'Syriac Aramaean'. So if we use 'Assyrians and Aramaeans' then they, Syriacs, would not be excluded. Ok so if where going to use Syriac, then why do we have to also incude Aramaeans? Its the same people, but alternative titles. That would be like changing Greek people to Greeks and Hellenics..?

So thats why I think 'Assyrians and Aramaeans' would be the best title. It included everybody. And please, enough with the 'Chaldean' debate. Just because a community that is a world away (Detroit), prefers to be called Chaldean, should not justify the labeling of the rest of Chaldeans in the middleast (who outnumber them 10 times.) Besides, the term Chaldo-Assyrian is starting to become popular here in Detroit, in the community and in the Chaldean newspapers. Chaldean 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You must hear a lot of 'Syriac Aramaean' where you live, but I've never heard that before, not in Syria, Turkey or the European and North-American diaspora. As for the Chaldeans, many do see themselves as distinct from the Assyrians: they lived on the Plain of Mosul while most Assyrians lived in the Hakkari Mountains and Urmia, and their standard Swadaya is based on old Alqoshi rather than Urmi. The Chaldean identity was not forged in Detroit, they are mentioned in Ottoman documents and Chaldean churches have been so called for centuries. As different people use these designations in different ways, it is really difficult to discount any one of them. — Gareth Hughes 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chaldeans are nothing more than a faction of Assyrians whose Church was established in 1553 and was given the name Chaldean by the Pope Julius III. The Chaldean church did not arrive in the plain of Nineveh until 18th century when the Latin missionaries were allowed by the Ottoman government to proselytize in the area mostly because of the influence of the French government. Assyrians who became Catholic were termed Chaldean because of their denomination not because they had anything to do with the ancient Chaldeans or Babylonians. Those who did not join and escaped to the mountains continued to be known as Assyrians. The Assyrian communities in the mountain were the people who had escaped because of various massacres in the Plain of Nineveh during many centuries. From there it was a short distance to the urmia's Valley. There is not that much difference between the language the Chaldeans speak and that spoken by the Assyrians of Urmia. There is a Middle Eastern Restaurant where I live which is owned by a Chaldean lady. I am originally from Iran have no problem speaking with her in the Suraya language and she understands me very well. It is natural that people who have been isolated from each other will have different accents but the language is the same.

The antagonism of Chaldeans against their Assyrians brethren was mostly promoted by the Roman Catholic Church as it is explained in the following article. [Promoting Chaldean identity] In C.1780 when Crasten Niebuhr visited the city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq he reported that "there were about forty Chaldeans or Nestorians who have joined the Roman Chuch. When they learned that a European had arrived in the city, immediately some of them paid a visit to me .....and they were complaining of the obstinacy of the other Oriental Christians, as they did not want to abandon their ancient errors and recognize the Pope as Vicar of Jesus Christ. .... all thsose who are converted by the European monks and their missionaries are the most hostile enemies of those who do not want to abandon their ancient Church." As quoted by Mirella Gallettit, Kirkuk: The Pivot of Balance in Iraq, Past and Present, JAAS Vol.19 No. 2, 2005 p. 27.

Just when things were getting better...

This article is really starting to drag, it's gotten so long I wouldn't read it if I wasn't Assyrian. Seriously this need summarization and a reduction of redundency!!! User:King Legit

The identity paragraph is way to long, we should have an introductery to that paragraph and dump the rest in a new page (kinda like how the Turkish people has a summary of the history of the people.) This page has gotten way too long. Chaldean 03:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling chaldeans "assyrians"

Stop calling chaldeans "assyrians" or converted away from their ethnicity, or not descended from ancient kassites but assyrians. You and many g-d damn assyrians should accept the fact that chaldeans today are kassites in the past. read http://www.chaldeansonline.net/chald.html and http://www.chaldeansonline.net/Banipal/English/hannona.html. you damn racist assyrians should stop crying and discriminating against true blooded kassites!

You should read it and you'll clearly see that it doesn't say that. Learn to speak without cussing. You're obviously frustrated because you can't get your point accross. User:King Legit
Is it too much to ask the person who posted that site to read what is says? :)
Garzo, can you please keep an eye on Chaldean extremist that change this page (I caught it after no one did.) And also Benne, the person who terrorises this page when no one is keeping an eye on him. Chaldean 03:01, 11 March 2006. (UTC)
Your edit simply doesn't belong in the introduction, it should be in the Assyrian section, where I put it now. This article is not about the people identifying themselves as "Assyrians" only, but about Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs.
I deleted "Assyrian is what is primarily used throughout history (up until 1445) when referring to the Christians of northern Mesopotamia." I doubt this is true. Please provide some reference for this statement before you put it back.
I think it's about time to move this page to Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans, Syriacs or Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs. The current title is misleading.--Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Benne, the only thing misleading is your manipulation of facts.--King Legit 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We have not agreed on a proper title, so we cant move the page. Chaldean 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Assyria and Syria/Syriac

The article is entitled "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms" by Professor Richard Frye (founder of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard).

http://jaas.org/edocs/v11n2/frye.pdf

Perhaps mentioning this in the Wiki article? Gms 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Benne, are you also disputing this Harvard study?--King Legit 23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Maybe you'd like to dispute Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Perhaps the rate you can spew your nonsense exceeds the speed of light and renders it illogical.

Everything on Wikipedia is False

I don't want to give up, but you Assyrians keep on believing in your ignorant anti-Chaldean beliefs and post it up on this website that doesn't need to have truth, but free-speech. This is where the Assyrian racists can say what they want about Chaldeans and not be persecuted for false information, like if they would propose this information to the Vatican, the United Nations, or Britannica, who would never accept these false statements. I'll stick to websites that post up truth instead of racist falsehoods.

I would describe the above statement as generally unhelpful and quite inflammatory. — Gareth Hughes 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Can I suggest something new for a title, 'ASSYRIA'S MODERN NATIONALITIES', it's a geographical implication. You see Chaldeans, Assyrians and indeed Syrians might not agree on the Assyrian Ethnicity, but they all agree that Northern Iraq is historical renowned for being called 'Ancient Assyria'. So, today's Assyria (geographically speaking) has 3 'Modern National Inhabitants' Chaldeans, Assyrians and Syrians. Alternatively make 3 seperate article pages and have it away with.

  • ASSYRIA'S MODERN NATIONALITIES is the Perfect Title.

Ethnic identification

Again, I moved the remark about the identification with the ancient Assyrians to the Assyrian section. It doesn't belong in the introduction, since it applies only to those who call themselves "Assyrian".

This article is NOT about "Assyrians" only, it is about Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and/or Syriacs, despite the misleading title. It's been almost a month now since the Syriacs and Chaldeans articles were merged into this one, and the title is still there. It's about time to move it, because Assyrianists still appear to claim it as their own. Well, it's not. In fact, it belongs to no one.

Some people seem to deem it necessary to remove information about Aramaeans, Chaldeans, or Syriacs. Others try to deny the fact that many Syriacs and Chaldeans consider themselves to constitute a separate ethnic group. Let me underline that ethnic group does not mean the same as race (whatever that may mean--I think by now everyone is to some extent of a mixed race). Ethnicity is one of the most vaguely defined concepts in social science, and within the wide range of its definitions, it is very well defendable to claim both Syriacs and Chaldeans are ethnic groups, based on common language, history, ancestral lands, etc. More important than a scientist's point of view, I think it's up to the people themselves to determine to what ethnic group they want to belong, be it Aramaean, Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syriac, no matter if their claim of a common ancestry is historically correct or not. In the end, it becomes a reality in itself.

Edits to this article too often appear to be politically motivated, inspired by the desire to claim other people to be part of their own group. In my opinion, these kind of editors do not belong here. Wikipedia is supposed not to be a political, but an encyclopaedic project.--Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


1. This page needs to be MAINLY about Assyrians, around about 90% of the page, since Assyrians outnumber 'Aramaeans' by 1.3 million.
2. It was properganda to have an individual page of the Chaldeans. It only went on because nobody was here to correct it.
3. in social science, and within the wide range of its definitions, it is very well defendable to claim both Syriacs and Chaldeans are ethnic groups -- Is this a joke? Please show me a respectful educater believing this.
4. I think it's up to the people themselves to determine to what ethnic group they want to belong - Exactly and that is why I have come to an understanding to not 'Assyrianlise' peoplpe who think they are 'Aramaean.' From my recent trip, it seems that the whole 'Aramaean' community in Turkey consider themselves not Assyrian-connected what so ever. So that is why I stopped. Now to claim that a good number of Chaldeans are refusing there connection of there Assyrian identity is a false claim promoted by Detroiters. I will keep on saying this over and over again, Detroit Chaldeans do not represent all of Chaldeans. We still have the majority of our people in Iraq, who still consider themselves Assyrian identity and culturewise.
5. Wikipedia is supposed not to be a political So then stop spreading your propaganda. Like the time where you went to the Chicago page and changed Assyrian to Syriac, when you very well know that the majority there are people who belong to the Assyrian Church of the East. Chaldean 11:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


  1. There are no impartial statistics substantiating your remark. There are people (like Sebastien de Courtois) who also consider the East Syrians to be Aramaeans, others consider all Syriacs to be Assyrians. And once again, you ignore the Chaldeans who do not consider themselves to be Assyrians.
  2. That's just your opinion. Apparently, other Chaldeans disagree with you.
  3. That depends on your definition of "ethnic group". It doesn't necessarily have to be connected to a common ancestry (imagined or not), but can also be defined by language, culture, history, like I said. Besides, many Chaldeans do consider themselves to be the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans.
  4. Again, considering these Chaldeans' claim to be false is your opinion. You do not provide any proof for that.
  5. That was not a matter of propaganda, but rather finding a common denominator for addressing the Suryāye, other than "Assyrians". Remember there is also a Syriac Orthodox community in Chicago. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
1. a )These are estimates that makes us as closest as possible from reality. Are you going to start claiming there are not 700,000 Assyrians in Iraq?
1. b) I did not ignore Chaldeans who dont consider themselves Assyrian. I clearlied it that it is only a small minority that lives a world away from where they originally come from.
3. See Ethnicity - I'm not like you; I dont use 'my own definitions'
4. My opinion? Please show me ONE educator or historian that believes this myth.
5. There are around 5 Assyrian Churches of 'the East' in Chicago http://www.edessa.com/churches.htm , surely there isn't more then one Syriac Orthodox church in Chicago. Thus, the 10% minority has to respect the 90% majority. Just like the case of this page. Chaldean 12:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
1a) Well, I'm not so sure they're all "Assyrians". There are many Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholic in Iraq, too, around Mosul, in Baghdad, Basrah, ... By the way, many Maronites consider themselves to be descendants of the ancient Aramaeans, so I'm not so sure your numbers are correct. Besides, I'm not so much interested in numbers, they're always prone to manipulations. I'm more interested in the way people define their own group, and the meaning they attribute to it.
1b)I doubt the claim of constituting a separate ethnic group only applies to the Chaldeans of Detroit. It is my impression that also in Turkey, many people call themselves Keldani rather than Aşuri (which is generally applied to members of the Church of the East).
3/4)Well, if you actually did read Ethnic group, you'd notice that one definition reads as such: "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986)." (Please note that this is but one of a great variety of definitions.) Further on, you'll read that among other traits there are religion, language, and traditional origins and backgrounds. That's not something I came up with. In this light, it's perfectly correct to define Chaldeans and Syriacs as separate ethnic groups.
5)Just because the one group is larger than the other, doesn't mean that the minority should be ignored. The majority should also respect the minority. And you've said it yourself a few times, Syriacs is often used to refer to all Suryāye. It's the only neutral term I know of.

Please bulletin your reply and then I will respond Chaldean 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1A) Look, I live in Iraq (Ankawa). I know Iraq like the back of my hand. I know this place and its people. Nobody can deny that religious estimates of the Syriac speaking people of Iraq are somewhere around 80% Chaldean, 15% Assyrian Orthodox, and 5% Syriac Orthodox. And no, there are no Syriac Orthodox in Baghdad or Basra. All of there population now live in the Nineveh Plains. Maybe this will help you, [1]. You have to understand that there is a big differene between Syriac Orthodox of Iraq and the rest (ie 'Aramaeans' who live in Germany, or the remaining few hundreds in Turkey.) These people are more connected with Assyrianism then other Syriac Orthodox members in terms of identity, culture, language, etc. Many do see themselves as Assyrians. And the previous elections showed that as well, where Syriac Orthodox villages voted vastly for the Assyrian Democratic Movement (as I have told you before with the links to each villages as well.) Maronites are a confused group of people, who some think they are Assyrians, Aramaeans, or even Arabs. This is why we haven't incuded them in the population numbers if you notice. I will not 'Assyrianlise' them and you better not 'Aramaeanise' them either. It doesn't matter if your interested in numbers or not, but we have to look at statistics in order to structure this page. What, you want half of the page to be about 5% of the population?
1B) What it matters is we have to look at Iraq and Iran, where the VAST majority of the Chaldean population is. You mentioned Turkey, ok, how many Chaldeans does Turkey have? A few thousands? (I still haven't seen one Chaldean village in Turkey by the way.) So you want to compare these few thousands to the hundred thousand of Iraq and Iran? Your logic is not right. Stop trying to separate us.
3/4 I understand that, but I will not sit here and let you paint the whole population just because of a small minority.
5) How have I ignored them? By suggesting a title that incudes Aramaeans, I am ignoring? By having a paragraph specifically for Aramaeans with there flag, is ignoring? What more do you want? Half of the page? For a 5-10% minority? I dont know how to reply to you without repeating myself over and over again. Syriac is the only neutral term, but that doesn't change reality and real life - ie the current situation; which is the VAST majority of Syriac speaking people call themselves Assyrian. And other nations around the world who have accepted our people as immigrants have understood this by having a box titled 'Assyrian' in there ethnicity census.

Chaldean 14:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1) How come I met the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Baghad and Basrah in a European monastery last year ...? According to my information, Baghdad has 6 Syriac Orthodox churches, in Basra there were a while ago 60 Syriac Orthodox families. Furthermore, there are quite a few Syrian Catholics as well. The party they voted for is not a very reliable way to find out how they identify themselves!
2)My point is that we have to look at all communities worldwide, and see what self-appellation they prefer, no matter if they live in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or in the diaspora. Let me underline that I am not trying to divide any group, all I want to do is find the facts, and present them here. You're the one who's trying to deny your own people's right to call themselves "Chaldeans" just because they live in the diaspora!
3/4)Once again, I do not determine what people think. My only intention is to listen to the people and find out about their identity.
5)You should read more thoroughly. We were talking about the population in Chicago here. Just because the people calling themselves Assyrians outnumber the ones identifying themselves as Aramaeans and/or Syriacs, doesn't mean they should be collectively referred to as "Assyrians".
(Let me refresh your memory: it was me who started the "Aramaeans" section, and it was you who deleted it after I did that.) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it really very sad to read the discussion above. I think that we agree that there is a people group who are united by their historic language (which has traditionally been called Syriac) and their Christian faith. We can also agree that this same group has been divided by church disputes (the Church of the East called 'Nestorian', and the Church of Antioch called 'Monophysite' and 'Jacobite', and the conversion of substantial members of both groups to Catholicism). The growth of Assyrian nationalism over the last two-hundred years has led to an increase in those who identify with that designation. However, it would seem biased to focus especially on politicised Assyrians, without giving fair treatment to those who do not accept this designation. The designation Aramaean has been revived by West Syriacs and Maronites in the main as an alternative to Assyrianism, and some members of the Chaldaean Catholic Church encourage the use of Chaldaean in a similar way. Perhaps a similar thing is happening now for the designation Syriac (I was singing along to Edward Joseph this summer as he sang "Hey Suryoye!"). I think the only fair way to include the different groups into which the group is fractured is to have a composite title like "Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Syriacs", and to avoid letting any one of these designations dominate the page (this 90% stuff is polemical). I earlier included a bit more histroical background in the article because it helps to show how the different designations arose. In this light, I support the edits that Benne is making, and do not see any reason for Chaldean's reverting of them. I assume that Benne has more knowledge of the diaspora in Europe, while Chaldean has more knowledge of the diaspora in North America, and this may be the cause of the disagreement. The deletion of reference to Chaldeans and Syriacs in the opening section, and addition of claims of Ancient Assyrian heritage there too, speak of a lack of understanding of the complexity of both the historical and modern situation of members of this group. — Gareth Hughes 17:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


May i ask why people want to add "Aramaen and Syriac" to the title? Dont Aramaens refer to themselves as Syriacs and vice versa? "Syriacs" is used in censuses (but not aramaen), so i suggest dropping "aramaen" title and keeping Syriac (as i dont think aramaen has been used anywere in the world apart from a few people who have started calling themselves that).

There is a very interesting article about the Syrian orthodox church and how it tried to destroy everything that related it to Assyrians (also read the census-2000 letter).

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/joseph/reply2.html 

Gms 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the only fair way to include the different groups into which the group is fractured is to have a composite title like "Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Syriacs", BUT WE are telling a lie to the world when we say Syriac and Chaldean is a ethnic group! We are misleading the reader right from the beginning. This is what I am trying to say over and over again. Are you going to challange that? And you speak as if the majority of the 1 million Chaldeans think that. Let me repeat this for the 20th time, this ideology is only seen here in Detroit, where individuals (Church officals of Detroit) spread proparganda materials like chalenders with pictures of Chaldea-Babylonia and thinks of that nature. How are you going to sit here and let someone tell the world that being Chaldean is a ethnicity and not a religion sect? Chaldean 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the definition of an ethnic group, Chaldean? You seem all very certain that some are ad some aren't, so better have a good definition. As I know that there is no clear definition, your argument here is revealed as paper thin. Different people call themselves different things, and have done throughout history (remember I can read Syriac): different labels are used by different people in different places to mean different things. Please acknowledge me as someone who reads the language and has firsthand knowledge of the situation in Turkey, Syria, Europe and North America. — Gareth Hughes 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the definition of an ethnic group? A group of people that are recognized by the international world with a certain name. Show me one country that recognizes the 'Chaldean ethnicity'? In the U.S. census, it has always been only Assyrian, but after the Chaldean Church's effort in Detroit in the 90s, that changed to Assryian/Chaldean/Syriac. Different people call themselves different things BUT you and Benne make is sound like the majority of Chaldeans don't see themselves as Assyrian. And I am here to tell you this is false. Chaldean 16:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's your measuring stick there are officially Chaldo-Assyrians in Iraq: a name that explicitly includes Chaldeans and Assyrians. Your gripe against the validity of the Chaldean label is looking quite pesonal. — Gareth Hughes 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


and to avoid letting any one of these designations dominate the page (this 90% stuff is polemical This is insane. In that case then I would like to see separation of the pages again. Chaldeans and Assyrians in one page. If your not going to respect us for what and who we are and will refuse to deal with reality and the current situation, then it only makes sense to separate these people who are confused and dont know if they are 'aramaean' or syriac or whatever. You still have left there Arameans page alone and still have 'modern arameans' paragraph. So please, remove this nonsense of arameans from the Assyrian page. Chaldean 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what your problem is. There is a large number of mostly West Syriacs in the European diaspora who identify as Aramaeans, and often include Maronites. Unless you come to Europe and meet them, or read their websites, you will never understand about them, and why they choose to identify differently. — Gareth Hughes 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

there is a large number of mostly West Syriacs in the European diaspora who identify as Aramaeans And you want to give equal status to these 'large number of aramaeans' to the million of Assyrians? What does Europe have to do with this? Does the Indian ethnicity page talk about the Indians of Britian or India? Our population is from Iraq-Iran-Turkey-Syria <-- we need to focus on that, not Europe's small Syriac population.

The only solution for me now is Have a Assyrian people page, with Chaldeans in it. 'Aramaeans' have there own page already as it is. And Syriacs can be something like the Assyrian page where it states Syriacs may refer to

Chaldean 16:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to give equall status to the different groups, just like the group in North America that identifies primarily as Assyrian. The choice of a group to be called Aramaean is as valid as another being called Assyrian, both can claim a link with historical people groups. Many do identify by their church designation — Chaldaean, Assyrian, Syriac — many, especially young people in the diaspora, have adopted a ethno-political identity that may be different — Aramaean, Chaldaean, Assyrian, Syriac. This is how it is. — Gareth Hughes 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

People are starting to think Wikipedia is a joke

I saw this: [2] I found one strange statement at wikipedia/germany which says, the chaldean are arammeans, hääääääääääääää? Benne that extremist thinks he can fool the whole world. I wish I knew German so that I could see what you are writing just for laughter. You obviously think anyone that speaks aramiac is Aramaen, and what you have done with other wikipedia languanges and what you wrote in the [Aramean]'s modern page proved this. We need to get the facts straight and try to get the world's trust in wikipedia again. This is why, this Aramaean nonsense needs to be removed from this page immeditly. To top the confusion, we got our buddy Garth thinking the term Assyrian just popped out of nowhere only 200 years ago. Chaldean 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Times Like This...

I think of converting to Judaism. At least they have Israel and can agree to what race they are. --King Legit 18:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC) "Chaldeans" and "Syriacs" that don't want to be considered Assyrians, that's fine. Go ahead and Arabize, who cares? Just don't come ranting on this site. You don't represent the majority. And in Democracy majority rules. This isn't the Ba'ath Party Tariq.King Legit

Dont loose faith khona. Kha yawma we will unite in a new name, could be Nahrinaye ;).

So What kind of a page is this?

Is this not an ethnicity page anymore? Rather then a religious or a language one? If so, then why have you not included Maronites and Melkites in the first sentence of the page? Chaldean 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is all about identity. While there is obviously more to this identity than religion and language, these are the two major planks of the identity. For example, the Mhalmoye are only barely considered to be Suriani because there is evidence that their ancestors were Syriac-speaking Christians. It is true that some Maronites and Melkites do identify themselves as Aramaeans or Syriacs, but by no means all of them. Both groups have had quite different cultural heritages. — Gareth Hughes 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

UTC. Ethnicity is about ancestry, history, religion, culture, Language, homeland and many other aspects. for example one can not equate Assyrians with Arameans. The Assyrian homeland has been in northern Mesopotamia and that of Arameans is in Syria. Most of the Arameans in Syria now have been Arabized. To mix them with Assyrians is like mixing up Arabs with Kurds. The Neo Arameans are primarily Assyrian members of the Syrian Orthodox church who have been calling themselves Arameans since their Patriarch Aphrem Barsoum decided to segregate them from the Assyrians of the Church of the East. Later they have called themselves syriac so that they will not be confused with the citizens of Syria. The homeland of the Assyrians, has been in northern Mesopotamia before and after Christianity, Their language is not entirely Aramaic it has thousands of Akkadian words in it. They have not identified themselves As Arameans. Chaldeans are a religious denomination of Assyrians but its clergies because of religious prejudices prefer to call their people Chaldeans.

"Aramaeans or Syriacs, but by no means all of them" then what makes you think for a second that people who call themselves "Aramaean" would like to be grouped with Assyrians, and the other way around? It makes sense by grouping these people under then name of Suraye, or Syriac....but to deny a million people of there ethnicity is something you have done wrong. Leave the Assyrian page alone and if you want to group all these syriac-speaking people, then thats fine, but dont delete the Assyrian ethnicity in the process. Do it under the "Syriacs" . Chaldean 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble keeping with the argument: please read it more carefully. I said that there are some Maronites and Melkites who choose to identify as Aramaean or Syriac, they do not choose to identify as Assyrian. And I said that because of this there is good reason that they are not included. Many West Syriacs choose to identify as Assyrian, andthey should not be separated from other West Syriacs who choose not to identify as Assyrian. I hope that is more clear. This is a complicated subject so please do read posts carefully before dismissing them. — Gareth Hughes 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not misread anything. I was pointing out how all these people under this group dont have a clear/cut outright decision on what they what to be called/with whom they want to be grouped. So by your previous statement I said that there are some Maronites and Melkites who choose to identify as Aramaean or Syriac, they do not choose to identify as Assyrian you are agreeing that people who identify as Aramaean, for tHe most part choose to be identified as Assyrian as well? (I certainly dont agree with this.) If not, then why are you grouping them with Assyrians in the beginning sentence? Chaldean 18:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to ask what I originally asked again; if Melkites and Meronites should not be grouped with this group, then why are "Aramaeans" grouped with Assyrians? How is the situation of "Aramaeans" and Meronites/Melkites different from each other, to a point they are not incuded in the grouping of the first sentence? Chaldean 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If and when there was ever to be an Assyrian state established, I would hope for it to be officially Panthiest (not secular, I don't believe it conflicts with any religion. It unites if anything.) with a balance of socialism and capitalism with classical SYRIAC (Romanized) as the offical language. user:King Legit

Or you gather all our churches into one church "The Church of Mesopotamia". The country should have finite democracy, a new system. But we're think too high right now, we dont even have an assyrian army since world war 1.--Yohanun 10:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

we never have had an army

Only troops connected with other current superpowers, even if they were called assyrian levites and so on.

Michael 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We had an army under the general Agha Petros. He won 14 big battles with his men. You see we were much smaller but we had the technique. He took Urmia back and 2 000 000 muslims left Urmia and their army on 600 000 men surrendered. Im not so well informed in this issue although my friend has a lot of knowledge in this issue.

isnt it strange

that this page claims to be objective, but still is mainly dominated by assyrian propoganda. And the view of the authours are mainly of those who are from the chaldean or nestorian(assyrian) rite.

If one only take a look at the numbers(population stat) one will se how misleading they are. and why do they not include maronites, melkites as part of the assyrian people.

if they like to put arameans and syriac in that article, why not maronites? Michael 08:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This page has hit rock buttom. It is sending so many mixed messages, its beyond crazy. I dont know what Garth had in mind originally, but it certainly couldn't be this signaling of mass-confusion. I mean, how is the reader not to be confused so easily? This page needs to be addressed to clearlfy everything, but Garth is being abit to subborn about it. He has still not answered by question, because there is no legit answer to it. Look, go and create a page about neo-aramiac speaking people, but why are you trying to erase a whole ethnicity in the process? Chaldean 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see Maronites included in this article, but some have claimed that Maronites don't view themselves as Assyrians. --3345345335534 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

but neither does nationalist chaldeans or syriacs or arameans, none of them considers themsleves as assyrian but still they are present in the article. I dont se any reason why we dont put maronites and melkites. Michael 08:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

to chaldean, the only subborn person here is actually you, dont you understand that arameans, syriacs, maronites,melkites,chaldeans also just like the assyrians trace themsleves to an ethnic group? why do you think that assyrian ideology is so special and different? that is actually the largest problem with assyrianims, most of them are facists and see assyrianims as superior. Michael 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Arameans,Chaldeans,Suryoye,Maronites = Assyrians, if you like it or not. That's what history and profesors tells us. Nobody called himself Aramaean in our country we all know that for sure. Chaldeans in the Middle-East know they're ethnic Assyrian catholics. The Chaldeans in the diaspora especially Detroit are now developing untrue propaganda as the Arameans in Sweden and Germany. Maronites are originaly Assyrians but many of them do not consider themselves as Assyrians anymore. Some of them view themselves as Arabs other as Assyrians. Michael you call us facists and superior. When the Assyrian partys want to gather with the Arameans and Suryoye why do the Arameans and Suryoye decline the offer? Why did all Aramean partys decline the offer to a dialog between all the partys in our people when Suroyo Tv invitied them? And the only Aramean party that showed up with one man showed their racist idelogi. He told them all that the Arameans do not see them and Assyrians as the same people even though they have the same language. How come assyrians are facists? We are a friendly people. Just give me some proof on that we are more facist then you are. If you mean we see our history superior then yes. We were great at that time. We had power and we were talented. The Arameans were a nomadic people who later got assimilated with Assyrians. You can ask every Assyriologist or professor if the term Assyrian is correct or if Aramean is. The answer will always be the Assyrian term. Arameans call or called the Assyrians barbaric and heathens until this day. Now why dont they take a look on their own made up history. They were nomads and also heathens. I dont know what they got against their own people but their digging their own grave. I'd also like to add that a lot of ex nationalist Arameans,Suryoye and Chaldeans have "converted" to Assyrianism. I think you also will if you just open your eyes and begin to read more correct history. But lets not look at the history, lets look at the future.--Yohanun 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

to chaldean, the only subborn person here is actually you, dont you understand that arameans, syriacs, maronites,melkites,chaldeans also just like the assyrians trace themsleves to an ethnic group - no, actually I have stated this over and over again (with the exception of Chaldeans of course.) We all know that the vast majority of Meronites and Melkites dont see themselves connected to the term Assyrian in any way. And we know that the people that call themselves "Arameans" and would not like to be assosicated with Assyrians either, primerly live in Germany and Sweden. Now, as for Syriacs - who are Syriacs? Are they different people from Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans? See this is the problem with this page, it confuses the reader right from the first sentence..he thinks there is also another group that call themselves Syriac only. ?? And of course as for Chaldeans..if you have not been to Iraq for the past 5 years, then please dont comment on them. These people are well aware of there connection to Assyrians.
I have constantly suggested to make a page like - Syriac speaking people, where everyone can be included, and at the same time, it would not try to kill the Assyrian ethnicity, by returning the Assyrian people the was it used to be. But garth seems to have made up his mind to change this page to "Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldean, and Syriacs" and is just waiting other users back him up on the idea. Chaldean 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I back Chaldean on this. Syriac speaking people would be more appropriate.--King Legit 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To my people, THE ASSYRIANS.

Do you wish to be Royals or subjects of the Royals? That's what Arameans were to the Assyrians, simple scribes and craftsmen. You prefer to be descended of Royalty or Artisans? You decide and when you let the world know and one day after the formation of an Assyrian state you may be once again loyal scribes to the ruling classes. Peasants will always be peasants. A cursed bloodline is cursed until the end of that bloodline. Chaldean is not an ethnicity, they were an Aramean tribe that fought against the Assyrians with the help of their sworn enemies, the MEDES. So you decide what you are. Are you an Assyrian or part of retched cursed bloodline doomed for all eternity. Remember the fall of Babylon lead to the end of rule for all Assyro-Babylonians thanks to the Chaldeans.

One cannot just "change" or "decide" what they believe is their ethnicity... --3345345335534 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--- To yohanun.. I dont understand why you feel that you must defend assyrian ideology with big words by smiting arameans by calling them only nomads and trying to undermine them. I dont see the point in doing that. We who have read/studied about the history of neareast know that history is mostly fabricated, atleast in a sence of the regular books you can find in the market. So it is hard to seperate fiction with truth. I see that in your case you have to high thoughts about the "assyrians", that is the old assyrians. I only know one assyrianist that claims that the assyrians from today are the same as the ancient ones. and that is parpola from helsinki. and he is not accepted anywhere. This is not because people think that suryoyo arent assyrians, but rather how one wishes to define ethnicity and cultural identity. Parpola views belongs with the assyrian nationalists, that is his views dont have any space in the academic world. I just would like to know why you assyrianists got stuck with this idea of a singel ethnicity from the ancient assyrians to today. Just take the fact that no assyrianist can describe their own history with the modern defined term of "assyrian" from circa 600BC to 1700AD this modern defined term can only be traced back from the early 1800AD. [NOTE: I dont mean that assyrian term wasnt used in any way, but rather not used as the term it is defined today]. And this is one of the biggest problems with NATIONALISM, due nationalism claims a special descendents but have a hard time to defend it self.

Anyhow All I want is that we dont get so egeer to slander eachother and try to overproof eachother, but rather get to an understanding that We dont think the same, and we must respect eachothers thoughts. And for those who now probably thinks that Im with the other wing [aramaeans] I can suprise you by saying that you are mistaken. Im with neither. Michael 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Syriacs

I suggest restoring the page called Syriacs, and let it deal with the common history and culture of the people calling themselves Sur(y)āye/Suryoye, also discussing the ethnicity debate, and have separate Arameans (modern), Assyrians (modern), Chaldeans (modern) pages, writing specifically about the people and organisations identifying themselves as such.

The name Syriacs could also be used in other articles where reference is made to the people as a whole, after specifying the various subgroups in terms of self-appellation, such as Syriacs (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) or Syriacs (Arameans, Assyrians). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Above you can read why I think Syriac-speaking people cannot be an adequate title. Not all Syriacs speak Syriac or a modern form of Aramaic. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your idea will lead to people think as if Syriac is an ethnicity..which is not. What do you mean not all Syriacs speak Syriac? If you dont speak Syriac, then obviously you should not be under the title of Syriac. After all, what do you think Syriac is? Its a language. With this, you can also incude Kurdish Jews who also speak this language. Chaldean 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Like I said, the ethnicity debate can be discussed by presenting all relevant views.
Syriacs (also called Syrians) means Sur(y)āye/Suryoye, do not confuse it with the Syriac language. For centuries, there have been Suryoye who do not speak their ancestral language any more, but still consider themselves Suryoye. Language cannot be a criterion. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Language cannot be a criterion." - But language (and the religion of course) is what connects all these people under the name Syriac. Would you not like to see a page to talk each name sect, history of the connection of all these groups in a seperate page? Or are you dying not to see a sole Assyrian page? Chaldean 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You should read more carefully. Let "Syriacs" deal with the people calling themselves Suryâye/Surâye/Suryoye, and have separate pages for modern Aramaeans, modern Assyrians, etc.
And no, language cannot be the sole criterion. Suryoye who no longer speak Suryoyo, but Turkish, Kurdish, or Arabic, still consider themselves to be Suryoye. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Look just have a separate page for Assyrian and Aramaen or whatever. Both pages should contain links to each other to explain "the other side" of the story when there are conflicting views. The readers can then make up their minds. Also, personally id prefer this page not be called "syriac people" as its about an ethnicity/nation and not language. I think it would be good idea to create a seperate wiki entry called "syriac speaking people" which links to Assyrians page, those who call themselves "Syriacs" page etc...This would avoid all this conflict in my oppinion. And as for Benne, judging by what he writes, he seems to have a personal issue with anything that has "Assyrian" in it. He seems to make it his business to look for any pages mentioning Assyrians and somehow include "aramaen" where ever possible (while at the same time trying very hard to undermine "Assyrian" name as much as possible). Create a seperate page for aramaen as i said above and problem solved. Gms

The only thing I object to is calling all Suryoye "Assyrians", since there are many of them who prefer to be called Suryoye/Syriacs and/or Aramaeans. And that's a fact I try to present here, but for some reason, some people here don't seem to like that. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


"since there are many of them who prefer to be called Suryoye/Syriacs and/or Aramaeans." You speak as if this is a big movement? People who call themselves Aramaeans are no more then a few thousands that now live in Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. You will not see the word Aram anywhere in the Middle East today.

Anyways, I am in the process of fixing this page. You have made it so propergandish, and to make it even worse, the mod things there is nothing wrong. Chaldean 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Look just have a separate page for Assyrian and Aramaen or whatever" There is a Aramaean page already. So I dont know what is the problem? Benne is trying to extend the name Aram to overshadow the Assyrian name and have the reader think that all these people are connected to the ancient Arameans some how? Chaldean 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just not true. I haven't said anything about a "big movement". And I haven't written that sentence about "Eastern Aramaeans" either. Check the page history before you judge me. You appear to have a tendency to read just what you want to read, and even worse so, to read what isn't even there! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Syriacs/Arameans cant just make up their own ethnicity. They cant change the fact that their originaly Assyrians. The name "Aramean" wasnt even used in our homeland, it was started as propaganda in Sweden and Germany. Syriac is my and many others church, not a ethnicity. As for Chaldean, its only a church that was founded in the 1550s when the Pope wanted to split us more. We cant let those without knowledge create their own ethnicity, we need to stick them under the name they belong in, Assyrian. As a result of opression and persecution we now have 2 ethnic groups and soon that will develope to 3 ethnic groups or maybe it already has. We the Syriac Assyrians were isolated from the Assyrians in Iran and Turkey thats one of the main reasons that this "accident" in our people have occured. --Yohanun 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And to michael..I dont know what your problem is but we Assyrians are the majority of our nation, or should i say of our 3 nations? We are accepted among other nations as Assyrians. If your Syriac,Aramean or Chaldean you will be recognised as an Assyrian in your ethnicity. You can make up your own identity but not your own ethnicity. Now I dont get it how you Arameans think you really could "win" this fight since your like only 1% and all of you are racists. You dont want to work with the kurds,turks,assyrians.chaldeans or turkomans! Now how will you develope if you dont corporate with other nations? The funniest thing is that the modern Aramean name is only 30 years old. --Yohanun 13:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The name "Aramean" wasnt even used in our homeland, it was started as propaganda in Sweden and Germany. - the same way how the Chaldean ethnicity was born in Detroit. If you go back in the homeland, you wont hear about the ethnicity of "Aram" or Chaldean. The few Christians that are left in Tur Abdin call themselves Soryoyo. Now since these people who call themselves Aramaean, dont want to be associated with Assyrians at all what so ever, then we have moved them from this page to Aramaean. Chaldean 14:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that all these names have been used throughout history to describe the same people, and different people use differing definitions of each of these names. For this reason, I believe that this article should be inclusive rather exclusive. What Yohanun says about Syriacs, Aramaeans and Chaldaeans being recognised as ethnic Assyrian is only partially correct. Many of them adamantly reject the name Assyrian. You may say that 'Aramaeanism' is political propaganda: well they say the same about 'Assyrianism'. The only difference is that Assyrianism is the more effective. — Gareth Hughes 16:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You have become so untruthful and unbaised about this topic. I want to request another mod to monitor this page, since you refuse to let history be. You may say that 'Aramaeanism' is political propaganda: well they say the same about 'Assyrianism'. The only difference is that Assyrianism is the more effective. NO, only Assyrian is what is used and what is backed wiht evidence througout history. Now you want to smir this with political proparganda from Germany and Sweden? Your deep religion has taken over your opinion about this subject. Shame. Chaldean 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

a Georgian equivalent of "Assyrians" appears in Georgian documents from the 18th century, designating Eastern Aramaeans. How is this not proparganda? Wikipedia has become this place where the goal is to capture the flag with help of a mode and have your views be put up front. You Garzo and Benne are running a proparganda page and no one else has backed you up for months now..dont you see something wrong with that? Chaldean 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Chaldean, by 'untruthful' you are saying I am liar, which is just plain offensive — but I do thank you for calling me 'unbiased': such an unexpected compliment! I am getting fed up with constant ranting: you seem to know so little about the historical and present evidence. Issues about ethnicity are not so black and white (excuse the pun): Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Syriacs have a great shared heritage which has become split due to various factors. Not one of these names is acceptable to the entire group, as each has been adopted by a different group within what is a larger heritage. Again you accuse other users: we are unable to procede in this climate. Read Wikipedia:no personal attacks. The policy is there because we have to learn to work together on Wikipedia, and personal accusations disable this. The unfortunate result of continued accusations will be the limitation of editing privileges. — Gareth Hughes 17:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How can we work together when you refuse people to edit things correctly unless it is corrispondant with your view? Chaldean 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Khona Chaldean, Garzo must be respected. Hes a priest and hes a wise man. Not many in the west wants to take an active interest in our people. I belive Garzo (with others) is the right man for this article although he should stick more to the ethnicity than religion and language. Its true that the religion and language is a big part of our ethnicity but we have other articles for that. As for our ethnicity question I think we should all recognise Arameans,Chaldeans,Syriacs and Assyrians as ethnic Assyrians although we should make clear how every group think. I see we get nowhere by just talking, I think we all should make our opinions clear now and try together to make this article as we want it, and of course that is neutral. Kha umta, kha leshana, kha atra. --Yohanun 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Words are powerful things, and, even though it might make things a lot easier if everyone agreed they were ethnic Assyrians, the problem is not everyone agrees with being called Assyrian. When we had different articles for each group it was even more confusing: each article represented its part of the picture. That's why I would like to see one article here that does justice for everyone, whether they call themselves Assyrian or not. The unity (kha umta...) that Yohanun seeks is desirable, but, unfortunately, the reality is that such unity does not exist. We have to document the reality rather than force some kind unity that does not (yet) exist. That there are thousands of people who ethnically similar to other Assyrians, but who refuse to call themselves such, is offensive to the idea of the one Assyrian nation, but is the unfortunate reality. The difficulty is that, unless you can speak the language and are willing to talk to people of different church traditions in different places in the Middle East and the diaspora, you can only see part of the diversity that kha umta has to bring together. — Gareth Hughes 17:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Garth, I will go with you sentence by sentence. Justify this: a Georgian equivalent of "Assyrians" appears in Georgian documents from the 18th century, designating Eastern Aramaeans. Where did you get Eastern Aramaeans from? Chaldean 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And of course, you didn't answer me. Because you can't answer me. This is just an example of the mass proparganda this page has and you refuse people to correct it. Chaldean 19:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Chaldean, you are simply being argumentative. If you took time to read through the history of the article you would know that I did not write that sentence. You are very quick to accuse others of all sorts of things, but you have not contributed anything constructive yourself. If you read the article you would see that the statement about Georgian is substantiated in Macuch's Geschichte der spät- und neusyrischen Literatur (History of late- and neo-Syriac literature). I don't have that book that so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable. I do have a statement in Heinrich's Studies in Neo-Aramaic about the Armenian word Asori and its role in the development of the modern use of the term Assyrian. This is not 'mass propaganda', I am quoting from academic books on the subject: from what are you quoting, Chaldean? Now I have answered your whining once again. I want you to produce a sentence by sentence list of what you find to be unacceptable in the article and give your reasons for them. If there are any that we agree on, we can change or delete them. I don't expect you to be able to this, because the evidence so far is that you are unable to give reasoned evidence for any of your complaints. Yes, I am being harsh on you, because I want you to start proving that you know what you're talking about. — Gareth Hughes 12:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Garth, you take a trip to Turkey and now you think you know about the whole subject. How about you visit where 90% of the population is at? (Iraq.) You let a guy like Benne state things that are cited with properganda Aram websites, but you refuse me of adding facts that I cite with credible and historical evidence. Benne, a guy that goes to other wiki languages and trys to promote his aram movement by posting Assyrians and Chaldeans are Arameans ethnically. You might have a moderate amount of knowledge but your baised opinion is very clear. You want to go sentence by sentence? Fine.

a Georgian equivalent of "Assyrians" appears in Georgian documents from the 18th century, designating Eastern Aramaeans.

The late Georgian author Konstantin Tsereteli writes nothing about "Eastern Arameans". He is quoted as saying "Assyrians who live in the Soviet Union call themselves and their mother tongue Assyrian, an appellation which occurs in the 18th century Georgian documents." Tseretely further writes; "In correspondences between the Georgian King Irakli II and Mar Shimoun in the years 1769 and 1770 Mar Shimoun refers to himself as the "Assyrian Catholicos" and the King identifies Mar Shimoun's people as "Assyrians." unbaised source, something benne is impossible of doing. I have quoted these documented letters in the page of Assyrians in Georgia. These Georgian documents that have the King and responding letters, only talk about the Assyrians and nothing of Arameans. The important event of this time should be noted instead of blank marks like "a equivalent of Assyrian" ?

Now, you start the paragraph by saying "During the first century AD, Aramaic was spoken throughout much of the Middle East by Christians," Are you trying to foll the reader that there was nothing spoken of the Assyrian empire after it fell? So you start the paragraph in the first century? After the statement, you talk about all this hopla of the language and the religion and this and that, but you DONT mention during the first century there was a Roman province called Assyria.

Lets take a step back, before 1st century. Isn't the paragraph suppose to start off by the fall of the Assyrian empire? By not doing so, you basically claim that this group of people's identity began in the first century when Christianity arrived? Ok, so why dont you mention there was still historical reference to the Assyrians even after the fall of the empire and before arrival of Christianity to the people in 1st century AD? So tell me Garth, why dont you mention refrence to the Assyrians even 70 years after the fall of the empire made by Babylonian king Nabonidus. Why don't you mention some 200 years after the fall of the empire, there still was refrence to the Assyrians by 5th century BC Greek historian Herodotus, where he states the Assyrian being part of the Persian empire's army of King Xerxes I, during the Greek-Persian conflict? (H.L. Jones Translation of "Geography of Strabo", New York 1916, Vol. VIII p.195 - I don't have that book, so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable.) Your whole Idenity paragraph talks about the language. I am looking at the pages of Greeks, Italians, Germans, Russians...why don't I see the same on these pages? As in only talk about the language? Why do you not mention about how Chrisitan of that time like Justinus and Tatian constantly mentioned the Assyrians? (Lucian, Translated by A.M. Harmon, Vol. IV, "The godesse of Surrye", London 1925 p.339 and Marcus Junianus Justinus Epitome of the Philippic, "History of Pompeius Trogus", translated by Rev. John Selby Watson. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853 - I don't have that book, so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable.)

More importantly, why dont you mention the Assyrians under Persian rule from the years of 200s to 600s AD? Why don't you mention Persian rulers likes Darius always mentioned a province of Asuristan as being part of there empire? (Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969 - I don't have that book, so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable.) Persians also mentioned Assyrians in their religious book of 'Zand-i Vohuman Yasht' in the Pahlavi language.

You let benne write about the Syrian Orthodox Church rigins are of Aram, but why dont you mention one its own Patriach, Michael the great in the 13th cnetury wrote "even if their name is "Syrian", but they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honorable kings." (History of Mikhael The Great" Chabot Edition (French) P: 750) as quoted by Addai Scher, Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie" - I don't have that book, so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable.)

So tell me Garth, why dont you mention of Vatican (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Chaldean Rite ", 1967, Vol. III, pp.427-428 - I don't have that book, so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable.) documents of 16th century mentioning an area of Atour during the naming of Catholics?? Why dont you mentioned at that same time, the Roman documents mentioned an Assyrian nation. (Xavier Koodapuzha, "Faith and Communion in the Indian Church of Saint Thomas Christians, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, Kerala, India, p.59 - I don't have that book, so I cannot verify the statement, but it is verifiable.)


In the end, I guess I dont know if you are baised or just too passionate about the language.

But fine, lets side step that. Tell me Garth, how do you let a guy like Benne, who I have showed you in other pages what he has done, proving him being a propargandish person trying to put forward this Aram movement? How do you let him state things from http://www.aramnaharaim.org/ like "Throughout the history of the Syriac Christians, there have been references to their Aramaean heritage in Syriac literature, both in the West Syrian and in the East Syrian traditions" Show me how Aram has been mentioned in the past 2000 years like the way I have showed how Assyrians have been mentioned for the past 2000 years.

"More recently, in reaction to Syriac Christians calling themselves "Assyrians", there has been an awakening of the self-appellation "Aramaean", especially among Syriacs in the diaspora, but to a growing extent also in Turkey, and among some Maronites in Lebanon. In Germany, for instance, the name Aramäer has come into use quite extensively to refer to Syriacs primarily from the West Syrian tradition. "

Who are Syriac Christians? If I knew nothing about this subject, from what I just read, I would thought that Assyrians of Church of the East and Chaldeans have all of the sudden are throwing themselves in the "Aram" identity. Why dont you let me indicite how small of a population out of the whole Syriac-speaking population these people are? "But a growing extend also in Turkey" ???? I went to Turkey this past year, how come I didnt find the Aram movement there? "Some Maronites" - Where?! Where are you getting this from? And how do you not question these obserd statements? Chaldean 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is better from you. However, you seem to want to represent me as someone who wants to hide the use of Assyrian. I do not, I simply want it to be used correctly. Throughout history the name Assyrian has been applied to the people of the Mosul region, but the documentary evidence is that this is a geographical designation rather than an ethnic one. Of course, Semitic languages do not readily distinguish an adjective that designates a person of the Assur region from one for a descendant of the ancient Assyrian people. So I've mentioned the historical geographic designation, and it is significant in that the terms Assyrian Arab and Assyrian Muslim also occur. Throughout history, other designations have also been used with meanings that have changed over time. It is interesting to note that Ottoman legislation rarely uses the term Assyrian, but Süriani Kadim for Syriac Orthodox, and a name derived from Nestorian for members of the Church of the East. Today, many Syriac Orthodox in Sweden and Germany, who originally come from the Tur `Abdin and al-Jazira regions, call themselves Assyrian, as do members of the Church of the East throughout the world, and Chaldaeans, especially those in the USA. Most Syriac Orthodox do not call themselves Assyrian, but simply Syriac, and many of them wish to distance themselves from the politcal aspects of Assyrianism. A large number of Chaldaeans outside of the US do not call themselves Assyrian either, but Chaldaean. This is one reason why the term Assyro-Chaldaean is being used in Iraq (the Chaldaean majority there do not wish to be subsumed into a larger Assyrian group), and this is not a new term, but has a recorded history. Added to this are a small number of Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics and Maronites in Western Europe who choose to call themselves Aramaean. Yes, this designation is politically motivated, but they see Assyrianism as equally so motivated. Rather than dismissing them, you should read the Aramaean 'propoganda' websites to see who these people are. The validity of the choice of some people to call themselves Assyrian cannot make invalid the choice of others to use equally valid designations, whether they be Chaldaean, Syriac or Aramaean. The West Syriac term Oromoyo was a mediaeval coinage, replacing the older Armoyo, which had come to mean 'heathen'. The new word is not recorded as used in any East-Syriac literature. Therefore, the sense of being 'Aramaean' is not a new thing: it came to be used by West Syriacs to refer to Aramaic-speaking people without regard to religion.
I do not deny that historians have mentioned the Assyrians throughout the ages (I do have some of the Latin and Greek texts that you mention and can verify them), but they also mention Aramaeans and Syriacs. The interesting thing is that there seems to be a geographical distinction. Assyrian is used to refer to the people of upper Mesopotamia, whereas Syriac and Aramaean (the former prefered in Greek and by most Syriac writers) often refers to people further west, and later Chaldaean refers to central Mesopotamia. You mention a whole host of other evidence supporting the use of Assyria through history, and you are completely correct. However, you miss the point: that has not been the only designation of what I believe to be essentially the same people. It is interesting to read the remarks of the Swedish Assyrian Gabriel Afram, someone I do not wholly agree with:

Have you ever thought of using a language term other than Assyrian for your dictionary?

- Drawing a distinction between Assyrian and the Aramaic language:

"I have never thought about using another term, although I am very conscious about the name conflict among our people. This term has come from my strong conviction. I know that our language is called Syriac at universities and other institutions in the Western world. What I want to say is that if we can call our language Syriac then we can also call it Assyrian, because it is known in the world that the term Syriac is developed from Assyrian. If it is wrong to call the language Assyrian, then it is also wrong to call it Syriac." — Zinda Magazine

He mentions he conflict about names, which must be part of this article, and is something you appea to want to whitewash behind Assyrianism. He puts the terms Syriac and Assyrian on an equal footing, saying that Western academia prefers the former, and he passionately prefers the latter. When I write about Syriac Christians, I am consciously using words to describe the heritage of the Syriac language (which, although some call it Assyrian, is the accepted academic name) and the Christian faith — I do so to avoid some of this 'name conflict'. We will get nowhere unless we all admit that there is a conflict over names, and I believe the best way forward is to allow all the mainstream naming options, rather than limit us to the people who sout the loudest. — Gareth Hughes 19:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


However, you seem to want to represent me as someone who wants to hide the use of Assyrian. However, you miss the point: that has not been the only designation of what I believe to be essentially the same people.

Garth, you missed the point. The point is the Assyrians consider themselves inheriters of the ancient Assyrian civiliazation. And thus, you as the writer have to defend/represent there claim to the reader...not dimonish it. Look at the page Greeks and look at how they create a base for the article right from the beginning..Despite frequent colonisations, Greeks have lived in Greece and Cyprus for over 3500 years. - Why can't the Assyrians make a statement as such? Your telling me there aren't historians out there who dont think the Greeks of today are not the Greeks of thousands of years ago? Garth, I look at the Identity of the Greek people - and the whole section is not just about the Greek language.

Throughout history the name Assyrian has been applied to the people of the Mosul region, but the documentary evidence is that this is a geographical designation rather than an ethnic one. - Garth, during 2AD and onwards, when the Greeks used to talk about Persians/persia, did they talked about the area/group or the people? Look what I'm trying to get at is, since 1 AD, the Assyrian people subject has nothing to be interested about for historian, thus you dont see more coverage on the subject. If the 'people of the region in Mosul' did something spectacular within the past 2,000 years like the Persians, then they would be remembred as a group of people as well. But since Assyrians never expanding or done anything within there Mosul region, they have always been talked about as a the name of the place - Assyria/Asuristan. And by the way, when Persians had rule over the 'people of the region in Mosul' did they or did they not call the area the land of the Assyrians?

and it is significant in that the terms Assyrian Arab and Assyrian Muslim also occur. They occured in the beginning after the arab invasion, but they all blended eventually with the rest of the arab ethnicity by blood..so they are not significant for anything. We only talk about what survived today. When we talk about the Greek people, we don't mention possible things like Noristani people, do we? No, we talk about wha has survived.

It is interesting to note that Ottoman legislation rarely uses the term Assyrian, but Süriani Kadim for Syriac Orthodox, and a name derived from Nestorian for members of the Church of the East.

You have to also remember that these two groups at the time where totally separated geographically too. This is an important note.

Today, many Syriac Orthodox in Sweden and Germany, who originally come from the Tur `Abdin and al-Jazira regions, call themselves Assyrian, as do members of the Church of the East throughout the world, and Chaldaeans, especially those in the USA.

And I understand this, but however the Chaldean and the Syriac Orthodox are two totally different situation. One we know 100% for sure were originally part of the Assyrians - thus thats why I strongly disagree with having Chaldeans on the title section. Chaldeans are a religion group, not an ethnic one.

This is one reason why the term Assyro-Chaldaean is being used in Iraq (the Chaldaean majority there do not wish to be subsumed into a larger Assyrian group), And they do not wish to be separated from the Assyrian identity either, thus agreeing to KhalduAshuri. The name was signed by the Chaldean patriach, understanding very well we are one people.

Most Syriac Orthodox do not call themselves Assyrian, but simply Syriac, and many of them wish to distance themselves from the politcal aspects of Assyrianism. I know this, but you have to understand not all Syriac Orthodox people want complete separation from the Assyrians. Thats is why I kept on telling you must visit Iraq (where as many as 80,000 Syriac Orthodox leave) to get the whole picture.

Garth, I wanted to go even more and respond to every sentence of yours but I'm getting tired. I will leave it with this; the point I am trying to make is you have to respect what the modern Assyrians are saying - ie being a 3,000+ year civilization. You can't deminish it, just because there isn't more coverage on the subject. Indeed you are deminish it, when you start the identity page at 1 AD. I strongly urge you to look at other ethnic pages and redue the identity section. Chaldean 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Chaldean, I like the way your thinking. Dont put too much time on this though. --Yohanun 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is Superficial.

Anyone can be Assyrian. Learn the language and adapt the Church of the East as your religion. Learn about the Assyrian culture and you ARE AN ASSYRIAN. user: King Legit

Benne

Just stop. You're not helping.

Kha B'Nissan (Akitu)

Happy Assyrian New Year! It's 6756.

Relevant Russian source

(will translate later, have no time now) Это просто цирк. С тех пор, как прибежали халдейцы и сцепились с ассирийцами, стало по-настоящему весело. Надеюсь, ситуация будет обостряться, кретины потребуют арбитраж против дебилов или наоборот. Очень прошу вменяемых людей не вмешиваться, пусть доведут все до абсурда.

This page is about ASSYRIAN PEOPLE.

(rm offensive remarks)

Christianity is just one aspect of Being Assyrian.

"Assyrian" goes back long before Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. "Assyrian" predates Aramaic as well. So as important as the Aramaic speaking Christian aspect of Assyrians maybe it is not all encompassing.

Greek as a related ethnic group is a bit of a stretch

No linguistic ties and no genetic evidence I've heard of. You'd be better of saying that they are related to the peoples they live amongst such as Arabs. Tombseye 04:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(rm offensive remarks)

[No Title]

Dear webmaster, This site seems to have been hijacked by a misinformation artist who has posted nonesense on it. What kind of credibility wikipedia could have if people can post totally false information and will be allowed to remain there?

If this is a page about Arameans please change its name and remove any references to the Assyrians because Assyrians have nothing to do with the Arameans. If this is a page about the Assyrians then all the information about the Arameans should be removed. As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history knows Assyrians are not Arameans and Arameans are not Assyrians. Attempts to confuse the readers does a disservice to the reputation of this site. How can anything written here be trusted if it will change on daily baises contradicting what was there before and no one is there to remove the misinformation? For information about Assyrians visit: Assyrians past and present —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.154.59 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 April 2006.

Why is wikipedia imposing the name Aramean on Assyrians when they have never called themselves as such. If this site is about Assyrians it should reflect the facts about them and not define them as something that they are not? Why documented historical facts which contradicting what is written here being deleted but opinions of this or that contemporary writer are treated as the gospel truth ? True history is based on facts nearest to the even and not opinions expressed thousands of years later by misinformed writers. If Herodotus, Strabo, and thousands of other references including in the Syriac language before and after Christianity identify Assyrians as Assyrians why should they be doubted? Why is wikipedia calling us Aramaic speaking people when we call ourselves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.154.59 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 April 2006.

Possible solution, please reply with your thoughts

First thing is first: Be fair by reading my entire post and then reply

I don't think it's fair to impose a name on people and expect them to just "take it". If there are people here who identify with the Aramaen identity, let them make their own Aramean page, same for Chaldeans, and Syriacs. We can sit here and argue all day but I don't think its fair to impose identities on other people.

If you all want to go on the ill-advised route of including all possible synonyms (e.g. Melkite, Maronite, Yezidi, etc. etc.), this article will turn into a circus.

The quality of this page about Assyrians is degrading day by day. Look at how nice the page about Arabs and Kurds are: no identity crisis there! Let's work on turning this joke of an article into a respectable page on the modern Assyrian identity and create other appropriate articles to deal with the challenges facing Assyrians in the present.

My suggestions:

make this an article about Assyrians only.
Research our pre-Christian identity (a topic area which is clearly lacking).
See how these divisions arose.
allow free development of the other "synonyms" as the users see fit.
I'm sure Wikipedia visitors would be genuinly interested in people who consider themselves ethnically Arameans, Chaldeans, or Syriacs.
Make a separate article about this identity crisis some Assyrians seem to have and we can analyze that issue there.

Sorry to introduce Social Darwinism to the debate but I think it's time we allow allow natural selection to work its wonders and allow the stronger identity to persist and the weaker identities to whither away and assimilate. Good luck.

Sincerely yours, Ashour 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Ashour, I will be very suprised if the person in charge of the page replies to you. He has taken a stance and he has made his final decision. He is just waiting for more support for his idea (ie unity amongs Syriac-speaking people under the "Christian umbrella") I have repeatdly told him that this is not the page to do it, as this page is about ONE ethnic group. I have tried to reason and compremise and offered a page where we can talk about the similarities (or basically what he wants, a page that showes all Syraic speaking Christians being under one umbrella) in the Neo Aramaic speaking people. Is Greek people anti-Greek? Is Italian people anti-Italian? Is Russian people anti-Russian? This is the only ethnic page that basically embrasses its own self. Here is the problem; he refuses the Assyrians to trace there roots back to the Empire days. Tell me Garth, how have the Greeks proven to the world that they are inheriters of ancient Greece? What about the Armenians? We know that they (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians) live where the ancient people used to live respectively. We know that they (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians) speak the same language as that of the ancient people respectively. So then if we are going to refuse Assyrians rights to claim there ancestry, then why do we "ok" Greeks and Armenians? What do they have that we dont? For God's sake, wikipedia allows Slavic people to call themselves "Macedonian" and we have Garth declining the Assyrian heritage. Then tell me Garth, what are we? Are we Arabs? Turkish? Iranian? Or gypsies? Chaldean 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


When I have time left I will work so that the article will be better and show the connection between us and our ancient Assyrians. If they wont allow me to do that I will do what they are doing here on other ethnic articles.--Yohanun 18:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect/rename mess

Please go slowly, discuss your intended changes first, avoid circular redirects and never ever move article content by cut and paste.

I've reverted most the moves, cut-n-paste-moves and changes by User:Domthedude001 to re-establish a structurally sane version, despite concerns voiced by different users.

The discussion about the desired future state of this net of articles should preferably done at one place, either here, or at a project page (like Syriacs/miniproject).

Pjacobi 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I've undone the renaming as well. Despite voting being evil in Wikipedia, this may have to be resolved by a WP:RM vote. --Pjacobi 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me summarize what I see as the rationale behind the current naming:
  • The adjectives are disambigs: Chaldean, Assyrian
  • Then we have the historical Chaldea, Assyria
  • The plurals are redirects to the article on the contemporary ethnic/cultural/religous group: Chaldeans, Assyrians
  • The current lemma for this article is Assyrian people, but this is heavily disputed
  • Not only the leamm disputed, but also everything else: The head count, the continuity to the ancient peoples, the homo- or heterogenity and just everything you name.
The only thing I can follow from this mess, is the need for a coherent and widely acceptable plan before starting to rename and move.
Pjacobi 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The person in charge of the page will refuse to listen to any other solution, but his own. So its pointless to talk about it. Chaldean 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about User:Benne? —Khoikhoi 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


No, I was impying Garth. Chaldean 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think you should start reading more carefully, Chaldean: his name is Gareth. And besides, there is no one in charge of any Wikipedia page. He is just an administrator who knows quite a bit about the Suryāye.
My preference would be to use Syriac Christianity, which is defined as "a culturally and linguistically distinctive community within Eastern Christianity", and that's exactly what we're talking about here. But if we cannot agree on that, perhaps we can rename the page Suryāye (since Syrians is ambigious, and Syriacs disputed), and move all the stuff specifically related to the (modern) Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Chaldeans to separate pages. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Best Plan

Here is a plan:
  • Chaldeans Redirects to Chaldean
  • Chaldean has the {{Syriac Christianity}} box at the bottum of the page.
  • Assyrian people changes to Assyrians and it only bolds Assyrians (it may talk about Syriacs and Chaldeans later in the article)
  • Syriac gets their page back.. they should have their own article.
I'm sure this plan will be accepted by 99% of the people. Pjacobi is probably that 1% that will not like it. It will make sense to do it this way. However, Pjacobi sure doesn't like it this way.
I also tried to merge all of them into one article, but that sure didnt work, so now I'm trying this new way above and Pjacobi isn't quite making it work. It should be one way or the other: 1. All four articles be merged into one. 2. There should be four seperate articles. Pjacobi seems he wants it like this: 3. Some will get articles and some wont and they will look like they aren't even relevent to eachother. Well, Right now I want to try 2 because 1 didn't work and 3 is not acceptible. The end.

--Domthedude001 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rather agnostic which solution is employed, as I don't know much about the topic. I'm only enforcing policy regarding the process and technical issues. --Pjacobi 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The following text was added in the middle of the Wikipedia:NPOV Dispute article by a user with the IP 67.136.138.156 a few minutes ago. I haven't even read it, other than to skim enough to see that it seems to belong here. Cheers! --ByeByeBaby 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the wikipedia article about the identity of the Assyrians is that it is mostly based on opinion of its writer or his interpretation of the evidence rather than on ancient documented facts which prove him wrong. His intentions seems to prove that Contemporary Assyrians are probably Arameans who called themselves Assyrians after becoming christians:

Here is his exact quote; "Relatively early on in the development of the Aramaic-speaking church, the name Arm?y? was abandoned in favor of the Aramaicised Greek name, Sury?y? (???????). Therefore, originally, the Sury?y? are Christian Arm?y?. Because of this distinction, the word Arm?y? came to designate a pagan, even being applied to a person who did not speak Aramaic."

This is an illogical argument because Assyrians were pagan also and were vilified in the Old Testament for that very reason while the Arameans were exulted by the Jewish prophets' My father was a wondering Aramean". Even those who were known as Syrians, Suraya were Pagans before becoming Christians. While Assyrians have called themselves Suraye they have not identifies themselvs as Aramaya while Christians of Syria have done so.

The wikipedia writer seem deteremnt to prove that Assyrians became extinct and were replaced by the Arameans without exactly saying it.

What evidence does he have to imply this, aside from his own opinion or that of some other misguided contemporary writer? He seems to be either ignorant of the existence of the Persian inscriptions by Darius (512-48), Xerexes, ARTAXERXES II (c. 436 - 358 BC) who mention Assyrians as existing people whom they ruled. They more than any other nation would have known the facts about the people of their empire or conveniently choses to ignore such facts . The recent archaeological discoveries also attest to the survival of the Assyrians.

The fact that inhabitants of Mesopotamia were known as Assyrians by the Persians is evident in their religious book of 'Zand-i Vohuman Yasht' in the Pahlavi language. In one section it accuses the Greeks (Yunan) who ruled in Asuristan (330-145 B.C.) were slaying the [Asori] Assyrian people and destroying their abode. [3] It was these same people who were called Surius (Syrian) short for Asurius (Assyrians) by the Greeks six century before Christianity as it is attested to by Herodotus, Strabo, Justinus and other Greek and Roman Historians.

The fact that inhabitants of Mesopotamia spoke the Aramaic language does not mean they were Arameans because it was spoken by other none Aramean nations such as the Jews, the Arabs (Nabattians), the Egyptian Christians and later by the christian of India. In fact it was the ancient Assryians who elevated the Aramaic language to an international level. If nationality of a people is determent soley by the language they speak then one has to conclude that the entire population of Southern America descended from the Spaniards or portuguese and there are no nationalities such as Spaniards, French, or Itallian since they speak Latin based languages.

There is plenty wrong with the Article about the Assyrians on wikidepia which will take a long time to explain. Its most outrageous fault is that it tries hard to define Christian Assyrians as Arameans which is contrary to all known facts.

well these populations do speak an Aramean dialect, at least for those who were not Arabized during the XXth century, and this supports the author claims. --70.52.24.89 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

UTC; You are undoubtedly a student of the Aramaic language and reader of John Joseph's repudiated books, therein lies your prejudice and determination to undermine the Assyrian name. If you want to Judge people only by the language they speak and reject all other aspect of their identity which separates them from other nations then you have to tell the French, English, Spaniard and other nations of Europe to cease calling themselves by their national names and let the world know that they are nothing more than Romans. The South American nations should consider themselves either Spaniard or Portuguese and stop claiming descendance from the Azetecs or other ancient civilizations of their land. You have to consider Persians; Indians or Europeans because they speak Indo-European based language, By the way the language they speak now is not the one the ancient Persians did. You have to call the Egyptian Christians, Aramean, The Jews should consider themselves Arameans, You have to tell the Armenians to stop considering themselves as such, because in their langauge they call themselves Hyeren. The Arabs should consider themselves Arameans because at one time some of their tribes had learned to speak Aramaic and so fort. But they will all laugh and consider this preposterous. It is unreasonable to judge the nationality of a people entirely by the language they speak. Why judge Assyrians by a different standard. You my friend are not interested in history or facts but to impose your own prejudice on others. wm

Shkeera shima d'Alaha!

I agree 100% with the above statement. User:Sargonious

The Assyrians

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


Ashur (Assyria) the motherland extends from the Tigris to the Khaboor Rivers till it reaches the Euphrates. It has been inhabited since ages unknown, estimated by archaeologists to be over a million years ago. There have been discoveries of many agricultural villages in this area such as Shamshara near Rania, the village of Garmo east of Kirkuk, Tel Hassouna near Hamam al-Aleel, Tel Debaghiya west of al Hadar and Arbija in the Nineveh region. The village of Namreeki west of Dohuk (Nohadra), there are also many of these villages in the Turkish and Syrian lands, but the most important is the village of Tel Halaf at the sources of al Khaboor river which was named Gozana in Assyrian because walnut trees were plenty in it, where the Assyrians had settled some of the exiled from the Jewish kingdom of Israel [1], when Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.) headed to Samaria and drove away Israel because Samaria had stopped paying tribute to the Assyrians and had contacted Egypt’s pharaoh. The Assyrian King’s aim was to prevent the Egyptians from reaching the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea because that would have hindered the Assyrian trade with the western world.

Prior to this date the king of Judah in Jerusalem had pleaded with the Assyrian King Tiglath Pileser to save him from the king of Israel “so Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath Pileser King of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me”.[2] Tiglath Pileser III rushed to his aid destroying in the process Damascus and Samaria.

Most of the archaeological and historical sources assert the fact of the migration of some Assyrians from the area of Tel Sinjar towards central Iraq seeking fertile agricultural lands where they had settled south of Baghdad and established the first Semitic State-Empire in Akkad, thus they were named Akkadians as per the city of Akkad which has yet to be excavated.

In their motherland Nineveh and Ashur, two of their five capitals (Arbil, Nineveh, Kalakh, Dur Sharukeen) were inhabited since the stone-metal ages. In addition to the sacred Assyrian capital Arbilla (Arbil) which hasn’t been scientifically excavated nor it has been revealed to the world till now, this city was also inhabited since the stone age as per most of the Iraqi and western archaeologists.

The Assyrian Kings list mentions 30 names of kings who lived in the B.C. era (before writing appeared). The first quarter of the second millennium B.C. the famous great Assyrian King Shamshi Adad I (1814-1783) appeared, who after expanding the area of the motherland Ashur, he proceeded west of the Euphrates “ for the first time in the history of Mesopotamia’s Kings and reached Lebanon’s tree covered mountains and that sea which represented then the end of the world”.[3]

Shamshi Adad I wasn’t only a great, courageous warrior king but he was a skillful administrator, a wise politician and a just ruler that’s why he paid attention to the judiciary system and laws whereby a set of Assyrian laws were found and named the Shamshi Adad I laws, thus these laws as well as those of Ashnuna were the main sources for Hammurabi’s code of law.

Five centuries after the passing of Shamshi Adad I, the Assyrian King Tukulti-Ninurta I(1244-1208) dashed through the walls of Dur-Karikalzo(Aqer-qof) liberating the land of Babylon from the Kishian occupation, hence for the first time Babylon had entered under the direct Assyrian rule… “In the midst of that battle I captured the Kashian king Kashtliash, stepped on his royal seat and neck then brought him chained and naked before the god Ashur. I subdued under my power the lands of Sumer and Akkad to their furthest limits extending the borders of my land to the lower sea with the bright sun.”[4]

During the Sargonid Empire, with Sargon II (721-705 B.C.) the son of Shalmaneser V, Ashur was expanded and became a great power not only in the region but in the whole ancient world at the time. Its needs for trade routes increased hence guaranteeing the control over the economy throughout the eastern coast of the Mediterranean became one of the priorities for the Assyrian foreign policy. In order to do that it was decided in Nineveh that enemies should be struck in their own lands, thus huge military campaigns started towards Egypt through Sinai during the days of Sennacherib (Sargon’s son), Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal where the Assyrian army used to pass back and forth through the outskirts of Jerusalem receiving logistic support from the Jews there, until all of Egypt and Upper Egypt were subdued.

Between (612-606 B.C.) the Assyrian State’s capital Nineveh fell followed by the last capital Haran on the Baleekh River in today’s Syria leaving behind capitals, cities, palaces, temples, libraries, great irrigation projects and enchanting sculptures as well as an intellect, educated, successful people fond of culture and arts in an un equaled manner in the East at the time.

Here we mention the murals which the archaeological missions had excavated from Sargon II palace in Dur Sharukeen and which were relief style murals on Iraqi marble, they had found enough of them to cover a distance of a mile and a half when lined side by side.

The Assyrian State left behind a name list of 117 Assyrian Kings who ruled continuously “such a continuity becomes more obvious when compared with 11 Kings of Akkad, 5 Kings of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, and 11 Kings from the 1st Babylon dynasty (Hammurabi’s Babylon)” [5] Thus, because of this we can say that even though Nineveh had fallen, but “the shadow of the Assyrian Kingdom loomed over the North of Iraq …, for it doesn’t seem that the Medes had the greed to acquire the Kingdom which they had contributed to its fall that’s why they retreated behind the Zagros mountains satisfied with their share of loots … While the Babylonians remained in control over the whole Assyrian realm but they never occupied it” [6]

The Assyrian motherland remained without an occupying power all through the Chaldee period in Babylon which lasted for 73 years only making it easier for the Assyrian people to heal their wounds, recover and return to their original cities in order to re-build them as well as the temples of their famous national gods such as Ashur, Enlil and Ishtar …

This is exactly what happened during the Parthian occupation of Iraq(126 B.C.-227A.D.) whereby we see the rise of independent Assyrian kingdoms subject to the Parthian authority such as Osroena (Osroene) in Urhai – the ancient Assyrian Haran. The name Osroene is a lesser name of Ashur in both the Assyrian and Armenian languages (meaning little Assyria) which was indeed smaller in comparison with the Sargonid Assyria! In addition to Osroene there was the Kingdom of Hadyab (Adiabene) with Arbil as its capital (Arbil being an ancient Assyrian capital). Then there was the Ashur Kingdom with its Assyrian capital Nimrod during the Persian-Sassanid era … “During this period the ancient Assyrian cities rose once more, such as Nozi and Kikzo … Ashur was also rebuilt into a large city as it was when the Assyrian Empire was at its zenith”[7]

Later, the two Assyrian Kingdoms Hadyab (Adiabene) and Ashur had sent their princes to Jerusalem to present gifts and pay homage for the infant Christ in Beth Lehem, in realization of Issiah’s prophecy: “In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria” [8] meaning that the Assyrian people were the first to believe in Christ’s message after the Egyptians and Jews. The Assyrians had arrived to Jerusalem as a delegation of magi princes who were Assyrians by race and homeland, but they were called as such because they had arrived from a land which followed Magianism at the time but they believed in Christ and bowed before Him in Beth Lehem.

The Assyrian teacher Mar Narsai who was born in the village of Ain Dolbi (near Dohuk [Nohadra] inhabited by Kurds at present) in the last year of the 04th century A.D. wrote about those Assyrian princes in a dialogue poem between St. Mary and the visiting princes bearing gifts and respect: “The great Assyria (Ashur) took notice and the magi were called and told, carry gifts, go the great king who is born in Judah and pay Him respect”. In another poem he said: “When Herodus felt that the Assyrians had humiliated him, he poured his wrath on the children without any mercy” [9]

In the distinctive book of Mar Addai’s (Thaddaeus) teachings, the Doctrine of Addai who presided over The Church of The East (33-45A.D.) we read the following:” Those who entered into priesthood at the hands of Addai, were preaching to their people in their Assyrian homeland”. [10]

One of the famous contemporary historians Harry Saks said about the Assyrian presence following the Fall of Nineveh:”… The destruction of the Assyrian Empire didn’t obliterate its people, for many were peasants and the land of Ashur always had the best agricultural lands, its descendants would build new villages on top of the old ones whenever opportunity was present and would continue their agricultural activities commemorating the old traditions. Seven or eight centuries later those inhabitants embraced Christianity and Christians along with the Jewish groups who lived amongst them didn’t only preserve their Assyrian ancestors traditions but they integrated them into the traditions taken from the Holy Book”. [11]

Many are the sources, proves and citations which assert the presence of the Assyrians in their indigenous Assyrian homeland even after the fall of their State, during Christian times till present, and we’re not going to go into details which will already prove what’s been established and obvious to all those who believe in the academic and scientific logic, in addition we have irrefutable linguistic proves which would take a complete volume to write about. Then there are the Assyrian customs, traditions, folklore, the Churches architecture and their building styles which are similar to ancient Assyrian temples. There are also the similarities between the ancient Assyrian religious hymns and those which are practiced today in the different Churches of the Assyrian people, thus Professor Simo Parpola says:” Converting to Christianity wasn’t difficult for the Assyrians because many of the earlier Church teachings coincided with the original Assyrian beliefs”[12] Then we have the names of today’s Assyrian cities, villages, and regions where most of them go back to the times of the Empire in every sense.

One of the most important features is the personal feeling when today’s Assyrians feel and are convinced that they are the descendants of ancient Assyrians, that they are Iraqis and patriots who tenaciously hold on to their homeland and they sacrifice for it just like the rest of society’s factions if not more.

In addition to all other resources we see two more which assert the Assyrian presence in the mountains and Plains of Ashur. Cardinal Amolis(1562A.D.) in one of his reports wrote:” The most honorable Abd Icho the Assyrians Patriarch who has been elected by the clergy and in agreement with their people”[13]

The Assyrians are also mentioned many times in Kurdish resources after the Kurds had entered the land and came in contact with Assyrians, however, we mention here what was said by Sharaf Khan al-Badlisi in his valuable book which was written in Persian in 1596, when he mentioned the impressive presence of the Assyrians in the Ashur (Hakkari) mountains “ in 1470 the Christians of the Dez district who are known with the name Assuri(Assyrians) were able to return Emir Asad al-Din Zarin Jank the Kurd to his inherited vilayet in Julamirk (the Hakkari Emirate)”[14]


THE ASSYRIANS BETWEEN THE DENOMINATIONAL AND THE UNIFIED NATIONAL FEELING


As it was mentioned, the Assyrians embraced Christianity in its early beginnings, hence we see the Diocese of the Assyrian Arbil which was founded in the last quarter of the first century A.D. with a continuous existence until 1310A.D. when for the first time since the second millennium B.C. Arbil lost its Assyrian identity when its citadel was invaded by the Mongols supported by some derwish mercenaries who came to Iraq from far away mountains. As for the Church of Kukhi in al-Mada’en (Saliq-Tisphon) or Cetisphon where the Patriarchate of The Assyrian Church of the East was founded in 97 A.D., that’s another irrefutable proof on the Assyrian existence.

It seems as if the mass conversion to Christianity came as a reaction and a desire to be distinguished from the Magi Persian society so that they wouldn’t integrate with them, but rather to create an Assyrian social, cultural, spiritual leadership which made the Assyrians rally enthusiastically around it to preserve the unity of the Assyrian national, intellectual and cultural structures for generations to come. The Assyrians didn’t have their own State during the Parthian and Sassanian eras but they had some kingdoms which were enclaves within the occupiers’ territory as mentioned before. However, the Assyrians worked, lived, and developed an intellectual institution and a belief system which was close to being a State within a State, that is, The Assyrian Church of the East which was called for a time “Nestorian” to distinguish it from other denominations which appeared amongst the Assyrians beginning in the 05th century A.D. and so on.

Then there was Shapur II persecution which he had mounted against the Church of the East for over 40 years, where tens of thousands of Christian Assyrians fell victims for their belief in God, being Assyrian and in their homeland, amongst them were three Patriarchs, tens of archbishops, many priests and monks… This was another proof on the strength of the Assyrian existence even under occupation and the fear of the Shahs who resorted to using the sword in order to preserve their rule in Iraq.

The organized Assyrian existence under the guidance of the Eastern Patriarchs in Saliq (al-Mada’en = Cetisphon) was felt by the Muslim Arabs when they entered Iraq in the first quarter of the 07th century A.D., and saw how the land was prosperous through the efforts of millions of Assyrian Christian peasants stretching from Basra to the Ashur mountains in the Upper Tigris and Euphrates Rivers [15]

In addition to all that preceded, the Assyrian Church’s stand vis a vis the Islamic Arab armies is well known when these armies first entered Heera, Koufa and Basra. This administrative, civilized and spiritual situation is what made some orientalists speak of the Assyrian Church in Iraq as if it was a true State! Thus, one of the well known French researchers in matters of faith, Father Jean Maurice Fiey compiled his famous book The Christian Ashur [16] as if he was comparing the Assyrian Church A.D. with the Assyrian Empire B.C.! … And why not! Didn’t the Assyrians have their schools and universities all through their homeland such as the school of Urhai (Edessa or Urfa), Nisibis (Nisibin) university, school of Ras-el-Ain (Resh Aina), school of the Upper Monastery in Mosul, the school of Beth A’abi west of Aqra, and the famous Jundi Shapur university where the Abbasid caliphs as they were establishing their rule used to send for its doctors, scientists and translators to Baghdad as it was the case of Gibrail Bar Bakht’Icho, his sons and many of his assistants who were asked by the Caliph Abu- Ja’afar al-Mansour to go to Baghdad. Hence, over time hundreds of Assyrian Christians (different denominations) amongst them doctors, authors, ministers and translators came to live in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Damascus… The Assyrians excelled in medicine to such a status that some Arab historians used the term (Nestorian medicine and doctors) during the Abbasid era and beyond, also the stature, position and importance of the Assyrian translators in the House of Wisdom of Caliph al-Ma’amoun was known to all.

Then we see the German theologian and sponsor of the 02nd Vatican theological assembly Karl Reiner doubt in the ability of those researching theology to complete their mission because as he puts it:” The reason isn’t in our human abilities, but rather because theology is a demanding field, because it involves talking about God who is above all speech”[17] Indeed, speaking about God in heavenly religions has the grace of entering into heavenly knowledge but it also takes us into a maze as a result of the human inability to talk about God’s specifications. Four centuries of Christianity in the East had passed before the clash of civilizations and cultures were brought to the Church by the different Christian peoples, which ignited disputes and struggles over the difference in opinions and interpretations… This malice brought its calamities to the Assyrian nation through the oldest Eastern Christian Church [The Assyrian Iraqi Church], when the above mentioned disputes were used politically by the two great kingdoms the Roman and Persian who interfered in the Church’s affairs in order to obtain gains on the ground.

When one of the Roman emperors sent a letter to the Persian king claiming that he had the right to oversee the Christian Assyrians’ affairs within the Persian State which was at the time in control of Iraq [18] wars and massacres were waged against the Christians when the Persians doubted the Assyrian loyalty because they shared the same religion with the Romans, and as time passed the feelings of dissension and differences reflected on the Assyrians’ feelings as well, when one Assyrian stood against his brother who belonged to another denomination, Church or religion…, drawing in the process denominational, Church and regional lines in people’s souls because of some within the Assyrian society itself and outsiders who were the rivals of the Assyrians and controlling their land.

If it wasn’t for this improper advantage taking of Assyrian sectarianism and the hidden intentions behind it, then naturally the subject would have been settled to the advantage of Assyrianism as is asserted by the opinions of a large number of researchers and historians, an example would be what the historian Abdul Massih Saadi mentions:” Just like the majority of other peoples, the Assyrians have different belief traditions for there are the Assyrians who belong to the Eastern Church (Orthodox or Nestorian) then the Catholics (Chaldeans) and the Protestants. In the same manner the Assyrians of the Western Syrian (Syriac) Church belong to different denominations, Orthodox (Jacobite), Catholics and Melkites (Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics), Maronites and Protestants. At the end of the 19th century and in order to keep pace with nationalism, most of the aforementioned Church members preferred the Assyrian national name instead of the religious and denominational ones. Generally, the Assyrians of the Eastern Church were spread over the Eastern parts of Northern Beth Nahrain while the Assyrians of the Western Syrian (Syriac) Churches lived in the west and centre of Northern Beth Nahrain (Mesopotamia)” [19]

Thus for the Assyrians having a balance between the sectarian religious and national patriotic belonging depended on external factors built upon the extent of financial, political and safety support which would be extended to those who would overlook their national identity and cling excessively to their sectarianism. Hence, we see that the position of the Assyrian Chaldeans i.e. the Assyrian Catholics during the two centuries has always been with the powerful, for they would hold on to their sect and denomination denying their Assyrian national identity as long as that denial provided them with security and financial support. Buying the conscience of others and threats were openly practiced during past periods against those who held to their identity against sectarianism, examples on that were many but here we will mention one, that of the English man G.F. Coakley :” Mar Emmanuel, the Chaldean Patriarch had paid large sums of money illegally, and he had admitted to giving gifts continuously to Haj Rachid Beg the Emir of Barwar, in return the Emir used to protect the Dominican mission in Ashitha against the fury of the followers of the Assyrian Church of the East. [20]

The cases of murder, intimidation, forced migration, imprisonment, and burning libraries were many also there are many sources to corroborate those actions. All these had a great role in dispersing the nation. However, fair researchers and historians continuously indicate to the fact that all the different sects are Assyrians by identity and Iraqi patriots as an example we mention what the Russian Manshashveli said:” The Assyrian Christians are represented almost within all the Christian Churches, such as Nestorians, Orthodox, Jacobites, and Protestants”… Then he says:” Here and later on the Assyrian “Nestorians” are mentioned only”. This researcher continuously asserts that the Chaldeans are Assyrians:” Along side the Assyrian “Nestorians” there lived in Mosul close to 40.000 Assyrian Chaldeans and this was a name given to the Assyrians who recognized the leadership of the Catholic Church of Rome”. Then he says:” The proceedings of the religious order were complicated… and the Assyrian Chaldeans used to render services to the Kurdish leaders or Aghas during troubled times so as to be protected by them… Thus because the Assyrians weren’t religious fanatics it wasn’t difficult for them to turn to Protestantism, Catholicism, or the Orthodox beliefs, on the contrary changing beliefs became to them one of the methods for self preservation and survival” [21]

Lastly before turning to another section of this research we have to mention what the famous author Yousif Samaan el-Samaany said about the Chaldeans and others of different sects being Assyrians:” The Chaldean Assyrians are absolutely those who were called Easterners and Nestorians” [22]


THE ROLE OF OTTOMAN THOUGHT AGAINST ASSYRIAN NATIONALISM


The Ottoman State which ruled the Assyrian lands was an Islamic State in the political sense, hence it treated the Christians including the Assyrians differently than their Muslim neighbors (Arabs, Kurds,…) when it organized the Christian affairs according to the “mellet” system distinguishing them greatly from Islam, the Ottoman was also a religious State and it used that “weapon” in its struggle against the Shiite Persian State.

The compelling Assyrian coalition with the English against the Ottoman State in WWI was a call for spite and hatred amongst the Iraqi Muslims considering the Assyrians as “traitors” because they went into war against the Ottoman Islamic State.

As there were officers and leaders in the Ottoman army, some of them held positions in ministries or the army when the Iraqi State was established therefore they dealt with the Assyrian Cause in the same Ottoman spirit as previously mentioned. So when the Assyrians asked for some political rights in the new Iraq, they were subjected to a great persecution denying them their rights, citizenship and considering them merely as a foreign “Nestorian” sect. Soon after, these acts turned into organized military action which culminated with the hideous Simel (Simeleh) massacre, while the Kurdish movements against the English and the royal regime were considered as patriotic liberation movements, and the same case was that of Shareef Hussein in 1916 during the great Arab revolution against the Ottoman State with a full support from the English, even though Hussein’s son Prince Faisal (king of Iraq) was a member in the Ottoman delegates council but none of the Iraqi intellectuals thought of the Arabs or Kurds as traitors or collaborators with foreigners.

That was the Assyrians’ biggest calamity in their homeland Iraq when most of the politicians in the beginning of the establishment of the State’s political and intellectual thought were saturated with religious, political and military ideas towards the Assyrians. Since these men were mostly of Turkish, Turkomen and Kurdish roots…as they were the graduates of the Ottoman military schools and being the first pioneers of the new Iraqi intellect whose influence continued through later periods, their inherited position became a heavy burden in dealing with the Assyrians, their political, patriotic, national and even personal rights.

In order for the Iraqi rulers and politicians to remain in power and to realize the opportunist behavior which was precipitated in the minds of those during and following the founding period of contemporary Iraq, hence they wanted to find a political victim amongst those whom they ruled especially when they differed in their ethnicity and religion, the Assyrians became the perfect material for those rulers to realize their oppressive and tyrannical projects by pretending to be struggling against colonialism and its collaborators.

It’s evidence enough that we report one such a case of this shameful stand of the Iraqi rulers as was told by the Assyrian intellect Aprim Shapira quoting the Iraqi historian Abdul Majeed Haseeb al Quaisi author of “The Assyrian Cause in Iraq”, when he says:” Haji Ramadan was the head of the company which had arranged the Simel (Simeleh) massacre of the Assyrians, this Ramadan had killed an unarmed innocent Assyrian peasant with his pistol and when he was asked why he killed the poor man, his answer was “he’s an English spy”!!! at the very same moment Haji Ramadan was standing next to two English advisors of the Iraqi government [23]

This intellectual and political Ottoman background with the Iraqi rulers which was further established in the mentality of many influential and decision making Iraqis till today was exactly the same ones which agitated the hatred feelings against the Assyrians “causing a rise in oppressive campaigns against them culminating in the Simel (Simeleh) 1933 massacre, and the destructive results which followed and influenced their patriotic rights in Iraq” [24] The massacre was lead by the “hero” Bakir Sidqui a former Ottoman army officer who took advantage of the violence against the Assyrians appointing himself as a patriotic “hero” in preparation to leap to power three years later when he arranged a military coup d’etat, the first of many in the Arab world.

Chaldeans

Little kids that are miseducated should not post their mindless rantings on this article. If you read Sarhad (Esarhaddon) Jammo's article you'd see that he said that Assyrians and Chaldeans are one Primordial Nation. That was his exact quote you goddamn infidel. Si Qtol Ganukh ya Siria. Inshalla Alaha sahiqlukh bar d'kalwe. Tfu ebukh.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_2&oldid=974896809"