Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Image copyright problem with Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG

The image Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Population numbers

The members of the syriac ortodox chruch are 5 million see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church and the chaldean catholic church has 600 000-700 000 members see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Christians and this artcle says that all Syriacs(Assyrian,chaldean,Syriac) together are 0.5–3.3 million. How can that be, it is wrong. someone has to correct this. i think 5,3 - 6 million are right.



The 3.3-4.3 million is beyond from reality. Lets discuss this numbers. The TriZ (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, whenever I tried to change it previously, User Dab kept on reverting it. This was when he had a stranghold in the article. Perhaps we can start improving the article and reflecting reality more. Chaldean (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


IMPORTANT!!!! THE POPULATION NUMBERS ARE WRONG THERE ARE NO WAY 0.5-3.3 MILLION.THE SYRIAC/ASSYRIAN ARE MORE THAN 6 MILLION. MAYBE 6-9 MILLION BECAUSE THE SYRIAC CHURCH FROM ANTIOCHIAN ALONE HAS 6 MILLION MEMBERS. WATCH HERE THE SWEDISH ARTICLE http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrier/syrianer SOME ONE HAVE TO CORRECT THIS!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvis214 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Assyrian homeland 

Iraq+ Syria ca. 0.5-2.5 million [4] 
Iran 80,000 [3] 
Turkey 5,000 [5]

Assyrian diaspora 

United States 83,000 [6] 
Sweden 80,000 [7] 
Jordan 77,000 [8][9] 
Australia 24,000 [10] 
Germany 23,000[citation needed]  
France 15,000 [11] 
Russia 14,000 [12] 
Canada 7,000 [13] 
Armenia 3,409 [14]

At first, the CIA ref concering the population in Iraq (and Syria?), doesn't tell me much? "Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian, or other 5%". Could be anything basically, we can assume there are more Turkomans then Assyrians since, "This entry provides an ordered listing of ethnic groups starting with the largest and normally includes the percent of total population.". Therefore there cant be more than 2,5% of the population and probably less, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The TriZ (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Its difficult to know the exact numbers for Iraq and Syria, since half of Iraqi Assyrians if not more have left Iraq for Syria as refugees. But the current number that is being put up in news media is 800,000 for Iraq (which I think is still high.) Chaldean (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there aren't 80,000 in Sweden. Around 20,000 is more accurate. I also doubt the 23,000 in Germany and the 15,000 in France (the source need an update because the page doesn't exist anymore). The total number of 3,3 - 4 million should be more like 1,2-2 million, all depending on the Iraq+Syria numbers (the maximum, 2,5 million sounds way to high). The TriZ (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your right about Sweden, Germany, and France. Its unfortunate Western European countries don't do ethnic census like the US, Canada, and Australia, so its difficult to get any real numbers. the 0.5-2.5 number was the number User dab came up with. Perhpas we should ask him how he got that number. Chaldean (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the best thing is to write 1,5-2 mil in pop box. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can we agree to change it to 1.5-2 million? And the Iraq+Syria numbers to 0.5-1 million? The TriZ (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add the numbers - its higher then 1.5 million. Chaldean (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the numbers together, apart from Iraq+Syria, the numbers are 411 409. And they are probably to high, but let's not get in to that. If we then say there are ca. 0.5-1 million Iraq+Syria, the total numbers will then be ca. 0.9-1.3 million. Right now, the numbers are ca. 0.5-2.5 in Iraq+Syria, which is if course to high no doubt, but still, the total would be ca. 0.9-2.9 million, and not ca. 3.3-4.3 million. The TriZ (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we then say there are ca. 0.5-1 million Iraq+Syria - How about we don't say that because that is not what the sources say? You still seem to not know what Wikipedia is. How you thought about applying to aramnahrain.org and do your work their? Chaldean (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't say 0.5-2.5 million either, how about you getting your facts correct? The TriZ (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know what this article is about; its about the whole Syriac-speaking middle eastern people as a whole. That is all Middle Eastern members of the ACOE, Chaldean Catholic, and both Syriac churches. Why is this article called Assyrian people? Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you don't like it, then take it up with somebody else, because due to me knowing your not hear to create Wikipedic articles, I'm not willing to teach you what Wikipedia is. Chaldean (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously your suffering from some kind of superior-complex. But fortunatetly your not ruling wikipedia. And nowadays, we have two articles, Aramean-Syriac people and Assyrian people. If that doesn't suit you, then please, keep it for yourself. And the numbers will change, cause they are incorrect, the question is whats the closest number to reality. The TriZ (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if your changing the number of Assyrians in Iraq to 1.3 million (according to that site), then you must use the same source for the other countries to. Lebanon 5,000, Iran 10,000, Iraq 1,300,000, Syria 75,000, Turkey 5,000. This is what's called manipulating with sources and spreading propaganda [1]. And btw, no, that source for me doesn't seem to be reliable. The TriZ (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to do what this page says in the top; take a deep breath and relax. You did not call the source baised when you used it for the Syriac people page. The specific source got it right on Iraq, but was not consistant with the rest. That does not matter with what is Wikipedia's policy; this page right here is a united page, that is all Syriac-speaking middel easterners. To suggest their are only 75 K, but then go to another Wikipedia article and state a sect of the larger portion has 750K. is inaccurate. Chaldean (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a united page, it is only about those whom refer to themselfs as Assyrian. And I have never used any sources, we're discussing this page now, not any other. The numbers are far from accurate, and they need to be adjusted. The TriZ (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That source is used in the Syriac people. Anyways, you calling it not reliable and giving no reason doesn't do much. And this is a page of all Syriac-speaking Middle Easterners. Take a look at the archives. And also, in the top of the page, it states Āshūrāyē /Sūrāyē - that is all people that call themselves Suraya (like I do since I'm chaldean) or Suroyo (Syriacs) or any other form of that word, since its one word with different ways of saying it. Chaldean (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody come across this yet? ...

The Assyrians are a non-Arab, Semitic, and Christian people whose ancestral homeland includes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. They constitute some 3 to 5 percent of the Iraqi population although some estimates range up to 10 percent. The most off-cited statistic is that there are 1.5 million Assyrians in Iraq with population centers in Baghdad, Mosul, and villages in northwest Iraq.

Reference:
Lewis, J.E. (2003). Iraqi Assyrians: Barometer of Pluralism. Middle East Quarterly, 10(3), 49-56

Note, however, that this journal article was written in 2003, before the onset of the invasion of Iraq. Up until this time, 5% was the most reliable and most commonly cited population estimate of the Assyrians in Iraq. Also note, that this author has cited such sources as Zinda Magazine (www.zindamagazine.com) and AINA (www.aina.org)... these are two sources which cannot be entirely trusted. However, this article was published in a reliable journal.--Šarukinu (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Šarukinu (talk • contribs)

Why do you guys keep playing around with this. The creators of this page should not listen to those who have an anti-assyrian agenda because they will try their hardest to make Wikipedia articles how they want it to be. I mean the 1.4 million assyrian population sources are ridiculous ... source [2] says that there is 1.4 million population only in the 5 countries listed, and it says there are extra 400 000 in other countries, which makes the population (according to that source 1.8 million) also it doesn't give us more detail to the other 400 000 in other countries, to me that is an unreliable source. Source [3] is not pertaining to the assyrian people its only pertaining to the Assyrian Language. There are some in India who speak the fluent Assyrian yet they are not Assyrian, and there are others who are Ethnic Assyrians but don't speak Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and speak other languages like arabic, Syriac, Chaldean, English etc. That source is also unreliable. Please find better sources on the Assyrian population. What I find amusing is that the person who changed it is willing to use sources [2] for the actual population but is not willing to use it for the 1.5 million Assyrians who are supposedly living in Iraq (according to the source) ... you can't pick and choose what you want to be on there. Using the Sources which are provided the population of Assyrians in Iraq should then be 1.27 million (750 000 nestorians, 420 000 Chaldean Catholics, and 100 000 Syrian Catholics). Once again you are not suppose to pick and choose which of the different sections you want to use in the sources to bring your point across. Malik Danno (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have solved the Assyrian demographics issue!! As i stated above the current sources used are very unreliable and the person who made them picked and chose which 'facts' he/she wanted to post. There are MUCH more reliable than those sources currently being used. I Suggest we use the sources provided in Unrepresented Nations and People's Organization http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ It states that: "Population

The total Assyrian population, including the Diaspora, is estimated at 3.3 million, with the majority living in the former Mesopotamia region, which is the Assyrian ancestral homeland covering northern Iraq, northern Iran, south-eastern Turkey and southern Syria. Outside of the Middle East, approximately 93,000 live in Europe, 300,000 in the U.S. and Canada, 64,000 in Armenia, Georgia and Russia, 33,000 in Australia and New Zealand and 150,000 in other countries." Malik Danno (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you solved it, you're a genius! Seriously, don't be so naive and look at your sources with a critical eye. For example the current numbers in USA and Canada says 83,000 in the US and 7,000 in Canada and these numbers are including Syriacs and Chaldeans, and the source is the official census! So where is the 300,000? Obviously that article is written by some Assyrian nationalist, cause there aren't any +2,5 million Assyrians in the Middle East. In Syria mostly call themselves Syriacs and identify with an Aramean identity, just like in Turkey and Lebanon. In Iraq most of the people identify with an Assyrian identity but also some with a Chaldean identity. This is general knowledge. Many of the sources are biased or are including the total population, so if course the discussion is open for everyone to contribute with sources and knowledge so the article can be improved. Because this is what a wikipedia article is, a process. The TriZ (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

just as you say it has been written by Assyrian nationalists i can easily say that other sources that are used are by people who are anti-Assyrian ... Also for world organizations don't just take sources from just anyone and they would so overthrow any claims done by nationalists ... that claim is gone. Secondly you clearly have an anti-Assyrian agenda and you try to undermine Assyrians by any means possible ... so you saying that you don't believe that there are more than 2.5 million Assyrian is baseless cause of your anti-Assyrian tendencies, You yourself have admitted that you are a "aramaen nationalist" many of the if not all have an anti-Assyrian agenda so your claims are worth nothing. Since you could not provide me with better sources and/or better alternatives I have changed the Assyrian population from 1.4 million to 3.3 million, and Assyrian Iraq population to 1.5 million using the exact same source currently being used. Until there is a more credible source used for the Assyrian Iraqi population it will stay 1.5 million.
In Syria mostly call themselves Syriacs and identify with an Aramean identity, just like in Turkey and Lebanon. If you don't source this then it is nothing but your POV
thank-you Malik Danno (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I said that I'm an Aramean nationalist, though I believe it is obvious which name I identify with. The same goes for you. Don't you have an Assyrian agenda here in wikipedia? My claims are worth nothing, but yours are? Anyway, I'll have a watch at your sources. But again, you should really re-read what Helikophis said at the the topic below.

Ok, source 3 (adherents) are using source 2 (UNPO) as their source, so source 3 (adherents) is unnecessary and should be removed. UNPO haven't provided much details of how they produced their numbers, and so how reliable does that make the source? This is what they say,

"People: Population

The total Assyrian population, including the Diaspora, is estimated at 3.3 million, with the majority living in the former Mesopotamia region, which is the Assyrian ancestral homeland covering northern Iraq, northern Iran, south-eastern Turkey and southern Syria. Outside of the Middle East, approximately 93,000 live in Europe, 300,000 in the U.S. and Canada, 64,000 in Armenia, Georgia and Russia, 33,000 in Australia and New Zealand and 150,000 in other countries."

We already have concluded that they estimate the U.S. and Canada numbers way wrong. The Armenian official census says 3,409, Russian census 14,000 and Georgian census 3,300. The total 64,000 is again extremly overestimated. I also doubt the 93,000 in Europe and 150,000 in other countries. So if adding the UNPO numbers excluding the Middle East, the sum is 640,000. That makes the Middle East numbers to 2,660,000. Does that sound reliable?

Furthermore, you are using i-cias as a source, and to me it can't be taken as reliable source. But your using it for the Iraqi numbers but not for the total population, even though there are other, more reliable sources for the Iraqi population. Why? The TriZ (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No I am not an Assyrian nationalist because I know the true meaning of nationalism and its negative connotations. Just as you have disproved Adherents source in this page I will make the same claim in Syriac-Aramaen page, but the only difference being Adherents sources a world organization for the Assyrian population while for Syriacs-Aramaen page if first of all doesn't source the "ethnicity" rather it sources the members of the Syriac Church ... and with a bias source.
UNPO is much much much more reliable than the source previously used ... If you have a better source then provide them for me ... You cannot just say what you think and not think and make them facts ... provide me with sources.
Also, even though census' seem reliable they are not at all. I'll use these examples. I live in Canada where the census has only 7000 Assyrians. In just my city (Hamilton) I can easily assume there are 4000-5000 Assyrians. There is a Church of the East parish, Chaldean Catholic Church (90% of Chaldeans call themselves Assyrians in Canada), Ancient Church of the East and a Syriac Orthodox Church ... now this is just in one city in Canada. There are more cities which have strong Assyrian populations such as London, Mississauga, Windsor etc...... In Toronto alone I can assume there are 7000 Assyrians ... you can ask any Assyrians in Canada to hear what they have to say. The reason for this discrepancy is that MANY don't choose to fill out the census. In my family (7 members) we didn't fill out the census and many of my friends said that their families didn't fill out census' as well. Many are first generation Immigrants and there is a trend to avoid filling out census in that case. Also in the 2000 USA census we see that there are only 7121 Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs in Chicago, This is clearly not true even though it is a census ... There is a much higher Assyrian population in Chicago http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US1714000&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U. Also in the Michigan census it did not even mention any Assyrian or even Chaldean population (there is an overwhelming Chaldean population in Michigan) 90% of liquor stores are owned by Chaldeans. In these cases the census' are not reliable (even though they are government sourced).
Also the Syriac-Aramean page has no sources whatsoever in their population demographics ... If you really want to turn this into a source war then I'll be more than glad to be the result in eliminating the population section of the Syriac-Aramaen template.
P.S. you still haven't given me a source on In Syria mostly call themselves Syriacs and identify with an Aramean identity, just like in Turkey and Lebanon. - Malik Danno (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, i've gotta give you that you atleast discuss unlike the other recent Assyrian nationalist warriors whom are ranting around. But your taken this completly wrong, you wanted to discuss numbers, and now I'm doing it with you in a way to improve the reliability and the quality. I'm not here to start a "source war". UNPO figures are not especially reliable, just like most other sites. I believe census are still more reliable than any other sources. And no, I haven't provide sources for that statement cause sources in general are hard to find in this subject. I've found this website, [2] under history in the english version -> [3], belonging to the Syriac community in Istanbul (which is the city most Syriacs in Turkey live). For Syria I haven't looked for sources, but then I'm guessing they are written in arabic if there are any (which I don't read).

And again, I'm not saying this is fact and this is not. I'm just asking, do you believe that 2,666,000 Assyrians in the Middle East is a cloesly accurate figure? The TriZ (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth TriZ yes I do believe that. Here is the problem. My definition of Assyrians includes members of the Church of the East (Ancient & Assyrian) Chaldean Catholic Church and Syriac Churches (Orthodox and Catholic). Now this figure would agree with the population numbers seen in the Syriac-Aramaean page. This is the problem our definitions of who constitutes an Assyrian is different. Now all the sources below I and Gab-ril have provided proves that Syriacs are known in the international world as Assyrians so this population figure represents that as well. - Malik Danno (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-designation

I removed the beginning paragraph in the Self-designation section, as it makes ignorant POV claims. If it is to remain in the article, it needs some re-wording, because it's somewhat derogatory and ignorant.

For example: "All of these identities are indebted to the discovery of ancient Babylonia and Assyria and the decipherment of cuneiform that took place during 19th century , and the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire that occurred during the same period.

This is contradicted by the fact that, although somewhat scarce and dispersed across time, references to Assyrian and Aramaean identities have been attested to over the past 2,000 years. Also, the claims of this paragraph contradict the rest of the section, which suggests continuity of the Assyrian identity from ancient times to present day. WestAssyrian reverted my edits, claiming that this paragraph simply lists the different Assyrian denominations. If that were true, there would be no problem. However, this paragraph makes the suggestion that the Assyrian identities were "made-up", owing only to the decipherment of cuneiform and the efforts of Assyriology.
It is fair to suggest that the modern revival of the various Assyrian identities were influenced by Assyriology and the "rise of nationalism under the Ottoman empire", however that is already addressed in the Names of Syriac Christians article. I would like to see others' opinions on this matter. Šarukinu (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, "There are many of the Western Syriacs (Sūryāyē) which consider themselves as Western Assyrians (Āṯūrāyē) or Assyrians-Syriacs (Āṯūrāyē-Sūryāyē) other consider themselves as Syriacs (Sūryāyē) or Aramean-Syriac (Ārāmayē-Sūryāyē)"

I don't see the point of this, again, this is addressed (or should be) in Names of Syriac Christians. And also, Assyrians-Syriacs? The writer just came up with that or what? Anyway, I agree with what you are writing Šarukinu, there is no need to re-add that paragraph. The TriZ (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that last bit should also be removed. --Šarukinu (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Its ok to summarize what point of view from both Assyrians and Syriacs in this page and the Syriac people page. The single sentence Triz pointed out is only summary of the Assyrian's view. In the Syriac Identity page, we can be more detailed about the subject. Chaldean (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the average layperson, who doesn't have a clue about the Assyrian people, is going to get confused with all these terms we're using. Also, with respect to "Suryaye": it is simply a synonym of "Suraye", which is the term that the majority of Assyrians use to refer to their ethnicity in the Assyrian language. However, when you ask them to translate it into English, they will most often tell you Suraya means Assyrian. Thirdly, the phrase that Triz pointed out starts off with "Western Syriacs" - who exactly does that refer to? Those who Assyrians call "Western Assyrians" or the Western branch of members of the Syriac Orthodox Church? It needs to be more specific, and it needs to fit into the section smoothly, not just be tossed at the end. --Šarukinu (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am a Suryoyo and connect my heritage with Assuroyo, and when saying west Syriacs one refers to west Assyrians. Second, we need to merge all of these articles: Assyrian people, Chaldean people and Syriac people into one article and there we can present the name dispute. We can not continue like this, it is embarrassing and will only weaken us even more.--Yohanun (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs)

I think that should be put in the first sentence of the page. This is placed on many news agencies around the world and is commonly accepted (xcept for TriZ). Without it, it would confuse a lot of people who do not associate Chaldeans and Syriacs with the Assyrian ethnicity Malik Danno (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in the "Demographics" section of the article.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That issue is alreaddy discussed.Since Assyrians not can be known as Syriacs, because of a large group of the syriacs consider them selfs arameans, so cant we write Assyrians are also known as syriacs. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
AramaenSyriac the problem with that is that the international community does not recognize what you propose. If you check out various news agencies you will realize that syriacs and chaldeans are identified with the ethnicity of the Assyrians. Assyrian is an ethnicity which Syriac is the language of the Assyrian peoples. Also, only until 1950s, it has become known as a Christian denomination of the Syriac Orthodox Church and they Syriac Catholic Church. While Assyrian is maintained as an ethnicity with various religious affiliations. Malik Danno (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


If you check out various news agencies you will realize that syriacs and chaldeans are identified with the ethnicity of the Assyrians... You mean news agencies such as esna? I really cant take you seriously now. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I still see no sources, Malik. The TriZ (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My words on this page have been few, but beacuse they do not speak as much nonesense as those who frequently rant in this page - I am addressing those fools who wish to destroy the Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Arameans or whatever blasted name they choose to divide themselves by. You are Christians, you are all speaking Aramaic, you all have genetic similarities, you are all one people, and unless you accept unity and choose a name (I don't care if you call urselves Summerians, Philistines, Amelkites or Donkeyites) that you are all able to unify under, you will all perish as fools into history. And with this comment I leave this page, my duty to help my fellow country has been fulfilled, since if you are my country men than you deserve little extra help without the reform I suggest. Gabr-el 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Khayet Khon ... thats all i want, for my people (no matter what religious denomination) to be united!
The TriZ and AramaenSyriac are you being serious ... I have provided you with many sources in our past debates and you never seem to be happy with any of them. I have many reliable sources but i will not share them with you because you will over look them and toss them out as if they are nothing. Before I post them i want you to answer me these.
1- of the following which are reliable to you: CNN, BBC, CBC, AINA, AsiaNews, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today
2- How many sources from any of the sources above who you agree with as being reliable do you need, 1,2, 4,6,10,100....
3- If I do provide you with sources what will you do after ... will you just arrogantly continue debating, will you accept it, will you stop spreading lies, will you leave wikipedia ... what will you do (if you're so sure that i don't have sources then you have nothing to lose)?
I will not post my sources until you answer me those easy questions Thanx for your time Malik Danno (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to answer anything, if you have anything new, you are free to bring it to the table. Different writers write different things, I don't see what your trying to prove here? You honestly believe there aren't newsagency that calls the group for Syriacs? Didn't you also say that more than 90% calls themselves Assyrian to? Please, I could need a good laugh, but you're just to much.

Gabriel my friend, I respect you, but our people will never unite under one name and it is just better to accept this. Furthermore, this conflict, especially in Europe, isn't about the entire group, there are people inside our people that believes that the Western Syriacs are one thing, and the Eastern another. The TriZ (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what your trying to prove here? well you said for me to provide reliable sources ...
but don't worry your answer is totally what i expected from you :D Malik Danno (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, sources for your other claims. Well, sources for all your claims cause most of what you say is just crap. Like that 90% of the population call themselves Assyrian. The TriZ (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

its funny that you asked me to provide you with sources ... then you back down from your claim, how come? So do you want the sources that prove your point wrong or not? Second of all I never said that 90% of the people call themselves assyrian as if it was a fact, i said that it was an assumption (sorry I thought I was speaking to a person able to comprehend basics of the english language, but i guess you don't know what "assumption" means). So again if you want me to provide you with sources answer those questions, if not then keep changing the subject (which is what you are very good at)
P.S. I already know what your answer is going to be. Malik Danno (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please folks, let's be civil. It does no one any good to go through endless polemics and name-calling. This is a collaborative project. In order to be successful we need to respect one another and work in good faith, and accept that there may be differences of opinion. I am sure that the disputants agree more than they realize. Let's try to focus on the commonalities, and to stick to facts which are verifiably published in reliable sources. Personally, I do not believe that newspapers and mass periodicals, especially in the United States, qualify as reliable sources, but again this is my opinion and you may disagree. I am not trying to target anyone in particular here, but it does no good to tantalize us with "sources" but refuse to provide reference to them. Don't hoard your information: share it! Remember that we are working together here! Please also remember that although this is a topic that may (or may not) be very important to your personal identity, we should not allow nationalism or ethnic or religious pride to cloud our judgement or colour our work. As tempting as it may be to include our personal experiences and feelings about a topic, they are not appropriate to the work at hand. If an editor feels that he or she has to express these things, it may be appropriate to stop editing Wikipedia and try setting up a personal web log. We'll make a better encyclopedia by being good to each other than by bickering!

Thank you, Helikophis (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Helikophis I am on the exact same level with you. I want us to solve these problems through co-operation, but it has to be done by both sides. The Assyrian related pages on Wikipedia have become nothing but jokes because we see some users who abuse the Wikipedia system to fit their POV. Throughout all the discussion boards you see a trend which is very anti-Assyrian and many assyrians are willing to listen to the other side, while when questions are raised about the page on Syriac-Aramaen people then nothing is resolved because TriZ is against any type of co-operation. An example is over the population debate ... In the Syriac-Aramaen people page he supports the 4-5 million population from the Adherents.com website as a source (even though on the website it also states 120 000) and he bashes any attempt to use another source. However according to Adherents (the same source he used for the Syriac-Aramaen page) the Assyrian population is 3.3 million http://adherents.com/Na/Na_41.html#302 and he is totally against that. That in my eyes isn't co-operation! Also according to UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization) there are also 3.3 million people http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/.
Helikophis the reason I am so upset is because there is a lot of double standards being witnessed on many Assyrian Wikipedia Pages!
Once again I will say I will not provide the reliable sources until TriZ answers the questions, because it has happen before that he just shrugs the most reliable sources away and uses very unreliable sources which do nothing but meat his standards. eg. http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm
If everyone is willing to stop this double standard which is clearly going on, and If everyone is willing to listen to the other then that is when Assyrian pages on Wikipedia will stop being a joke! Malik Danno (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I believe I've never changed any numbers at all in this article neither in the Aramean-Syriac people article. So whos being double standard here? Oh, and I've never backed off from my claims, you should read what I wrote again. I wanted to see sources for your other claims. And again, read what Helikophis wrote, if you have sources that can bring something new to this conflict, please provide them, if not, then don't even mention them. And about the numbers, the Aramean-Syriac people numbers may be a bit overestimated but until more reliable sources are provided they will remain, and they are far more accurate to reality than 3.3 mln for the "Assyrian population". The TriZ (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

first of all I never said u changed it I said that you supported it ... again please read exactly what I say and don't put words in my mouth
Do you even hear yourself speaking?? I mean you are saying that 4-5 million is an over-exaggeration yet you are willing to keep the source from Adherents, But when we are trying to use the same source for the Assyrian population and you say its far from accurate! You are saying that http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm is more of a reliable source than the exact same source that is used and that you defend on the Syriac-Aramaen page ... to me that is nothing but double standard!! And are you willing to tell me that http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm is more of a reliable source is more of a reliable source than UNPO (unrepresented nations and peoples organization) http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ which is u world organization. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! so i provided a much much much much more reliable source (UNPO) and the same source which is used in the Syriac-Aramean people (Adherents.com) http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_41.html#302. So having said that ... if the Assyrian population of Wikipedia doesn't change than we are able to say that Assyrian Population is clearly POV and is nothing but double standard.
Also about the sources ... you asked me to provide sources of news agencies that say that Chaldeans and Syriacs are mentioned as Assyrian. I'm telling everyone this now. After I post the sources I am going to change the first line of this page to Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) Malik Danno (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you even seen the Aramean-Syriac people article? It says 3-4 mln. And am I putting words in your mouth? Are you for real? This is what I've written concerning the numbers about the Aramean-Syriac people population,

"I think one should find another source than i-cias.com, for various reasons (e.g. 700k in the Middle East doesn't sound accurate, nor the "2.6 million in other countries"). Untill then, lets keep the current numbers until a more reliable source can be provided."

How about you stop lying? How about you start being constructive? How about you getting to a point? What are you trying to achieve here? Spreading your Assyrian propaganda? I'm sorry, me and the rest of the members in Wikipedia won't allow it. The TriZ (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ok you have once again failed to stay on topic and discuss what I have previously written about, so this is what is going to happen. I will change the first sentence of this page to "The Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) are an ethnic group whose origins lie...." and the sources I will use are the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7156590.stm - An article from BBC News which states that Syriacs are Assyrian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7307192.stm - BBC article which states that Syriacs are Assyrian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3770907.stm - BBC articleWhich states that adherents to the Syriac Orthodox Church and Chaldean Catholic Church are Assyrian
http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/arsenault/20070914.html - CBC article which talks about Syriac Orthodix community as Assyrians
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/world/middleeast/26christians.html?scp=7&sq=assyrian&st=cse - A New York Times article which states that Chaldean Church is the largest religious denomination of the Assyrians
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-05-iraq-saturday_n.htm - USA today article which states that Father Youssef Adel (RIP) who was a priest of the Syriac Orthodox Church is Assyrian
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-02-03-kirkuk-bombings_x.htm - USA Today article which says Chaldeans are Assyrians
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-06-kidnapped-students_n.htm - USA Today article which states that Father Youssef Adel (RIP) was Assyrian
http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ - Page on Assyrians on UNPO (unrepresented nations and peoples organization) which states Syriac churches and Chaldean church are denominations of Assyrian people
I have provided you with all those sources ... Now I will wait for a response before I Change the first line to what i have stated earlier. If you're response is irrelevant to what i have just said then I will just change it anyways.
Now to discuss the population issue
http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm - this source which is currently used is unreliable and the number on the page is incorrect as well ... the source says there are 1.4 million in the 'assyrian homeland' and says 400 000 elsewhere in the world, while in this page assyrians are 1.4 million all over the world. Also The source is used for the 1.4 million population but not used for the 1.5 million Iraqi Assyrian population ... that is double standard
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aii - this is also an unreliable source but it still proves my point that its not 1.4 million assyrians. This source says the "Ethnic population: 4,250,000 (1994)" which is much more than 1.4 million! Even though it disproves the current figure being used I still think it's unreliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_41.html#302 - Adherents.com says there are 3.3 million assyrians across the world and this source is also used on the Syriac-Aramaen page so if it is used their then it has the same credibility to be used on the Assyrian page
http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ - UNPO (unrepresented nations and peoples organization) is a world organization!!! This source is much much much more creible than http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm which is currently being used for the world population. UNPO (and Adherents) states that the Assyrian population is 3.3 million
Also according to source [4] of the page http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_4.htm Assyrians are 1.3 million in Iraq. The number 750 000 is only Nestorians (which is a christian denomination NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP), but when you scroll down you will see in the source being used that (titled under Ethnic Groups) that Assyrians are 1.3 million. This is the source currently used, I am going to assume this was a mistake and not done on purpose.
Having said that I will wait for a response, If the response is not credible or about anything related to what I just wrote (which is what always happens) then I will change the Assyrian population from 1.4 million to 3.3 million. Also using the same source being used for Assyrian Iraqi population [4] I will change the population to 1.3 million until someone provides a more reliable source.
thank-you for your time Malik Danno (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So that was the secret super sources? Well, they're basically useless. Sorry. They're not saying anything and they for sure can not be used a source. I can provide you with hundreds of those articles if I had the time and energy, just google it and you'll find more than you can read. I found this in a second for example, [4].

And if you wanna discuss the numbers, there is a topic about the population numbers above, I'm sure if not me, someone else are willing to discuss the numbers with you but take it in the right place. The TriZ (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Hello Malik Danno. I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but as you have asked me, I will. I have looked over your sources, and I am sorry but I cannot agree with what you are saying. First, I generally do not consider news articles to be very reliable sources, especially on complex issues of this sort. All too often journalists know nothing about their subject and are not very concerned with getting the details right. What they want is a story, not reliable facts. Second, even if the newspaper articles were all correct, they simply do not say what you are claiming they do. I believe you are misreading them. Take a little time and look at them more closely. I do not feel the need to explain in detail what each of them actually says. Yes, they include the word Assyrian in association with Chaldean or Syriac. None of the articles are in fact asserting that these groups are identical. Yes, sometimes Assyrians are called Syriacs. This _does not mean_ that Syriacs and Assyrians are the same. They do speak related languages, have very similar English names, and are sometimes called by the same names. Perhaps this justifies putting (also called ...) in the article title, however I do not believe that it does. This would be misleading, and seem to suggest that they are one and the same group. They are related by language, religion, and history, and are already sometimes mistaken for one another, and I feel that that change would only add to the confusion.

As for the question of numbers, I do not feel that this is very important to the article. It may be personally very important to some Assyrians, and I apologize if this offends you. We are talking about a very small, historically-overlooked ethnic group whose homeland is in a country which has been in chaos and civil war for almost five years, and which was isolated for decades before that. I do not believe that there is _any_ reliable figure on the current Assyrian population. It is notoriously difficult to provide figures for ethnic populations in any circumstances, especially diaspora populations, and under the extremely confused conditions, all we can do is take a "best guess" and move on. Personally, I am inclined to use the Ethnologue figures. I think that it is better to overestimate than underestimate. But I understand Ethnologue is not generally considered a "reliable source" on Wikipedia. None of the other sources you provided are particularly reliable either. For instance, none of them provide details of how they produced those figures. This is a very important factor in reliability for this kind of issue. So what we have is a situation where we can pick between several, generally unreliable figures. Pick on, and move on. Again, I would use a larger number, but if this is going to cause problems for people, I would not fight for it, as I simply do not believe it is of major significance to this article. Someday maybe we will have good numbers, and then they can be included.

Again, I apologize if I have offended anyone. Let's put our energy into more constructive tasks.

Thank you,Helikophis (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The TriZ ... I provided with world renowned news sources and your response has been to overlook all of them and give a Turkish source (which are known for not representing Turkish minorities fairly) and also your source sound much more like an editorial rather than an actual news report.
Helikophis there's no need to apologize, its a discussion and that's how we will solve this discrepancy. With all do respect Helikophis I understand your point, but I am pretty sure that you have misunderstood the entire meaning of this discussion. In this discussion I'm not trying to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians ... my point in this discussion is to show that Chaldeans and Syriacs are known as Assyrians (there is a difference). I agree with you about the news reporters etc. But if I was trying to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrian then I wouldn't be able to refute your, however my point again is to show that Chaldeans and Syriacs are known as Assyrians. Using news reports is the best way to show that because majority of the world gets their news from news sources ... given that and having provided all those sources we are safe to say that in fact those news reports do Syriacs and Chaldeans are known as Assyrians. It sounds confusing but I hope that you know what I mean.
That is why I want to change it to Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) not "Chaldeans are Syriacs are Assyrian"
I will wait for a response again before I change anything
thank-you Malik Danno (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-read what Helikophis wrote. This whole issue has already been discussed, check the archieves. The TriZ (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaldo-Assyriacs

Would this name sort everything out? Gabr-el 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it won't ... I am all for the name Assyrian Chaldean Syriac ... I am in many organizations like that, that unite our people under one. But in this case it would not work because there would not be a consensus over such things as history. TriZ thinks that he is a descendants of Aramaens, and some Chaldeans think that they are descendants of Ancient Chaldeans. There would be too much trouble ... I think my proposal is the best saying Assyrians (Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs). - Malik Danno (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Malik, check the history from late march on the articles revision history, this "Also known as..." has already been discussed and it was removed by user:Chaldean. The TriZ (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An Aramean page already exists. Please stop vandalising unrelated pages.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians

Obviously Dab has either misunderstood this line, or it should be rewritten,

"Assyrians can be divided along geographic, linguistic, and denominational lines, the three main groups being:..."

Assyrians can be found inside the three main groups though it doesn't mean that the thre groups are a part of the bigger Assyrian group. Saying all the three groups is smaller parts of the bigger Assyrian population is certainly not true and pure propaganda. The TriZ (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough

--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I promised myself to stay out of so much nonsense, but we have now come to a point in which we can bare it no more. The Triz, the sources you have presented are biased and therefore unreliable to discuss a people that they themselves represent. On the other hand, USA today has nothing to do with Assyrians, and there is plenty of mention of Assyrians throughout the world, not only in the sources provided by Malik in the USA today, but for example in Great Britain :

You see the above two sources are from the United Kingdom's houses of parliament. You will probably reject these sources too.

To all other editors, I suggest we do something about The Triz. I was neutral on this topic before, but I am increasingly impatient at this nonesense. The Triz, you say that our people will never unite? Thats because you will not unite them. I have seen others make their points, you on the other wish to dismiss everything cited and have only pathetic cites from an Aramean viewpoint to prove Aramean stuffGabr-el 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and my sourecs are? We are brothers and sisters, we have almost the same culture and same language and we all believe in the same God. But our people will never unite since we aren't one people, we are two. We have Syriacs, who believe they are the decendents of the Arameans, and we have Assyrians, who believe they are the decendants of Assyrians. And I can't see that change. The TriZ (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Syriac does not equal Aramean. You have an Aramean page. Please avoid vandalising everything else.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Triz, it goes to show how little you know. Syriacs comes from the Greek corruption, "Syria". Theres ample sourcesin this article showing how the Greeks called the Syrians the Assyrians interchangeably. Later on, some of us adopted the name "Suraya" in a dark time in which we forgot ourselves due to Greek labellage. Aramaens are not the same as Syrians - how does one even get to such an absurd jump? Gabr-el 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one gives a damn about what we were called by the Greeks 2000 years ago, we really don't live in the bronze age. Aren't we all from the beginning the same people? But we have choosen different paths. Some rejetcs the Assyrian name, others embrace it. And you need to respect that. I'll leave this whole "Assyrian vs Syriac" thing for now, and I'm guessing soon enough your friends will have turned Mor Afrem Assyrian to... The TriZ (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No one gives a damn? Really? Is that your academic opinion Triz, to just dsicard all sources and to throw away all history and make up your own? Embracing the name "Syriac" and throwing away the name "Assyrian" is like saying I'm a man but not a human. Because the word man comes from the word human, in much the same way as the word "Syrian" comes from Assyrian. But you know what? Please do go away! Its much easier for the rest of us for you to go away with the wrong idea than try to convince people like you. No disrespect intended of course, because I still love you as my fellow Chaldo-Assyrian.Gabr-el 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only shows how biased you are, just because Rollinger has said based on a stone that Syrian is arrived from Assyrian doesn't mean its true. And when I'm on it, old Greeks also said that Syrians were Arameans, as you can find it cited in the Aramean-Syriac page. And so did Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Serug, Michael the Great, etc, etc, etc... Your only looking at one side of the coin. Don't be so naive and don't ignore you yourself the proofs that there is a trace through history that proves an Aramean link. The TriZ (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't deny that I may have Aramaen blood in me. With all those deportations by Sargon etc... what I do deny is the stupidity of splitting us up further and further. Gabr-el 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying one is Syriac does not automatically imply that they are Aramean. There are Assyrians, Indians, Arameans, Arabs, etc who are "Syriac" religiously. "Assyrians" includes Syriacs, Chaldeans, Nestorians, Protestants, etc in terms of ethnicity. Triz, you have an Aramean page, please avoid vandalizing other articles.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

having heard all that ... and reading Gabr-el's sources (as well as mine) i feel inclined to put Assyrians (Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) in the first sentence ... If there is any objection after plz don't hesitate to bring it up. Malik Danno (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow folks. You are all talking nonsense. None of this has anything to do with writing a wikipedia article. "man" does not come from "human," by the way. Nationalism just really stops people from thinking rationally, doesn't it? Ugh. Assyrians, Syriacs, Turks, Arameans, anyone with a nationalist agenda that will interfere with their neutrality and rationality should not be editing this article. Please, if you are a nationalist, edit articles that have nothing to do with Assyrians and Assyria. Malik Danno, none of your references say that Assyrians are called syriacs or chaldeans. A couple of them do call Assyrians chaldeans, yeah, but that's not enough. What you have posted amounts to independent linguistic research. Independent research is not allowable in this encyclopedia. If you want a source that supports your change, you need a source that _states_ that Assyrians are called Syriacs and Chaldeans. I am reverting your change, as it is based on independent research. As for the name issue, I don't understand how any of you are arguing this. No one has cited any valid (modern) authority. I don't believe that any of you are arguing based on anything other than personal conviction. Think about why you're doing this? Is it because you have thoroughly studied the issue and have decided, based on actual primary and secondary source evidence, or is it because you have an emotional, personal response to the issue, and have maybe read a newspaper article which mentions it? The difference is important. Please don't use these statements against each other, because it is directed against all of you. The number one threat to neutrality on Wikipedia is nationalist pride!Helikophis (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Can all assyrian fanatics please stop editing aramean-syriac artciles, since none of your edits are good edits. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe how lazy some "neutral" editors are in trying to keep a peace. No, we will not leave your pag alone, because it is nonesense and it is my duty as a wikipedian to correct it. Not one of your sources says anything about Aramaen Syriacs Gabr-el 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Helikophis, what on earth are you babling about? We have three Greek historians and another article http://www.aina.org/articles/ttaasa.pdf here proving our point that Syria is Assyria. Gabr-el 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Aina as source? You are kidding me right AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AramaeanSyriac did you even look at the link. Listen AINA sees journals posted and places them on their website. This is the actual journal by educated elites on Near Eastern Studies. Also I'm very disappointed that many of you aren't educated on the fact that once Greeks came to Mesopotamia they named the Assyrians Syrians so in that case Syrians (according to Greeks) are the decendents of the Ancient Assyrians who lived in Mesopotamia!!! After that Roman and Persian Empires took over the land they made a border in Euphrates River ... and the Syrians (Assyrians) who lived east of the river were called Assyrians while those other Syrians (Assyrians) were called West Syrians. I can't believe that you guys didn't know that important aspect of YOUR history. What's next ... you're going to deny that Syriac Orthodix Church was called Assyrian Orthodox Church before 1950s!! - Malik Danno (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"you're going to deny that Syriac Orthodix Church was called Assyrian Orthodox Church before 1950s" Please, are you kidding me? The name assyrian has never existed since jesus christ. The "Assyrian church of the east" did not exist. it was called the nestorian church and was changed to assyrian church of the east in 1967. Also there is 1000 sources telling us that Syriacs are arameans. You are not getting anywhere. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Show us the 1000 sources you speak of that calls aramaens syriacs. Gabr-el 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AramaeanSyriac let's discuss how you deleted my edit by the reasoning of the sources don't provide what I edited. For one lets agree upon: If a news article states that any member(s) of the Chaldean Catholic Church or Syriac Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) are Assyrian then for that source it is understood as Chaldeans and Syriacs are also known as Assyrians ... If you do not agree with this then tell me what is incorrect with it. Second of all for each news agency mentioned tell me which one is not reliable. Second step would be to go through every source and see where it mentions what I just said. [1] BBC article. the title is Assyrian revival stirs in Turkey and it mentions the Syriac Church as just a church and mentions the members of the church as Assyrians. Its about Assyrians (members of the Syriac Church) returning to their ancestral land ... If you don't agree with this article stating that members of the Syriac Church are Assyrians then let's debate that. [2] BBC article. the article states "An estimated 40% of Soedertaelje's 80,000 inhabitants are first or second-generation immigrants.

Most are Assyrians - a Christian minority fleeing persecution in the Middle East." We all know that Soedertaelje has a very large and significant Syriac population. In this Article the majority Syriacs are called Assyrians. If you don't agree with this article that Syriacs are also called Assyrian then tell me what is wrong with it and we will discuss it further. [3] New York Times article. This article talks about the tragic death of Paulos Rafaj Rahho (RIP) and states that "Assyrian Christians — of whom the Chaldeans are the largest denomination." Now if you don't agree in this article that Chaldeans are also known as Assyrian then let's debate it [4] USA Today article. This article talks about the tragic death of Father Youssef Adel (RIP) and it mentions that he was an "Assyrian Orthodox priest". (P.S. he too called himself Assyrian). Father Youssef Adel was clearly a priest of the Syriac Orthodox Church and this article says he is an Assyrian Orthodox priest. This article is stating that Father Youssef Adel a Syriac priest was also known as an Assyrian priest. If there is anything wrong with this source let's discuss it. [5]USA Today article. it states "Thrown into that ethnic cauldron are Armenian and Assyrian-Chaldean Christian minorities." again same thing ... if you want to discuss it bring it up [6] UNPO (a international source) says "It is divided into different denominations including the following four Assyrian rites: Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Assyrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Chaldean Catholic Church and Protestants. " again same thing let's discuss it if you dont agree with it

P.S. don't edit anything on the page before we have finished discussing this. P.P.S. I am not a nationalist (as I have stated above) I know what nationalism really is and what it has/can lead to. I am against any hyper-nationalist movements no matter which ethnic group (including Assyrians) - Malik Danno (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Helihophis brings up interesting points and you ignore them. "Because the word man comes from the word human, in much the same way as the word "Syrian" comes from Assyrian.". The only true thing you ever said, Gabriel.

Malik, I'm starting to believe you are stupid. It's absolutely true a majority of the people in Södertälje are Syriacs. So if a reporter calls them Assyrian, proves only the ignorance of the reporter and nothing else. You are clearly as ignorant as the reporter about this subject. Your sources can never be used in a wikipedian article to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians. That's just plain stupidity. The TriZ (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all lets not name call anyone. I just have a couple of questions for you: How old are you? and What is your level of education? please answer those and soooo many questions will be answered. The issue over Södertälje is that the journalist and I know that it is majority Syriac Christians (orthodox and catholic) But thats it ... we see Syriacs as a religious denomination in this case while their ethnicity is in fact Assyrian. Also since BBC has a lot of responsibility over what it publishes and hearing your claim against that article are you also saying that BBC is an unreliable source? - Malik Danno (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing my level of education is higher than yours, based on the impression I get from you. Though I can't see how that's relevant in any way. Again, you have no idea what ethnicity is, if you knew, you wouldn't call the Syriacs of Södertälje Assyrians or you don't know nothing about Södertälje. So do yourself a favour and stop embarrass yourself.

Your saying a BBC journalist is an expert on the whole Syriac/Assyrian issue and is the one who determines which of the names is correct? The TriZ (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malik. It does look like at least one of those sources uses Assyrian and Chaldean similarly. But this is not sufficient support for your change. What you have done is, IMO, independent research. You did research into how the word is used, and posted your data as citations. This is not how wikipedia works. A supporting source should _ explicitly state_ a fact. A valid source will say "Assyrians are also called Syriacs and Chaldeans." Reliability is irrelevant to this question, as none of your sources state this as a fact. Here is a relevant excerpt from the wikipedia policy page on original research: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research".

Additionally, I still believe that, even were you to find such a source, the statement is not in best interest of the reader. This is already a common misconception, and it's only likely to add to it. Also Malik, I do not feel that the BBC is, in general a reliable source. Possibly useful if there is no other information, but absolutely inferior to a peer-reviewed journal article or a university publication, really barely above a television programme.

Gabriel, I'm not arguing that Syriac isn't descended from Assyrian. There does seem to be good evidence for this. This doesn't mean Assyrians and Syrians are one nation. "Deutch" and "Dutch" are ethnonyms that also come from the same historical source, but they refer to two different groups of people. Slovene and Slovak are another example, and there are many more. Syrians and Assyrians have names that are derived from the same ancient empire. Today however they are different groups of people. I don't really understand what you think you are "proving" by this connection. Also, while the article by Rollinger is an excellent and perfectly appropriate source, ancient Greek historians are not (generally) reliable sources! They said all kinds of weird things, and speculated endlessly about the meanings of names, and were usually dead wrong! This time they were right, but in general, they are a very poor source for this sort of thing. Thank you, Helikophis (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can user:Gabr-el explain why he keeps adding the "(Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs)"? I don't want to write the same thing as Helikophis just wrote above, so (re-)read it. The TriZ (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the source from the Houses of Parliament says so, by Lord Hylton and MP Stephen Pound (Chaldeans as Catholic Assyrians) and because the BBC articles presented talk about Assyrians in danger in southern Turkey and cite a Syriac monk. Gabr-el 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just put in a request for help over at Wikiproject Ethnic Groups. Maybe they can help us sort this out. Helikophis (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabrel, I did read Stephen Pound, and just looked over it again, and do not see anywhere where he states that Assyrians are also called Syriacs or Chaldeans. He talks about Chaldean-Assyrians, which is a different term altogether! I don't see him explaining the circumscription of the term. I think that he's using it as shorthand for "Chaldeans and Assyrians," but I don't really know because he doesn't say what it means. Regardless, he does not explicitly state the fact that you are trying to use him as a reference for. That is the burden of proof! I don't think you understand what the original research policy means! Please read and understand it before you add this stuff back in again! Helikophis (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Helikophis thank-you for notifying Wikipedia people, hopefully they will help us in solving this. But I am confused over what you want and what would justify putting "Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs)" do you want that exact working in sources? because I will bet that every other source in wikipedia being used doesn't have the exact wording that is used on the page. Shouldn't the main focus of the passage being quoted justify the editor in paraphrasing what is meant? - Malik Danno (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though I don't agree how you just overlook all the news sources provided which call 'Syriacs' and 'Chaldeans' Assyrians I will wait for what others in Wikipedia who are neutral have to say. Besides that I will also try to provide journal and article sources which are prevalent in my argument. [7] This is a report by Assyrian Council of Europe (Which is a prominent part of Europe and is internationally recognized) states that "As a result of a rich and ancient heritage, the Assyrians have come to be identified under many names throughout the ages and this is reflected in the human rights reports and political resolutions listed in this dossier by virtue of the fact that some documents use various names such as Chaldeans, ChaldoAssyrians, or Syriacs when referring to Assyrians." and for the rest of the report whenever mentions Assyrians it is states as such "The Assyrians (Chaldeans, Syriacs and other Christian minorities)" ... Now using this journal source which is by a respected international source ... are we justified in saying Assyrians (Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) if not then what about Assyrians (Chaldeans, Syriacs and other Christian minorities). Another source I found was [8] which was done by VAHRAM PETROSIAN and in the journal he clearly states that "The Assyrians are also known as Syrians, Chaldeans, Assyro- Chaldeans or Syro-Chaldeans (Chaldo-Assyrians), Nestorians, and Ja- cobites." Now Please tell me if this journal which is from Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, Yerevan is not reliable and please tell me wether or not this justifies me to put Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs). I also found another Journal [9] Now this journal is from Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project and is states that Assyrians are " Sometimes called Chaldeans or Syriacs, and referred to as ‘ChaldoAssyrians’ in the Transitional Administrative Law, reflecting one single ethnic group." If this doesn't justify what I've trying to say all along then I don't know what will At this point I will only take Helikophis' response seriously because he/she is the only one in this debate who actually responds respectfully - Malik Danno (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malik, Yes, that is the kind of explicit statement that is an appropriate source for this addition! I can't comment on the reliability of the Iranian source as I can't really find any info on them on the web, but if you are confident that they are, I won't argue it. I can't oppose the change on the grounds of original research with those sources. Note that I still don't feel it's the best addition on the grounds that I think it perpetuates confusion, but I will no longer oppose the change. Thank you for providing appropriate sources!

Helikophis (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ok I have made the changes. If there is still anything wrong then please don't hesitate to ask questions. Helikophis i understand how you might think that this might confuse some, but I feel that it will confuse others more if it's not put in. Those who have heard Chaldeans and Syriacs under Assyrians will be confused over what each name really means. Also after we settle this I would want your help to clean up the Syriac-Aramaean page. There are very bias and unreliable sources there, and the writing in that page is very weak. - Malik Danno (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New Debate

Ok lets concentrate all of our debating here. I don't like having to debate here, at the wikiproject page at the Aramaen page and at the Syriac template as well. I also suggest we take Dab's advice and ask a member from the WP:FTN page to take a look and see if this is not a fringe theory, or if it is. Gabr-el 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Ive been reading your discussion pages.. and tbh i sometimes feel hate that i was born a suryoyo..wtf is it so hard to just make a article called Arameans/Assyrians!? why do you always have to backstab eachother? you all know that we are the same people! We are both suryoyo..even if your oromoyo or othuroyo or chaldoyo so stop the bullshit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodcheif (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, look at what I posted at the top. What did I say? Did I not demand from these people for unity? But you and I have a duty not to accuse the innocent with the guilty. Malik Donno said that he wanted unity and a discussion with reliable sources, which he provided. The Triz meanwhile has reciprocated by saying that we will never unite, that we have no one name under which we can agree with. Whom do you think I was inclined to agree with? The Users that follow sources and consensus, or the fool who says we cannot unite? I say, let us unite, and let those who fail to unite perish in their arrogance, and in the false knowledge of their so called millions strong Aramaic-Syriac race - by the way, not a single source by The Triz mentions this ridiculous nonsense "aramaic-syriac" - they speak only of Syriac or Syrians, and I have plenty of sources from USA today and the British Houses of Parliament that speak of Assyrians. What do you say? Are you still going to accuse everyone, or make an effort, as I did, to find out who was right and wrong? Gabr-el 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that this article belongs moved to Assyrian/Syriac people to reflect these disputes. A notable precedent for such a move would be the official US census. We have established that the "Aramaean" faction is rather recent and a small minority at that, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning it. All and any further coverage of this dispute goes to names of Syriac Christians please. This is the article about the Syriac Christians as an ethnic group, whatever you want to call them, not about the naming dispute itself, thanks. Please do not bother to contribute to this issue unless you have familiarized yourself with our WP:NAME guidelines (all of it. understand that the article title is nothing to do what these people choose to call themselves, nor what they happen to be called in German or Swedish, but only what they are commonly called in English), and have reviewed the many redirects pointing here. Simple rants or edits unaware of these points should be reverted on sight without further comment. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules on the title of the page doesn't say follow what the US census says. Instead it says use what is mostly, commonly used in the English language. Until you can show that anything other then Assyrian is used more in the English language, then it would be unlawful, according to Wiki's rules, to move this page.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) - And I quote "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Chaldean (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
By that definition, Malik's sources from USA Today, and my sources from the British Houses of Parliament have a strikingly clear depiction of what we are called. Gabr-el 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


I think we should unite! But when saying that I DONT mean that I wanna become an Assyrian.. I Still belong to the ancient Aramean-Syriac people..

most common name in recent respectable English language sources

let this section be dedicated exclusively to establishing which is the most commonly used name for the Syriac Christian minority in the Near East in respectable (encyclopedic, official, academic), recent (certainly post WWII, ideally post-2000) English language sources. I will move all comments discussing what the name should be out of this section. This is simply about establishing the status quo, such as it is. To get a first idea


I conclude from this that "Assyrian people" (the present title), "Syriac Christians" and "Syriacs" occurs with comparable frequency in literature. Loan of Aramaic Suryoye appears with lesser frequency in English, but can be shown to be in use. Likewise, "Aramaean Christians" is used with lesser frequency. "Aramaean people" or "Aramean-Syriacs" are out. It is down to closer scrutiny of the sources to establish which of the three possibilities, Assyrian people, Syriac Christians or Syriacs is to be considered the most widespread in respectable sources, but clearly all three variants belong mentioned in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One must also take to consider that even though nowadays Syriacs is the correct name that is being used, but it was before Syrians and sometimes still is used as Syrians, but you can't count with the hits from Syrians cause most of the is about the people of Syria. Also as I said in the Aramean-Syriac peoples talkpage, Aramean-Syriac isn't a common name and I've many timed urged for that article to be moved to Syriac people. And I also said there that Assyrian people might refer to the ancient Assyrians, and Chaldean said it didn't. But check the first page in google books and you find this for example, [5], which refers only to the ancient Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Assyrians" commonly refers to the ancient Assyrians, but Assyrian people doesn't, because the Assyrians were not a "people" or tribe, but the ruling elite of an empire. Hence, the term "Assyrian people" is de facto almost (but not quite, e.g. [6]) exclusively used for the Christian group. It's still potentially confusing. As far as I can see, the only unambiguous terms that are also in common use are Syriacs or Syriac Christians. I would thus propose this page should be moved to either Syriacs, Syriac Christians, or Syriac/Assyrian people to rule out all confusion once and for all. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


First of all, dab you have become baised regarding this isssue. You have shown to favor the Syriac name as you have recently only refered to the group as Syriac Christians. You even show you how baised you are in the method you have put up here for us. Let the reader know what this is ultimatly about; you moved History of the Assyrian people to History of the Syriac Christians with no disucssion, and when the Wikipedia community saw what you did, it moved the page back to its proper name. You obviously are trying to start some kind of unity revolution, but please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for that. You have tried previously to force you ideas (remember when you moved Achaemenid Assyria?) and your tactics haven't worked.
TO THE ISSUE
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#General_conventions - "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things"

You dab didn't even take a look at the search results you got for "Syriac Christians" book results. The term does not refer to only Aramaic-speakers of areas around Bet-Nahrain, but instead refers to anyone who is part of a Syriac chruch; 'That includes INDIANS and Maronites, which is what also included in your Syriac Christians book results. If you look at "Syriac Christians"] book results, you will see that the term refers not the Assyrians, but anybody of Syriac church - that includes [INDIANS of SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY] and Maronites as well. Here is [another example] of reference to Indians; "The existence of these Syriac Christians in India probably explains the identity...."

Now its clear that this article is not about Indians of Syriac Christinity or Maronites or any other Aramaic-speaking community that does not refer to itself to some form of Assyrian (Suraya/Assuraya/Aturaya.)

Your book search of Syriac Christians also uses the term in way that is mostly used for in English today; that is reference to only members of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Syriac Catholic Church. Its funny you put a "(caution: may refer to the Nestorian confession only)" for Assyrian poeple, but do not do the same for Syriac Christians refer to the Syric Orthodox/Catholic church members. This of course does not include the rest of the total Assyrian population. Here is an example of what came up with your book search; [[7]] "It needs to be emphasized that the early Orthodox Syriac Christians ".


Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references "The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term." So tell us dab, why did you not put up the total google hits for every name? Is it because it goes against what you are trying to achieve? Wikipedia does not say only use book and scholar search. So lets put up the numbers for everyone;

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references "International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc"

The United Nations
NATO - Nothing for [Syriac people] or [Assyrian people].

However, ["Chaldo-Assyrian"] - 2 results and 1 modern "Assyrian" reference. There was no other result with Syriac Christians or Syriacs or Assyrian people.

I wish I could look up the other organization's websites mentioned, but our internet here in Iraq is not that fast and is not loading the pages.


Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references "Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine)."

  • Google News, since 1945
["Assyrian Christians"] - 721
["Syriac Christians"] - 78
["Assyrian people"] - 179
["Syriac people"] - 21

I wish I could do a search here on BBC News and CNN's websites, but unfortunatly, our internet here in Iraq is extermly slow and takes forever to just load the front page. Perhaps someone out their can post them. But one all has to do is scroll a little up and check out all the links User Malik Danno has posted that shows USA Today and BBC over and over again referencing Assyrian and not Syriac.


Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references "Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English. "

Again, if someone could post the results for Brittanica and other encyclopedia.

In conclusion, this isn't even close. Is their a naming issue? Yes their is, and that is why we have created the Assyrian naming dispute page. We explain the issue and have put up all sides of the story. But regarding this page, it isn't even close. Most English reference Assyrian and not Syriac. Dab and some even on the Assyrian side are trying to start some kind of unity revolution of Christians in the middle east. I have emphasized previously before, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Iraqi (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, in this case, doing the google test on the web is pointless, since the internet is riddled with ridiculously partisan hate sites. I did the google test on google scholar and google books above, and it has become clear that both "Syriac Christians" and "Assyrian Christians" have a similar incidence. Both names are in use, ok? Neither is "right" and neither is "incorrect".
Yes, the naming issue is discussed elsewhere. You are claiming that "Syriac Christians" refers to adherents of the the West Syrian Rite only, and that "Assyrian Christians" refers to adherents of the East Syrian Rite only. This is false. Syriac Christianity refers to all churches of the Syrian Rite, both East and West, and Syriac Christians are any adherents of Syriac Christianity. This is the article on these people, both "East Syrian" and "West Syrian". You know as well as I do that this dispute has no basis in denomination: You find members of the Syriac Orthodox Church both in the "Assyrian" and in the "Syriac-Aramaean" camps. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Syrian Christians

You seem to ignore the fact that the church and the people still very often are refered to as Syrian. Try "Syrian Christians", I bet you will get most hits on that. Also, why search on "Syriac people"? When saying Assyrians generally it is the ancient Assyrians you are refering to, but there is no such case when it comes to Syriacs. Therefore you should search on Syriacs. Also I have mentioned the big reason why Assyrian gets so many hits, and that is because of the Iraq war and the difficulties for the Christians in Iraq, in which the majority of the Christians over there call themselves Chaldo-Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"majority of Christians over there call themselves Chaldo-Assyrians" - nice way to destroy your own argument. Gabr-el 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Syrian Christians refers to Christians that happen to live in Syria. "Syriac" as opposed to "Syrian" was coined precisely to distinguish Syriac Christianity from Christianity in Syria. You are not helping, TriZ, especially if you keep ignoring WP:CITE. Try to get over yourself and begin accepting that Wikipedia has rules. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How did I destroy my arguments? Try a google search, book search, schoolar search and you'll se how many articles that is about the Christians in Syria. So how about you not making up things and instead see the obvious, that "Syrian Chrsitians" and "Syrian people" still today is sometimes used to describe the "Syriac Christians" and the "Syriac people". Just google it. [8], [9], etc. The TriZ (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

fine, I have made Syrian Christians a disambiguation page. You'll still concede that Syriac Christians is the preferable term, because it is unambiguous? And, why are you linking to a Megalommatis article here, what is that supposed to have to do with anything? Megalommatis is in your camp, yes, but I do not hope he is one of your more quotable compatriots. --dab (𒁳) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, Syriac Christians is with no doubt the preferable term, I'm just saying Syrian Chrsitians are still, by some, used to describe the Syriac Christians. And the Megalommatis source was just to prove my point, that Syrian is still used to desribe the Syriac people. And don't you think I know what Megalomamatis have written? Believe me I'm aware of it and if I wanted to use him as my source I would already have done it. But it's a bit ironic though, I know nothing about the "American Chronicle" but I'm guessing it's a kind of a American news agency, and we all know what some people here are using as their sources... The TriZ (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


" (triz) You seem to ignore the fact that the church and the people still very often are referred to as Syrian" - If your referring to Suraya/Suroyo, then your ignoring the fact that the word has been correctly translated to English as Assyrian and not Syrian. Thus, another reason explaining why Assyrian is the most common term used. If you look for any type of google search of Syrian, you almost unamously get only things relating to the Arab Republic of Syria, and not Assyrians.
"(triz) Try "Syrian Christians", I bet you will get most hits on that." - Syrian Christians? I’ve already showed how Syriac Christians would be too ambiguous since it would include Indians and Maronites. With Syrian Christians, it’s the same story, since it refers to Christians in the Syrian Arab Republic. And the vast majority of those Chirstians are of Melkite and Greek Orthodox Church.
"(triz) When saying Assyrians generally it is the ancient Assyrians you are refering to, but there is no such case when it comes to Syriacs." - Exactly, this article is not titled Assyrians, its titled Assyrian people, and dab explained to you how Assyrian people is only a reference to the modern Assyrians. But you still have not seem to understand that.
" (triz) Also I have mentioned the big reason why Assyrian gets so many hits" - yes you have, and you've stated that it is the most common use in the English language. Wikipedia does not care why it is the most common used, it only cares about what is the most common used name. Iraqi (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Dab you didn't answer non of the your flaws that I marked about. Syriac Christians is not a reference to only Aramaic-speaking of Iran,Iraq,Syria, and Turkey. It is a reference to anybody that beolongs to a Syriac-speaking church; that inlcudes 6 million Indians and another 3 million Maronites.' You haven't proved without a reasonable dought that anything other then Assyrian people or Assyrian Christian is used as much to refer to this group. Iraqi (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me Chaldean.

I'm not refering to Suroyo/Suraya, why would I do that? I can show you sources where the Syriac people is mentioned as Syrian people.
About the Assyrians contra Assyrian people, I have full understanding for that. I was only showing that Syriacs is a searchable and not Assyrians. And since Syriacs gets most hits, it seems to me Syriacs is the most common name. The TriZ (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is pointless to google for "Assyrians", since the results will primarily include reference to pre-Christian antiquity. Here is a 2006 Cambridge University Press monograph on Eastern Christianity:[10]

the term Syriac Christianity refers to the various Middle Eastern and Indian churches which belong to the Syriac tradition.

this is what this article addresses. Yes, it is also correct to call them Syrian Christians, but it is ambiguous, since the term may also refer to Christianity in Syria exclusively. So why be ambiguous if we can use a term that is just as correct, and unambiguous on top of that. Please look at the "Demographics" section of this article to see which groups it covers. Also look at the population infobox. Ethnologues 4.2 million "ethnic population" counts all groups associated with Neo-Aramaic / Syriac. This article covers all of them. You need to work together to carve out an article right here, covering all your differences in a neutral and detached fashion. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

another source, a 2000 Routledge monograph,[11]

large numbers of Syriac Christians, both east (Nestorian) and west (Jacobite) Syrian Christians in Mesopotamia

this shows that "Syriac Christians" and synonymously "Syrian Christians" refers to both the East and West Syrian rite, not just to the Western one. "Assyrian Christians" otoh refers to the East Syrian rite only. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a modern Aramaic phrasebook:[12]

Assyrians call themselves: S: Suraye, Suryaye, Athuraye / T: Suroye, Soryoye, Othuroye

The a/o alternation is just dialectal, there are three terms, Sr@ye, Sry@ye, @thr@ye, all of which are rendered in English as "Assyrians" and/or "Syriacs": The English term Assyrians (the title of this article) translates all of Neo-Aramaic Suraye, Suryaye and Athuraye and not just Athuraye. This isn't a question of Aramaic, it's a question of common English usage. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

this shows that "Syriac Christians" and synonymously "Syrian Christians" refers to both the East and West Syrian rite, not just to the Western one. "Assyrian Christians" otoh refers to the East Syrian rite only - that is not true. Syriac Orthodox make up about 40% of all Assyrians in Iraq, yet in news media and world bodies, they use the term Assyrian. If is pointless to take into consideration the hits we get for Assyrians (Which I agree), then the hits of Syriacs should be nulled. Since we can't proparly compare it with anything. Assyrian people gets more hits then Syriac people. Assyrian Christians gets more hit then Syriac Christians (desplite Syriac Christians being a reference Indians and Maronites as well.) If this is a question of comon English usage, then we have showed over and over again how Assyrian is the most common used term. Again, you are wrong in claiming Assyrian Christians being a reference to East Syrian rite only. Iraqi (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to suggest that somewhere in the first sentence "The Assyrian people (also known as Assyrians, Syrians, Syriacs, Syrian Christians, Syriac Christians,Suroye/Suryoye[17] and other variants, see names of Syriac Christians)" a disclaimer should be added making people aware that Syrian Christians or Syrians does not refer to the people of Syria or Syrian Arabs, for people that don't have any background information on Assyrians might confuse the people with Syrian Arabs. Aturaya (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

There have been recent deletions to this page and there has been no concensus on why those changes occurred. There wasn't even a discussion as to why those deletions took place. I will put what was there before until there is a discussion discussing why the deletion occurred. Man Wikipedia has become even more of a joke then it has ever been (and it was a laughing stock). Any outlet which lets anyone edit information is bound to be extremely unreliable. Any 12 year old with no educational background can now adays bring fiction to reality in Wikipedia ... which is what has happened in this website. Malik Danno (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

we're working on it. Wikipedia has rules. The "Assyrian" topics are plagued by some editors who are particularly stubborn about ignoring the rules, but we are getting there. Wikipedia is free, but not free-for-all. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Dab you've been creating much controvirsy by trying to unite all these group under one name. Wikipedia is not the page for this, and you know this. We have Assyrians. We have those who don't identify as Assyrian, and dont identify with the entire group as one, thus we have Syriac people and Chaldean Christian pages. If you want to establish what is the most common name in English for the group, generally, thats fine, but don't do it half-way. Do it in a complete method, where you use all of the suggestion Wikipedia gives. And don't just write it in a talk page where it gets archieved. Instead do it in the talk forum we created, where everytime we get a troll or someone challanging what is the most common name, then we can easily refer him to our research. Iraqi (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a "page", or a discussion forum, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, see WP:ENC. I really wish that after several years of giving us grief you would finally condescend to read up on the project basics. This is the article on the Christian minority in the Middle East, in English in the 20th century commonly called "Assyrians", more recently also "Syriacs" or "Assyrians/Syriacs". See the discussion right above for discussion of this, including references. There are subgroups, yes, and perhaps you would finally do me the favour and read the Assyrian_people#Demographics section. The major subgroups are adherents of the East Syrian Rite vs. the West Syrian Rite. The East Syrian rite has a further subgroup, known as "Chaldeans". If you should want to create a sub-article on the demographics of adherents of the West Syrian Rite, could you perhaps condescend do start presenting your sources at Syrian Nestorians and/or Syrian Jacobites on equal footing with Chaldean Christians. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

numbers

Right now the numbers are pretty ridiculous. 05 - 5.3 million? Gabr-el 03:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that an Iraqi estimate of 4 million Assyrians is laughable. Even the most ardent Nazi-Assyrian would deny this ridiculous number; we're not 15% of the Iraqi population; we're closer to 1.5% of the Iraqi population. Gabr-el 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The population of Assyrians in Iraq has been estimated to be around 700,000 to 1,000,000. However, the Assyrian population in USA is believed to be much greater. A new study released found that there were over 100,000 Assyrians in Michigan alone. [13]. The US population is probably up around 300,000 - 400,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.39.186 (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Interesting, but without references khon, thats all it will be. We need references that are credible, ones that won't give a wide figure from 500,000 to 5,000,000. Gabr-el 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That study put the Michigan population at 113,000 and this [14] puts the Illinois population at 80,000 in 2002. And here[15] they say that 50,000 Assyrians settled in Chicago from 1965 throughout 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.39.186 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also an Assyrian community in Brazil. An Assyrian politician visited the community in 2005 [16]. Here [17] it mentions there are Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers but it does not give a number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.39.186 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab continues to think that this is a one-man project and is reverting everyone else's work. It is a joke to suggest their are 4 million Assyrians in Iraq. Not even the most nationalistic Assyrian would say that. I can't understand user dab anymore. Why on earth would you bring a 14 year old statistic to the page? Use new sources. Most sources today put the number in Iraq at 800,000. Iraqi (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oooff, just thinking about this makes my head spin. Dab, can you answer for this? Are you reverting everyone else's work? Gabr-el 06:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

my reverts are based on WP:CITE. I agree 4 million "ethnic population" seems unlikely. What we need is a credible source. "Why on earth would I bring a 14 year old statistic to the page?" Not because I like it, come on. But because there wasn't anything better cited. It is hardly my fault that there are no reliable estimates available. As long as "Iraqi" (Chaldean (talk · contribs)) refuses to recognize my good faith and continues to prefer personal attacks over contributing quality content, I will not consider him an editor in good standing. His work here has mostly been sabotaging progress. My guess is that an "ethnic population" of 4 million in Iraq is due to the impossibility to tell an Arabized Assyrian (Muslim, Arabic speaker) from an Arab (Muslim, Arabic speaker). I have no idea how SIL came up with the number, maybe it's a mistake. Let's just find a better source. CIA Factbook has "Assyrian, Iraqi Turkmen or other 5-10%". That would be a high estimate of 2.7 million "Assyrian, Iraqi Turkmen or other" in Iraq. Assuming a low estimate of 0.2 million Turkmen, this would still leave us with a high estimate of 2.5 million Assyrians. Note this argument here, apparently the origin of our "800,000" number. I'll try to reflect this in the template. Note that reasonable discussion of sources is much more likely to fix issues than angry ranting or shooting the messenger. Understand that this is about high and low estimates. A low estimate seems to be 0.5 million, a high estimate some 5 million. A likely estimate would seem to be 3 million. But that's just putting together lots of unreliable sources to get an impression, we simply don't have a reliable source. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the Ethnic population is .5 - 3.3 million. There is no source whatsoever that puts the assyrian population at .5 ... this just an estimate by someone on wikipedia. There are MANY sources who claim that there are 800 000 assyrians left in Iraq so i don't understand how the world population for assyrians is .5 (minimum). Malik Danno (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dab for clearing that up, though I would prefer that everyone, including yourself respected everyone's edits, including User:Chaldean's. I agree with Malik Danno. To cite 500,000 as a minimum estimate is wrong. Million or so strong Assyrians in Iraq 14 years ago could not possibly have been reduced to 500,000 world total! Gabr-el 06:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
the half million low estimate is the number of speakers of Aramaic. It depends on how you want to define "Assyrians/Syriacs". If the definition is "Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Middle East", I suppose the half-million is a reasonable estimate. If you want to include people who have either lost the language, or the religion, or both, the number will naturally be larger. But I will be happy to admit "ca. 3 million" as a rough estimate in the infobox: I feel this is a reasonable estimate even if we cannot back it up with a good source. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to search for "one million Assyrians" on google books:[18] some sources estimate 1 million worldwide[19][20], while others estimate 1 million in Iraq alone[21][22][23].

here, 1 million world wide is given as a high estimate, with ca. 200,000 in Iraq. We need to accept that estimates vary by about a factor of five. "1 to 2 million" seems to be a typical worldwide estimate, with 0.2 to 1 million in Iraq. Including very high and very low estimates, the range would be "0.5 to 4.5 million"[24] or variance by a factor of nine. This is similar to Germans: do we count the millions of US Americans and Brazilians who claim German ancestry without speaking a word of German as "Germans"? In this case, at least, we have reliable census data and can explain the high and low numbers. In the case of the Assyrians/Syriacs, we just don't know. 1-2 million worldwide sounds about right. This seems to be the best informed source, not just giving a number but explaining the uncertainty: Estimates [for Iraq] range from as low as 133,000 to as high as 750,000. There are probably about one million Assyrians in the world, the greatest number being in the United States. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Who Is Included?

Adding on Dab's question, I feel like we should vote on who is included in the "Assyrian Ethnic" population. Are they:

a) members of all 3 Christian denominations (Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, and Syriac Churches (both)) [only who's origins come from Middle East not India etc.] b) Only members of the Church of the East (nestorians) c) Only people who are able to speak aramaic fluently d) Only nestorians who are able to speak aramaic fluently

(If there are more you want to add just add them on) My vote goes to a) Malik Danno (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My vote goes for (a). But Dabs gonna wanna see some citing. Gabr-el 21:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I also go with (a). And what does being able to speak the language fluently have to do with it? If a Korean man born in the US does not speak Korean, he is still Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.99.34 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Ethnicity is reflected by a number of factors, but is determined by genetics. Otherwise, they are not an ethnic people. Just like there's no such thing as "English speaking peoples", there are English people and lots of other people who are not even white who speak English fluently (like the Korean man you cite as an example). Gabr-el 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ethnicity must not be determined by genetics. The TriZ (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Then what will it be determined by? Your dodgy Syriac references? Or by language? You are amusing me. If My Father and my Mother are Assyrian or Chaldean, that makes me an Assyrian and Chaldean by genetic inheritance. Gabr-el 23:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not determined by language fluency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.99.34 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad I'm amusing you, how about you and your friends read a little about ethnicity. The TriZ (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are that we don't use wikipedia to cite wikipedia. But let me entertain your folly by looking at the very first wiki sentence:

"An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry."

Endogamy suggests the importance of genetics - keeping a "pure" bloodline, where else a "real common ancestor", would oh my, genetics again...Gabr-el 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Read what I wrote and read again what it says. The TriZ (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that ethnicity is NOT determined by genetics and to read about "ethnicity" which states that genetics plays a role in ethnicity. You are contradicting yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.99.34 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me go through an entire article to find information that supports my viewpoint; tell me what you think Ethnicity is so we can have a civil discussion about it. Gabr-el 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Civil? I think that's impossible, just look through what you've written. I wrote that "Ethnicity must not be determined by genetics", meaning that for sure ethnicity can be determined by genetics, but it's not a must. The first senctence in the article states that it's "usually on the basis...". You can't blaim your obvious lack of reading comprehension by calling what I write for "folly". The TriZ (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have proven to be equally skilled in reading, by not providing an answer to the question "what is ethnicity". Ok, so you think that ethnicity is not genetics, what then? What do you say it is? And do not cite wikipdia, I told you already that is against the rules. I can attack what you write, thats fair and square. What I can't do is get personal, which is not what I have done, but what you have done by suggesting that we cant be civil. Now answer the question what ethnicity is, if you can't provide a positive answer rather than shooting one down supported by other users, than we'll use mine. Gabr-el 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You're logic is also bad. "It must not be X" means that it cannot be any part of X at all for any conditions. Thus, when you said "Ethnicity must not be determined by Genetics", and then you say "it can be determined", you are contradicting yourself. State yourself clearly! Gabr-el 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? "It must not be X, but it can be X.". You get it? You demanding answers from me is not civil, I only complemented by saying that ethnicity doesn't have to be determined by genetics like you said, even though if course it can. The TriZ (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you a quick lesson in logic. If something "must not be X", then it cannot be X.
Must not be x
Can be X - how can it be X if it must not be X!
Contradiction. Do you mean to say that it must not be X alone? If so, add that word in so I can understand you. It is not uncivil for me to ask you for your opinion. It is however uncivil of you to call me uncivil, when all I have done is attacked your logic and demanded your opinion. This is wikipedia, if you're going to say something illogical, I will show you your illogic. At the moment, you have not helped in stating what ethnicity should be based on. Gabr-el 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear (after all, English isn't my natural language) but I've already explaind what I meant, read above, if you can't understand it, then I can't help you. This is Wikipedia, not some sort of reading comprehension school. And no, your not asking for my opinion, your demanding for it. The TriZ (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're English is bad, then don't lecture me on what the difference is between demanding and asking. Ok, pretty pretty please tell me what your opinion is. Gabr-el 03:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ok so far we have 3 members who agree that a) is the best answer, and 1 member who is diverting the question. Malik Danno (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

People who share the same language, culture, ancestry, and church origins (in the case of the Chaldean Church splitting from the Church of the East); I think that those are pretty solid foundations that the 3 denominations are the same people. So (a) should be what is used and not to mention the Assyrian Evangelicals, Protestants, etc, etc should be included.

Exactly. If you have a blood relative that is Assyrian, then you have some Assyrian in you. Gabr-el 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

please read ethnicity. Ethnicity isn't identical to genealogy. dab (𒁳) 16:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright - but dab, no one is going to exclude a person from an ethnic group based on their inability to speak the language of that group. Thus, 500,000 is not an estimate of Assyrians but Aramaic speaking Assyrians. Gabr-el 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab, wikipedia is the most unreliable source anyone can find on then internet, why are you showing us definition of a word on an unreliable source? Malik Danno (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok so what you and this incorrect ethnicity page is saying is this: lets say that tomorrow Gabriel and I wake up and we stop calling ourselves Assyrian, and us and about 100 more assyrians adopted the name "Scythians" being the Ancient decendents of the Scythian people. Does that mean that as of now We are no longer assyrian (even though Assyrian blood runs through our veins) and we are now Scythian even though there is no ancestral tie that links the two of us together? Malik Danno (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stupidity

The Arameans (later known by Syriacs) are real people. The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form. Even if the etymology of the word "Syrian" is "Assyrian," this does not mean that the Aramean/Syriac people are "Assyrians." It takes a real idiot to believe so. The words "Arab" and "Hebrew" are cognates, but I've never seen the idiot yet who says that the Arabs and Hebrews are one thing.

Most modern Syriacs I know don't agree on calling themselves by the name of an extinct people. This article must either be changed or split. I am going to make a page about the Syriac people soon. HD86 (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so elegant about this. Many Assyrians feel the exact same way about your "Aramaen people" as well. I look forward to hearing of your article being rapidly deleted by Dab. Gabr-el 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand how anybody can argue about this. There was real Assyrian people who spoke the Assyrian dialect of the Akkadian language, an extinct East Semitic language; and there is the Aramean/Syriac people who speak Aramaic/Syriac, an unrelated Northwest Semitic language. These are two very different peoples, with very different languages, origins, and classifications. The Arameans just happened to live next to those Mesopotamian peoples, that is all what they had in common.

What is more "smart" than a person who calls himself Assyrian yet he can't understand a letter of Assyrian? More stupidly, they even call Syriac "Assyrian"!

I just don't know what they call the real Assyrian language ... I guess they must call it Syriac. HD86 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very well documented that the Assyrian empire adopted the Aramaic language in the 8th century BC. Only scribes used Akkadian, and when the empire fell so did the scribes, along with the Akkadian language. All that was left was the language of trade and commerce in the region, Aramaic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.232.165 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mystery user, please sign your name. And yes HD86, you got the above? You're basing all of your mislead assumptions on the fact that we don't speak akkadian. Well if you didn't notice, English people no longer speak Old English, a language unintelligible to modern day English speakers. You need to research your facts buddy before you start calling us stupid.Gabr-el 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The death of a language does not define the language of a people. Assyrians adopted the Aramiac language before their empire fell. An example I will use it Natives of Canada, Many have forgotten their native language and have adopted either French and/or English as their language ... so in your words there are no more Native Canadians just because there are no more native speakers? That doesn't make much sense. Malik Danno (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First, Old English and English are both English; this is false comparison ...

Second, you have just made a big admission ... I'm glad that you all confess now that your so-called "Assyrian" language is not Assyrian but Syriac ... this is half the problem and it has been solved ... now you should never ever again call Aramaic/Syriac "Assyrian" because you know now how extremely stupid is that ...

As for the people, you say that the current Syriac-speaking people are of both Aramaic and Assyrian origin, yet they should be called "Assyrian" even though they speak Syriac not Assyrian and even though a huge part of them are Aramaic not supposidly-Assyrian. How logical is that? This is like an Arab nationalist who wants to call the modern Arabs "Syriacs" or "Copts" not Arabs because part of them are Arabic-speaking Syriacs or Arabic-speaking Copts not Arabs. Your logic is so ill. HD86 (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your making stuff up. No one said that we are Aramaic completely by blood. It is impossible to outrightly deny any Aramaic blood in us. Nonetheless, it is also equally impossible to deny the Assyrian blood in us, which would naturally predominate considering that our homeland, in Northern Iraq, Northern Iran (behold no Aramaens ever deported there!) and southern Turkey corresponds to the Assyrian homeland in c 600s BC. That we do not speak Akkadian does not make us any less Assyrian. We do speak Assyrian, that is, an Assyrian dialect of Aramaic. Hah, if you asked an Assyrian peasant of the 7th century what they spoke, they will most likely reply IN ARAMAIC, "we speak assyrian" - we already established that Aramaic supplanted Akkadian as the language of the Assyrian people, in much the same way that Old English was eventually supplanted by Modern Day English due to the conquest of the Normans, and then the English nationalism by Henry IV. If you have nothing to offer but insulting hate for our race, then go away. Gabr-el 17:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

why do you feel the obligation to put words in out mouths? I never said that As for the people, you say that the current Syriac-speaking people are of both Aramaic and Assyrian origin I will admit that there is aramean blood in us from Ancient times, but we also have arab blood, persian blood, turkish blood, kurdish blood, even maybe greek blood. There is no one in the world that is 100% anything, there is no one who is 100% Italian or German etc. We are all mixed peoples. Now having said that we generally say we are what we are able to trace ourselves back as through history. Sure we have Aramean blood but it is overwhelmed with the Assyrian blood ... Maybe if you said this in 800BCE it would make a bit of sense but over the years as Assyrians married other assyrians and they married other assyrians etc. the Aramean blood slowly got to the point of being non-existant. I'm not denying I have Ancient Aramean blood in me, but as of now there is probably more Kurdish, Turkish and Arab blood in me (even though it is low) then there is Aramean. Malik Danno (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

HD, the language you are calling "Assyrian" was Akkadian but described as "Assyrian" because it was the language Assyrians used. They then adopted Aramaic which is what is used today which could be and has been described as "Assyrian" because it was also the language the Assyrians spoke. There are many differences in the different dialects of Aramaic that were used and instead of saying the language used is "Akkadian-influenced Aramaic of Assyria", the term "Assyrian" is used.--128.196.233.112 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A RESPONSE TO User: HD86. I ENTITLE THIS "YOUR STUPIDITY" The Assyrians are not extinct you incompetent bigoted fool. You lack all things historical you impotent maggot. The Assyrians have existed for over 6500 years you incumbent animal. The Assyrians first spoke Akkadian and in the 8th century the kings of Assyria chose Aramaic as the lingua franca of their mighty empire you extinct ape. We have simultaneously existed throughout the ancient era up until the present day you rotten corpse. We were the first nation to accept Christianity and the Assyrian Church of the East spread as far as China and Japan and India in the 6th century AD you degenerate dog. The Assyrians have been and will always continue to exist through persecution and Diaspora you maggot. The aramaena peoples are an extinct pseudo people who never existed since the Assyrians destroyed their kingdom and reduced it to a vassal state you mongrel. This Aramean Syriac name is a name created by radical separatists who deny their ethical heritage since the late 1980s you snake. The Assyrians speak modern Aramaic the Aramaic in which Christ spoke 2 thousand years ago you uneducated mule. Your statements lack depth in all facets; they are unencylcopediatic, unsourced, close minded, uneducated, mentally degenerate comments that seek to downsize the most ancient people down to nothing. You claim that this name was invented by some new comers almost a hundred years ago, this comment alone shows how completely incompetent you are. I have documents that are hundreds of years old that have been passed down through my family over the centuries that specifically speak about the Assyrians and how this name is far more ancient then simple minded people like you claim. This will be the only comment I will make for you because I will not waste my time speaking to a mentally degenerate pig such as yourself who is a denialist, racist, and complete bigot and a distorter of history who denies the race of the Assyrians exist. I will pray every day that you may you die a most horrible death.68.185.65.244 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In Aramaic, Christ said 2000 years ago: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22)
Please, watch your language. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Benne here, whom I salute for his restrained response. Aramaic is an awesome language, the language of our Lord Jesus Christ. Gabr-el 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Except for the awful and unhelpful language used, I would like to second this comment. Gabr-el 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationalistic POV

The "Assyrian people" didn't exist before the 19th century.

Note on the Modern "Assyrians"
Pseudo-Nation of "Assyrians"
Informationen über die Pseudo-Assyrer (contains English links)
Who are the Christians of Iraq?
HD86 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


An Aramean identity among the Syriac Church did not exist until the 1950's. [25]. The websites you listed are known to be biased.--128.196.233.101 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny you say that an American Ph.D. with no obvious reason to be partial, is biased, when in the same sentence you use christiansofiraq (Assyrian nationalistic site)... (even though if course most other used sources are biased, as most other nationalistic sites about this subject are).The TriZ (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I am not Aramean or anything. I just can recognize mental illness when I see it. HD86 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are even more sources saying an Assyrian identity existed before the 19th century in journals and books that are sourced. If you want to make an Aramean page, make one, but keep it out of the Assyrian page. And just name it Aramean and not Syriac-Aramean.--128.196.233.102 (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Afrem Barsaum made a profound research to the identity of the Syrian Church of Antioch. A part of the conclusion in his book (see above photo) about the name of the "Assyrians" is: The "Assyrian" name is the English Protestant invention going back to 1900 A.D. It was bequeathed to the Nestorians in the regions of Mosul 1919-1920 A.D. for a malicious, political purpose, so that the English politicians might create for themselves out of the Nestorian youth a militia they named "Assyrian" aiming at the realisation of their political plan in Iraq, a plan which failed in 1933 and resulted in the exile of the Katholikos of the Nestorians and his exile from the country with his followers, the result being that all the nations refused to permit his return to the near East.

In conclusion, the Syrians have no interest whatsoever in taking to themselves this strange name which will make them lose their race, their ecclesiastical support which is their unique and sole means of existence in the world. No wise man would of his own free will agree to change the name of his race, his community of his church, all of which had lasted two thousand years.

The conclusion of Afrem Barsauwm is beyond any doubt! The term "Assyrian" is just an invention of the English missionaries and others, who on the basis of their observations, gave this name to the East-Arameans of Mesopotamia, namely the Nestorains and the Chaldeans See for more detailed information about the propaganda of the English and the French men regarding the term "Assyrian" the article "The destruction of the Assyrians in the year 612 B.C… by the Chaldeans and Medians" . Afrem Barsauwm is formidable and very clear in his conclusion. What is the reason for this very clear and unmistakable conclusion? If we read his book, the attention is immediately attracted by the fact that he had studied all the books of the Church fathers and scholars of the Syrian Church of Antioch. From the book you can gather that he wrote it very dedicated, with great passion and precision. This means that it has cost him a lot of effort to make this remarkable and very deeply research. His conclusion is based on two very strong and solid pillars, namely:

On the Holy Book the Bible. On the books of the church fathers and scholars of the Syrian Church of Antioch up to 14e century. These two fundaments are so incredible strong and solid that they can withstand every attack of those who want to falsify the history of the Arameans of Mesopotamia, that means the West-Arameans and the East-Arameans.

HD86 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

19th Century (1842- 1915) The creation of ,,Assyrians”

Those among the east-Aramean “Nestorians” who did not embrace the Catholicism remained faithful to the East-Syrian “Nestorian” Church until 19th century. In the late 19th century, we see a similar thing happening, following the example of the Catholic missionaries, “of dividing and ruling”. This time, being carried out by the Anglican missionaries, with the remaining part of the East-Syrian “Nestorians” of Hakkaria (bordering Turkey - Iraq) and Urmia (Iran), who were wrongfully identified as “Assyrians”; purely geographical and only applied to the “Nestorians”. The East-Aramean “Nestorians” prefer, since then, to call themselves “Assyrians” and try, by all means possible, to force this term onto other Aramean denominations by spreading plenty of biased information regarding the origin of our people and our language.

They also started to distort historical facts. For example: Aramaic language; they changed in “Assyrian” language; Aramean people in “Assyrian” people. Saint Ephraim the Syrian; became “saint Ephrem the Assyrian[6]”; Syrian Church became “Assyrian Church”. In this way they try by all means possible to falsify our history and our sacred language. Regarding the behavior of the western missionaries; a profound research has been made by Professor John Joseph who says,, In 1905 a congregation left the Russian Church to join the United Lutheran Church of America, which maintained a few Nestorian priests under supervision of the American missionary. Other western- supported congregations began to proliferate early in the twentieth century. A Sweedish- American “Augustuna Synode” employed a Nestorian priest who conducted two day-schools. The Evangelican Association for Advancement of the Nestorian Church, founded at Berlin in 1906, employed a Nestorian priest who had Lutheran training in Germany. For about 10 years a German Orient Mission maintained an orphanage outside Urmiyah for Nestorian refugees from mountains. The English Plymouth Brethren employed a few priests in a mission of their own. Other smaller missions were connected with the American Dunkards, the Holiness Methodists, the American Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists, and the English Congregationalists. There was perhaps no missionary field in the world where there were so many rival “Christian” forces at work as were found in urmiya at the beginning of this century; all struggling to get predominance among these few people[7].

HD86 (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Assyrian Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church

Syriac and other historical documents attest to the Assyrian heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church as well.


The Chaldean Bishop Addai Scher writes according to the Syrian Orthodox Church Patriarch Michael the Great (1126-99) the Greeks were offending the Jacobites in the first half of the 9th century by saying:


Your Syrian sect has no importance neither honor, and you did never have a kingdom, neither an honorable king'. The Jacobites answered by saying that even if their name is "Syrian", but they are originally 'Assyrians' "and they have had many honorable kings." This is in line with the contemporary Assyrian claim that the terms Syrian, Suryoye applied to them mean Assyrian. He furthere wrote: "..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. (39) The Greeks evidently directed their comments to the Jacobites of Syria therefore Michael difrentiates between them and those who lived east of Euphrates, he adds: " Assyrians, who were called 'Syrians' by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean 'Assyrians' from 'Assure' who built the city of Nineveh". (40) This concurs with his contemporary Gewargis Arbilaya's [from Arbil] and others before and after him who have identified their people as Assyrians and Babylonians.


During Mor Michael's life time, between 1160 and 1170 John of Wurzburg who visited Jerusalem refers to the Syriac speaking christians of the city as Assyrians. There were both Nestorians and Jacobite communities among others in that city. He writes:


For the Assyrians [ local Syrian Christians] whose fathers were the settlers of that country from the first persecution, say that after Our Lord's Passion the city was seven time captured and destroyed, together with all the churches, but not wholly leveled to the ground. (41)


Later documents continue to identify the Syrian Orthodox Church and its members as Assyrian before the 19th century. When Mehemt II organized the Millet system he appointed the Patriarch of the Armenian as the head of Millet. He was also given authority over other Christian communities such "as the Gypsies ...the Assyrians, the Monophysites of Syria and Egypt, and the Bogomils of Bosnia, ....". Later each of these communities were recognized as Millet independently of the Armenians. (42)


When Horatio Southgate visited the Syrian Orthodox communities of Turkey in 1843 he reported that its followers were calling themselves Assyrians in the form of "Suryoye Othoroye". He writes: " I began to make inquiries for the Syrians. The people informed me that there were about one hundred families of them in the town of Kharpout, and a village inhabited by them on the plain. I observed that the Armenians did not know them under the name which I used, SYRIANI; but called them ASSOURI, which struck me the more at the moment from its resemblance to our English name ASSYRIANS, from whom they claim their origin, being sons, as they say, of Assour, (Asshur,) who 'out of the land of Shinar went forth, and build Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resin between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city..(43)

Anglican Bishop Oswald H. Perry who visited the Syrian Orthodox community at the invitation of Patriarch Mar Ignatius Peter III in a book published in 1895 titled, 'six Months in a Syrian Monastery writes the term Syrian is being used interchangeably with the 'Assyrian' by the members of the Jacobite church. After the massacres of 1895-6 large number of the Assyrians of Turkey migrated to the United State where they established churches and institutions such as. The 'Assyrian Benefit Association" founded in 1897 by Dr. Dr. Abraham K. Yoosuf in Worcester. and 'the Assyrian National School Association of America" later called "The Assyrian Orphanage and School Association of America.' (44)

According to the French consul, the notorious sheikh of Zeilan, responsible for mass incitement at Sassun in 1894, had taken part in the plans for the massacre. During the onslaughts, about 500-700 Armenians and Assyrians took refuge in the French consulate which was 'practically besieged'. (45)


When Metropolitan Mutran Aprim Barsum went to the Paris peace conference in 1920 to plead the case of the Syrian Orthodox his petition identified members of his church as Assyrians.


The Assryian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference from Left to right: Captain A.K. Yousuf, Secratary of Mor Barsum, Joel Warda. Mar Barsum Siting at the center

The text of Mor Barsum's petition dated Feb. 1920 reads:


'We have the honor of bringing before the Peace Conference the information that H.B. the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch has entrusted me with the task of laying before the Conference the suffering and the wishes of our ancient Assyrian nation who reside mostly in the upper valleys of Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia...' (46)


Some Members of the Orthodox Church on the main street of the city of Worcester in 1922. Captain A.K. Yousuf M.D. in front . The sign behind them reads "Sons of Assyria."

According to a 1927 issue of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette Mor Aprim Barsum who had become the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church continued proudly to identify his people as Assyrians.


His Eminence has given lectures on the psychology of the Assyrian people in the United States. His mission has been to create an understanding of the Assyrian people by Americans, because most of them, although well-educated in Assyria have been forced by a changed atmosphere into menial occupations.' (47)


The article also mentions the participation of Aprim Barsum in the 1919 conference held in Paris:


'During the peace conference he appeared to demand indemnity for the Assyrian churches sacked during the World War, and on this occasion was presented with a gold-headed cane by President Doumergue of France. He is also a familiar figure in the educational centers of Europe such as Oxford, Paris and Vienna.' (48)


The Syriac text on this church in turabedin reads it was restored 'on the days of Pariarch Afrem I (Barsoum) the Assyrian and the Bishop Afrem of Turabdin....'


Changing Ethnicity for the sake of religious politics

After identifying himself and his people as Assyrians for most of his life Mor Aprim Barsum issued a decree in to revise the ethnicity of his followers to Arameans. The sealed document of the Patriarch is dated December 2, 1952. It was written in Syriac and Arabic and later published together with an English translation by Archdiocese of the Syrian Church of Antioch under the title: "The Syrian Church of Antioch, in Name and History." His decision was perhaps influenced by the fact that the seat of the Patriarch along with most of his followers were driven out of Turkey in 1924 and resided in Syria where the native Christians who made up a majority of his church members did not want to be known as Assyrians.

Aprim's book was clearly intended to give a new identity to his followers. If as he and others have suggested Suryoyo meant Aramean it would have been a common knowledge, therefore there would not have been a need to write a book about it.


The Syrian Church of Antioch in Name and History

Aprim Barsum justified his drastic change of mind by stating that church in India and homeland [Middle East] is known as "Syrian Orthodox" therefore the use of the Assyrian in the diaspora creates ambiguity about the church and its unity." He further claimed that "The name Assyrian came to be used in English for the Church of the East during the nineteenth century" through the efforts of Anglican Missionaries. (49) This argument was intended to appeal to the religious prejudices of his followers who were willing to reject their Assyrian identity lest they be confused with the hated Nestorians. In reality as shown previously the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of the East long before the arrival of the Anglican missionaries had identified themselves as Assyrians.

Barsum further maintained historically it would be incorrect to use the title Assyrian for the Church since it has been known as "Syrian". However since this title was used by the Rum Orthodox (Antiochian) Church in North America to avoid confusion he recommended the name Aramaic to be used instead of the Syriac language and the term Aramaean to refer to the Church.(50) Ironically on the cover of his book the name of its language was identified as suryoyo or Syriac. The use of Aramaic and Aramean instead of Assyrian dictated by Aprim was not based on historical truth but was intended to stop his followers from identifying themselves as they had done before-the name change was simply motivated by religious politics.

Since 1952 all references to the church and its members as Assyrians have been expunged but some evidences of its former use have survived. In a letter to the editor of the Syrian Orthodox magazine Beth-Nahreen dated 6th of June 1947 Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, Basum's Metropolitan of Jerusalem at Saint Mark's Convent, wrote: 'May the Almighty confer upon you, your staff, the readers of the issue and the Assyrian community all over the world his blessings and benedictions and crown your efforts with success.' A picture taken from the Saint Mark's Convent in Jerusalem shows that its name plate in English originally was 'Assyrian convent' later the first A and the s were painted over to make it read 'Syrian Convent' but the Jewish script above it still reads Ashurim or Assyrian. When Mor Athanasius Yeshue Samuel arrived in the United States his title on his letterhead was 'Assyrian Orthodox Archbishop to the United States and Canada'. In a letter dated August 12, 1952 to the Parishioners he wrote: "I shall need the cooperation of every Assyrian who has the love of his church and nation at heart.'


Since then the clergies of that church have carried out a cruel crusade of ethnic cleansing toward their members who dare to identify themselves as Assyrians. The late Frank Chavor up to his death vividly remembered how members of his church fought attempts to remove the name Assyrian from their church in Harport Connecticut but were locked out by the court order obtained by the Archdiocese to drive them out.


Reasons which led Aprim Barsum to adopt his anti Assyrian policy included the close relationships evolving between Assyrians of the Syrian Orthodox Church and members of the Church of the East. In 1933 in response to the Semail massacres of the Assyrians in Iraq the Assyrian National Federation in the United States was jointly established by members of both denominations. It must have come as a shock to Aprim Barsum when David Perley an influential member of his church defined Assyrian nationalism as follows: 'Such is the revolt of the new generation that has united us all, against the narrow provincialism of the past regardless of creed, under the banner of our Ethnarch, Mar Eshai Shimun XXI, [the Patriarch of the Church of the East] our hero, both spiritual and secular, in our struggle for survival. Over a period of about a decade, the spirit of the political activities of this youth of seven-and-twenty who commenced his career in the field of battle has been characterized by a sane desire to establish a homeland where liberty might reign supreme.' (51) This was published in Yosuf Malik's 'British Betrayal of the Assyrians' who was a member of the Chaldean church but considered himself and his people as Assyrians.


A 1964 book by Jibrail Iydin published in Turkey attests to the Assyrian Heritage of the Suryoye and Suryaye of Mesopotamia. the Title is: "History of the Suryoyto Kingdom." courtesy of www.bethsuryoyo.com

Directors of the Assyrian National Federation including members of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the United States arranged for the Patriarch Eishay Shimun to Present the "Assyrian National Petition" to the "World Security Conference" at San Francisco on May 7, 1945. Cooperation between members of the three denominations were unraveling centuries of segregationist practices by the Syriac speaking churches dedicated to keeping their flocks as far away from each other as possible therefore something had to be done to stop it. On May 12, 1952, His Holiness Patriarch Ephrem I Barsoum appointed Archbishop Mor Athanasius Yeshue Samuel as Patriarchal Vicar over the United States and Canada.Despite protest by the members of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the United States archbishop Mor Athanasius began the removal of the Assyrian name from all but two churches in the United States. Members who objected were locked out excommunicated and driven out.

Parishioners of the Church of the Virgin Mary in Worcester, Massachusetts and the Paramus of New Jersey refused to comply with the identity change. They succeeded in keeping the Assyrian name 'by registering their parishes independent of the main church under a trustee group'. Archbishop Mor Cyril Aprim Karim later succeed in removing the term Assyrian from the Virgin Mary church in Worcester, but in Paramus the Assyrian identity of the church still prevails. This is a classical example of a house at war against itself divided into insignificance by its clergies.


Aprim Basum's anti Assyrian policies succeeded in stopping a trend which would have united the Syriac speaking people under a common name but instead the term Aramean was introduced to promote divisiveness. Factions of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Europe, the United States and the Middle East still proudly proclaim their Assyrian heritage while the rest insist that they are Arameans because their patriarch Aprim Barsum told them.

The change of name from "Assyrian Orthodox Church" to "Syrian Orthodox church" led to a dispute with the Rum Orthodox Church in North America. The matter was resolved by court litigation which awarded the right to use the name to Aprim Barsum's denomination. (52)

During the United States census of 2000 to prevent the possibility of counting members of the Syrian Orthodox Church as Assyrians the US Archbishops Cyril Aprim Karim and Clemis Eugene Kaplan issued a declaration to change the name of the Church to "Syriac Orthodox Church" and refer to its members as Syriacs.(53) Since then the name Syriacs has been used sided by side with Aramean to drive members of the church further away from their Assyrian identity.

Syriac in this context means nothing more than a religious denomination and has nothing to do with national identity . This term previously pertained to the language spoken by the christians of Mesopotamia and Syria, and does not necessarily means Aramean. The fact that Syriac is often used side by side with Aramean by those wishing to distance themselves from their Assyrian heritage means the two names are not synonymous and neither one of them adequately explains the identity of the "Syrian Orthodox Church" or its members. Identifying our people by the language they speak rather than their national and historical heritage is akin to forcing the European people to identify themselves as Latin rather than their respective nationality.

To justify their new Aramean identity members of the Syrian Orthodox Church who identify themselves as such contend that the terms 'Syrian, Suraya and Suryoyo mean Aramean because in the third century B.C. when the Greeks translated the Old Testament they substituted Syrian for any mention of the Arameans. The fallacy of this logic is that the term Syrian was in use before the 5th century B.C. and according to Herodotus, Strabo and Justinus and other Roman and Greek historians meant Assyrian. Furthermore the inhabitants of Mesopotamia did not speak the Greek language when they became Christians therefore it would not have mattered what the Greeks called the Arameans, and would not have influenced them in one way or another. By the third century B.C. the population of Abar-nahra west of Euphrates consisted of not only the Arameans also of Greeks, Romans, Canaanites, Arabs, and Assyrians. The 12 century patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox 'Michael the Great' acknowledges that both Arameans and Assyrians were known as Syrian Suryaye and Suryoye but he clearly distinguishes between the two by writing those who lived "in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay." In other words the homeland of the Arameans was considered West of Euphrates even at his time. He further wrote: " Assyrians, who were called 'Syrians' by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean 'Assyrians' from 'Assure' who built the city of Nineveh". (See 40)


John Joseph has also attempted to confuse the identity of the contemporary Assyrians by stating that Asore or Asuri used by the Armenians, Georgians and Russians for the Christian Assyrians long before the 19the century means Syrian, not Assyrian. According to him the correct Armenian name for Assyrians is "Asorestantji" and cites the 1884 Anorayre De Byzance Dictionary as evidence. We have already seen that Syrian was used historically as substitute for Assyrian. Armenian Asore or Persian Asuri are composed of 'Asor' or 'Asur' meaning Assyria plus an ending possessive pronoun to make them Assyrian. In fact if the Armenian Asore means Syrian it validates all the other assertions that Syrian is another form for Assyrian when applied to the christians of Mesopotamia. In the classical Armenian literature such as the fifteenth century version of the 'Wisdom of Khakar ' (Ahikar) ancient Assyrians are called "Asores" and Assyria is Asorestan. This is compatible with the Indo-European formula for nations and their country. For example Afghani are the people of Afghanistan, Hindi are the people of Hidustan, Armani are the people of Armanistan and so-forth. One has also to wonder; if 'Asor' in "Asorestantji" means Assyria why it would not in "Asore".

Another derivative from Asuri is the Persian term Surian which is short for Asurian and means Assyrians. It was used by the Arabs after their 7th century invasion as "al-Suryaniyyun" which it means Assyrian as acknowledged by the tenth century translator of the "Latin history of Paulus Orosius" (cr. 961-976 AD), where it is equated with the Latin "Assyri" [Assyrian].(54)


Despite all attempts by the Syrian Orthodox Church to distance itself from its Assyrian heritage, its Assyrian legacy is still alive in Turkey. Articles about Christians in that country written by Turks still refer to members of the church as Assyrians. On one internet site under the title: "Mardin and Surrounding Areas; Assyrian Monasteries." after praising the Assyrian stone masons for having built magnificent buildings in Mardin it continues:


"Perhaps even more striking than Mardin itself are the Assyrian monasteries that dot the landscape around it. The Assyrians consider themselves the real deal, the original Christians who still speak the ancient Aramaic language Jesus spoke." (55)

As if unaware of facts mentioned in this and other articles Joseph ends his commentary by writing: "I seriously believe that the single most important problem facing our Assyrian community and the reasons for our disunity stem from the fact that nobody takes us seriously on the question of our identity--not our friends, not our enemies. Actually, they all seem to know our history better than we do, be they Kurds or Arabs, the Syrian Orthodox or the Chaldeans , the Iraqi [political] parties or the scholars at Oxford, Harvard, Yale or Chicago, or the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington D.C., let alone the Department of State there..."

It is astonishing for Joseph to state that all the above "know our history better than we do". This is typical Joseph's lack of understanding of reality. The confusion of our identity has been invented by religious rivalries and not historical facts. The Chaldean church, the Syrian Orthodox church, the Church of the East and their followers have spent centuries attacking and disowning each other for theological reasons. Their clergies have found it advantageous to divide, separate, and segregate their followers from the other two. Any unity of our people based on ethnicity is considered as a threat to their denominational interest therefore they come up with artificial ethnic identities for their parishioners to keep them segregated.


When a new church was established in 1553 it was called Chaldean by the Roman Church a name which is now being used as an ethnic identity by its clergies and members. Starting at 1952 Syrian Orthodox Church leaders for religious reasons decided to call their church and members Aramean. Joseph has further contributed to such confusions in his three book, various articles, and lectures to students and public by misrepresenting the historical facts. Given such reality his claim that "Kurds or Arabs, the Syrian Orthodox or the Chaldeans , the Iraqi [political] parties or the scholars at Oxford, Harvard, Yale or Chicago, or the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington D.C. know our history better than we do." sounds preposterous.


The United States government and the new Iraqi government had recognized our people collectively as Assyrians until the Chaldean clergies bombarded them with letters claiming that members of their church are not Assyrians. The name change game played by the clergies of the Syriac Orthodox church have divided members of the same families between various ethnic identities. How is it possible for one brother to be Assyrian, the other Aramean and the third Syriac. These are the result of silly games our clergies have played with our identity.

While the rest of the world fully understands the magical power of unity and working in harmony our religious leaders have spent centuries in conflict over theological controversies and have divided our people into hostile factions each claiming to belong to a different nationality. Each denomination still clings to its exclusive medieval religious domain complete with dynasties of priests, bishops and patriarchs ready to wage holy wars against others at a moment's notice.


After reading a Syrian Orthodox Church bulletin in 1965 which blamed the Nestorians of the Persian empire for having delivered a severe blow to the ancient church in 480 AD David Perley wrote: "Imagine this statement is made by a presumptivly spiritual leader in the Age of Ecumenicity, when brotherhood of all men, of every faith, is the guiding star! Which do you think is more important now-the future of the Faith of our fathers, and our continued collective existence, or memories of the dastardly days of Ephesus or Chalcedon, when word-splitting definitions of obscure points of doctrine led men to do battle against their brothers as the 'enemies of God'? In my opinion the Assyrians are too enlightened to be led back to those days!"

Centuries of religious conflicts have prevented our people from forming a none sectarian leadership to look after their common interest and guide them wisely during the crucial times. Today they are in danger of being driven out of their homeland in Iraq. Tens of thousands have already fled to Jordan, Syria and more to follow. Others are being kidnaped and killed. The Kurds are busy confiscating Christian villages and are happy to incite the Chaldeans against the Assyrians and help members of the Syrian Orthodox Church to reject their Assyrian heritage. There is no consultation or cooperation between our denominations to agree on how to help our unfortunate people. The only help they are willing and able to provide is to ask for prayers probably just for their own members.

39-(History of Mikhael The Great" Chabot Edition (French) P: 750) as quoted by Addai Scher, Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie") 40-(ibid P: 748) 41- (F. E. Peters, "Jerusalem", Princeton University Press 1985 pp. 297-8 citing Saewulf 1896; "Saewulf. 'Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land', Trans. the Lord Bishop of Clifton. 'Palestine Pilgrims Text Society 4' Reprint New York Ams Press, 1971) 42- (Stanford Shaw "Empire of the Gazis: Rise of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1566" Volume I, p. 152) 43- (Horatio Southgate, "Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobites] Church", 1844 P 80) 44- (Edip Aydin, "The History of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch in North America: Challenges and Opportunities", http://www.saintgabrielsyouth.com/syriac_church.htm, April 1, 2004) 45- (Christopher J. Walker, "Armenia The Survival of a Nation," Martin's Press, New York 1980 p. 161) 46- http://bethsuryoyo.com/Code/Articles/Articles.html 47- 48- 49- 50- (Edip Aydin ibid ) 51- (David Barsum Perley in Yosuf Malik's, "British Betrayal of the Assyrians", Self Published 1936, Chapt. VII.) 52-- (Edip Aydin ibid0 53- (http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/currentevents/Census/bishopseng.html)

54- ((Abdel Rahman Badawi Ed. "Orosius, Tarikh Al 'Alam", Al Muassasa al Ararabiyya lil Dirasat wal Nashr, Beirut, First Edition, 1982.)

55- http://www.gokdemir.com/nj/august-2000-trip-turkey-borderlands.html


Make a seperate Aramean page if you want and keep it out of the Assyrian page.--24.248.39.186 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected for three days

I have applied semi-protection to the article for a period of three days. Only Wikipedia editors with accounts can edit the article for the next three days, though the talk page is open.

I urge the anonymous IP editors to engage in a constructive discussion on your points here on the talk page, and not restart the edit war when the semi-protection ends this weekend.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reform proposal

  • The Aramaeans page should be expanded to cover all the modern Aramaean descendents, including those who don't identify as Aramaean anymore.
  • The page about the "Assyrian" sub-branch of the neo-Aramaeans must be purged from any reference to other neo-Aramaeans.
  • The "Assyrian people" must lead to the page about the real, ancient Assyrians, because this is what most people looking for "Assyrians" will be looking for. On that page, a tag should be added saying "For the modern Assyrian neo-Aramaeans, see Assyrian neo-Aramaeans."

HD86 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

please read the names of Syriac Christians article. This isn't about any "sub-branch". "Assyrians" is just the traditional English term for Syriac Christians, not necessarily associated with Assyrianism. I have long suggested that we move this article to Assyrian/Syriac people to avoid the very same confusion coming up again and again. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving the page would be good but not enough, because this page refers to all neo-Aramaeans as "Assyrian," which is not just deeply resented by the neo-Aramaens but also has no factual bases what so ever. It can cause real confusion for somebody who is looking for information on the real Assyrians or on the modern Aramaens. HD86 (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to read an article before continuing this conversation. Please read it.
the "real Assyrians" are linked via headnote, to Ancient Assyrians (itself a redirect to Assyria).
the "modern Aramaeans" are in English known as Syriac people, which is a name listed in boldface, right at the top of this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article called Assyrian people instead of Syriac people while this designation is refused by most Syriacs and is incorrect? HD86 (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you for the third time to go and read names of Syriac Christians. The question is fully addressed there. If you want to raise any further questions based on article content, try and phrase them in a way that shows awareness of the points discussed there. What you want to do from your pov is support me in my attempt to move this article to Assyrian/Syriac people: that's the best you can hope to achieve here. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I doubt that you yourself are aware of what is in that article, otherwise you would have realized already that the title and the content of this article are obviously biased. I just do not understand how did you leave it this way for all that time while you claim to be aware of the designation dispute. You are either outspokenly biased or do not really know what you are accusing people of not knowing. HD86 (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have written most of that article, in the face of protests and allegation of bias from both sides. So far, you don't seem to be bringing up anything novel here, you are just idly letting us know that the "HD86" account is on the Aramaeanist side of the dispute. Duly noted. You have any addition to the article, based on independent (non-partisan), scholarly references (WP:RS), feel free to bring them up at Talk:names of Syriac Christians. Please don't bother bringing up partisan websites. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You still can't see what is novel I'm bringing to you? Listen carefully plaese (this is for the 100th time):

Calling the modern Arameans/Syriacs collectively "Assyrians" is obvious bias as most of them do not accept that. This article must either change its naming policy or split into "Assyrian people" and "Syriac people."

Go back and read this in my first comment on this page. HD86 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't read the name article, nor the discussion right above. I am not going to ask you a fourth time. I am not sure what you expect to achieve here. You need to read WP:TALK to understand what this page is for. It is not a place for you to idly voice your opinions. You have voiced your opinion. You have even received a reply. You may now want to either drop this, or start doing something constructive. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what HD86 is saying that the current article is to much pro-Assyrian, which if course is realistic if you consider the articels name. But if the article is moved to Assyrian/Syriac people, then the articles content should be changed to be less biased. The TriZ (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The current article is not just biased, it is stupid. What mainly bothers me is not the bias (because I'm not a part) but is mainly the stupidity. Anybody with a real background in Middle Eastern Histroy would be annoyed as much as I am. It is true that searching for scholars using "Assyrian people" will return 127 hits, but they are mostly talking about the situation, culture, distribution etc. of the current group who call themselves "Assyrians." I doubt you can find a respectable scholar refering to Syriacs in a historic context exceeding the last 200 years as "Assyrians". Actually, most dictionaries and encylopedias I've seen (like e.g. Encarta) do not mention the fact that the name "Assyrians" is claimed by some Syriacs at all.

You don't just count how many times a word is mentioned, you need to know who is mentioning it, why, and in what context. To label an entry on the Syriac people in general as "Assyrian people" is indeed idiotic. It is like calling the German people "the Nazis." Assyrianism started as a nationalistic myth in the 19th century, some Syriacs accepted it, most of them did not. HD86 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, in older times, Syriacs were called Syrians. HD86 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

of course. as, for example, mentioned prominently in the article I have pointed you to four times over. HD86, what is it you want? --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Syriac would refer to any type of people who adhere to Syriac Christianity including people in India and Brazil. Not all Syriacs are Assyrian and not all Assyrians are Syriac. Just seperate the pages.--128.196.233.102 (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Article name, strawpoll

Triz, we need to distinguish questions of the article title from questions of article content. Regarding the article title, this is subject to WP:NAME and WP:NAME alone. We have established above that all of

  • "Assyrian people"
  • "Syriacs"
  • "Syriac Christians"
  • "Assyrian/Syriac people"

are arguable. "Assyrian people" is the more traditional, 20th-century-ish term, while "Assyrian/Syriac people" is the more up-to-date, 2000s-ish, PC term. As HD86 demonstrates beautifully above, there will always be people who complain about "Assyrian people" because they fail to grasp the intricacies of naming policy and historical English terminology. Leaving this article at "Assyrian people" is, thus, one of sevral valid options, but it is also asking for endless bother that could easily be avoided. Let's do a strawpoll (sign at section of your preference, if possible with a brief explanation): (and please don't bother to add further options if you haven't participated in the review above). --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Assyrian people"

Leave at present title.

  1. I first prefer the title Assyrian People (as it is the ethnic gourp) second i favour Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (although 2 of the 3 are not ethnic groups). [I] don't agree at all [with Assyrian/Syriac], because Assyrian is an ethnicity while Syriac is a language and a religious renomination Syriac can be ethnically divided into those who claim they are Assyrian (ethnicity) and Armaeans (ethnicity) but Syriac is not an ethnicity. The second point is that If you are willing to accept that name what about Chaldeans ... the name cannot be Assyrian/Syriac people and avoid Chaldeans. Malik Danno (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep at current Name, Article clearly states the issues. If we change the name we might as well make it Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean/Maronite/Syriac/Melkite etc. This is getting ridiculous. The main people who disagree with this title are users who have created and contributed to unhistorical articles like Aramean Syriac People who only exist in name and not ethnicity. Article should be voted by users and admins who have not been directly involved in this topic to get the most nuetral vote. Hd86 is clearly hateful, biased and unproductive in his "Assyrians are extinct" comments which I have reported to several Admins. Keep this page and have an expansion to those separtist who refer to themselves as syrias in the Syriac Christianity pages and Assyrian Naming Dispute. This conflict does not need to be mentioned in every damn assryian article on wiki. We have created several articles addressing this pathetic dispute and we dont need to mention this everywhere in every single article. Ninevite (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
the point is that the move to an unambiguous title will finally rid us of these constant misunderstandings. I for one am tired that in English, "Assyrian people" is not necessarily an endorsement of "Assyrianism". This is correct, but it still means we get complaints every other week. The Swedish and US governments have opted for a compromise designation in order to prevent exactly that. we should do the same. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Syriacs"

Move to Syriacs

"Syriac Christians"

move to Syriac Christians

"Assyrian/Syriac people"

move to either Assyrian/Syriac people or Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (a politically correct "slashed" designation as used in the US and Swedish censuses)

  1. most neutral, most up-to-date. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. A correct name would be the "Syriac people." However, this is a good compromise.HD86 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree with both, correct name would be "Syriac people", but this is a neutral compromise. Hopefully the content will also reflect the title in the future. The TriZ (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Leave articles as "Assyrian people", "Syriac Christians", "Aramean people". And keep them seperate and there will not be any issues.--128.196.233.102 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, as I have stated before. I do think that there should be a common article, but we already have that: Syriac Christianity for religious issues, and Names of Syriac Christians for the various ethnic (sub)groups. Next to these articles, we should (in my opinion) have separate articles for the groups identifying themselves as Aramaeans on the one hand, and Assyrians on the other. Hence, only the scope of the current article should be changed (i.e., to the people self-identifying as Assyrians), and information about the Sur(y)âye as a whole be moved to common, neutral ground.
According to most definitions, ethnicity is more about a shared belief in a common origin, than it is about common origin itself. Therefore, if large portions of the Sur(y)âye refuse to identify themselves with the ancient Assyrians, and prefer (be it with verifiable reasons or not) to see themselves as the inheritors of the ancient Aramaeans, it is nonsensical to describe them as the same group. In the end, they carry different flags, often give their children different names. Personally, I would prefer to call both groups ethnic (sub)groups, leaving the question whether both groups constitute separate ethnicities open to discussion. Nevertheless, both groups deserve their own articles, with a general article describing the common features and historical backgrounds. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And it should not be called "Syriac-Aramean". Many adherents of the Syriac Church identify with other ethnicities including Assyrian, Arab, Indian, etc. So it would make more sense to title it "Aramean people".--128.196.233.102 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As we all can see HD86 is clearly bias in all matters pertaining to this issue. Although his input is welcomed and even sought after on wikipedia, we have to realize that his staunch determination and aggressiveness on this matter should not be forgotten. He clearly has an agenda here and is trying to turn wikipedia to his/her POV. We have to think about and get concensus on any changes we will do, and not be quick to change anything just because one member said it.
P.S. I find it suspicious how The TriZ has stopped posting on discussions and a 'new' 'non-Syriac' member has replaced his stance. Malik Danno (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Yes, there was clearly a bias and a lot of hate from that user from the start. Let's just seperate the articles so that there will not be issues and we can better develop the articles.

As for the language section, there was a study done by a Cambridge professor on the differences between the liturgical language and the spoken language:[26] "Another indication of the early roots of the modern spoken dialects and their independence from Syriac is the fact that they have preserved some words from antiquity that are not found in the classical literary Syriac language. These include words from Akkadian, which are for the most part connected with agriculture. These include the word miššara ‘rice paddy field’, which is used in the dialect of numerous modern Assyrian villages. This is a direct descendent of the Akkadian work mušaru.3 Several other such cases can be found in the dialect of Qaraqosh. In that dialect, for example, the word baxšim$ denotes a storeroom (for grain) in the roof of a house. It is reasonably certain that this is a descendant of the Akkkadian term bit -ašimi ‘barn, storehouse’.4 Another possible example in this dialect is raxi.a ‘pile of straw (usually barley)’, which could well be related to Akkadian ra-i.u ‘pile of harvest produce (especially straw).’"

I think this should be noted in the article.--24.248.39.186 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Seperate articles is the best idea, Leave this page "Assyrian People" and create another "Aramean People". Both should have reliable sources and both should have sources pertaining to their ethnicity. For Example when dealing with Assyrians, use sources that deal with Assyrians. When dealing with Arameans, use sources that deal with Arameans not "Syriacs" "Assyrians" "Chaldeans" or members of the "Syriac (Orthodox & Catholic) Church" the articles should deal with the "ETHNIC" group called Arameans. Malik Danno (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and as stated before, do not put the term "Syriac" in front of the articles. Articles concerning the "Syriac Language" and "Syriac Christians" already exist. And there are 2.5 million Syriacs in India [27], but they are neither Assyrian nor Aramean.--24.248.39.186 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

there already are separate articles, plainly linked from this one. These are Chaldean Christians, East Syrian Rite and West Syrian Rite. Feel free to work on these. The Syriac Christians in India also have their own article, also linked from this one. I don't understand what this is about, except perhaps that people need to read before they comment. No, "Aramaean people" isn't in use in English, as we have established before. Please try to pay attention. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, dab. The East Syrian rite and West Syrian rite articles are about rites, not people. And sure "Aramaeans" is in use, check for instance [28], [29]. Whether you like it or not, there are many Syriacs who identify themselves as Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

sigh. "Aramaeans" is not in use in WP:RS. Yes, the internet is wide, anything will be "in use" by someone. There is an "Aramaean identity". Those who endorse this refer to themselve as Aramäer in German, but as Syriacs in English. Please read the article, I didn't research this just to please myself.

Look, I don't know why the question of sub-articles is brought up when we are supposed to be discussing the title of the main article. If you want to create a valid sub-article, like Chaldean Christians, do it. If you create a mere cfork under another title, as happened at Aramean-Syriac people, it will be merged back. There can be articles on valid subgroups, such as Chaldean Christians, and on specific ideologies, such as Assyrianism. Please, go and work on these, you are welcome. What you need to avoid is trying to present an ideology as a subgroup, or vice versa. And above all, you need to be able to justify your sub-article based on academic literature, avoiding all WP:SYN.

Now can we please stop discussing for a minute whether there should be further sub-articles and focus on what to call the bleeding main article on the group? Please? --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little split of on this, I partly agree in what Benne says. But the question is if not the best solution is to move this article to Assyrian/Syriac people, but... The TriZ (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Aramean people", "Assyrian people", "Syriac Christians" are 3 different things with the first two pertaining to ethnicity and the last pertaining to a form of Christianity. They should be 3 seperate and unrelated articles.--24.248.39.186 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

you haven't understood the first thing about this, nor about WP:NAME, have you. We do not have references establishing the existence of more than one group, hence we won't have more than one article. We do have references about the various denominations, hence we do have articles on the various denominations (such as West vs. East. Note that "no references" translates to "no case" directly. And no, partisan websites aren't "references", we want WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Benne said: "we should (in my opinion) have separate articles for the groups identifying themselves as Aramaeans on the one hand, and Assyrians on the other." We do. One is at Assyrianism, the other at Aramaeanism. The latter is currently a redirect, but I don't think there will be any problem turning it into a standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik Danno said: I first prefer the title Assyrian People (as it is the ethnic gourp) second i favour Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. I agree Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people could be an arguable solution, after all, this is what the US census calls them. I consider this a variant of "Assyrian/Syriac", viz., an ostensibly neutral "slash" designation. I do not think this is essential, since the "Chaldean" identity is simply one of denomination (Chaldean Catholic) and not part of this dispute -- It appears many Chaldeans take the "Assyrians" view, and they would be represented already in the "Assyrian/Syriac" description. "Chaldean" contrasts with "Jacobite" and "Nestorian", not with "Assyrian" or "Syriac". --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you in one way fail to recognize that even though most agree that Syriacs and Assyrians are the same people, there are some differences in culture. While the Syriacs have names such as Aram, Abgar and Ephrem, the Assyrians have names such as Ashur, Sargon and Nimrod. Some Assyrians celebrate Ha b-Nison while Syriacs reject it. And there is other things like this. This is why Benne wants to seperate articles.
Malik, once again you show your ignorance. If you don't recognize Syriacs as an ethnicity, then I can't see any way for you to contribute to this project. Chaldeans are also an ethnicity, even though a large group of them believe in an Assyrian identity, but have in mind that Chaldo-Assyrians (or Assyro-Chaldeans), the term used in Iraq, exists because of the fact that some Chaldeans don't accept the Assyrian name. The TriZ (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If you would tell a Neo-Aramaic Syriac (SURYOYO OROMOYO) that he is in fact the same as the Assyrian, he would kill you. Syriacs (Aramean Christians) are not the same as Assyrians (Assyrian Christians) because of their self-identification; cultural differences, language, etc. Physical differences exist aswell! both ethnic groups being easy to differentiate from eachother and the Arabs or Turks. A Syriac from Midyat and a Assyrian from Iraq are not the same, but a Syriac from Lebanon and Syria is. the answer being simply: SELF-IDENTIFICATION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexm0d (talk • contribs)

Nexm0d, your ill-advised, undiscussed and unannounced move has created a giant mess. I just had to revert about a hundred bot edits triggered by it, and the talk archives are still out there somewhere. If you do something like this again, I will block you for pagemove vandalism. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I've now moved it to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", the presently stable consensus of introducing the lead, viz. by the designation used in the official US census. I strongly advise that before any further move, there would need to be a new consensus of how to introduce the lead. The article should probably even be move-protected. With about a hundred redirects pointing here, reverting unilateral moves is a nightmare. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how the title was switched without a consensus, but I am willing to keep it this name until things get resolved and a TRUE concensus is reached. However I ask that either the Title OR the first line be Assyrian People. Now that the title is "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" I ask that the first line be switched to "The Assyrian people (also known as Assyrians, Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs [17]Syrians, Syriacs, Syrian Christians, Syriac Christians,Suroye/Suryoye[18] and other variants, see names of Syriac Christians)" just so that both sides are heard in this debate and no side feels like they didnt get heard. Malik Danno (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah -- it's a compromise nobody is happy with. I have been following this for over a year, and I frankly believe that this is the best we can do here. As long as the article resides at "Assyrian people", we constantly had edit wars instigated by people who simply wouldn't get it into their skulls that this article covers the entire group no matter what you like to call them, who went around creating WP:CFORK counter-articles. The overhead of fruitless debate this generates simply isn't worth it. There is a reason the US census uses "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac": they simply couldn't be bothered to put up with the hassle to call the group anything else. We should do the same. Maybe one day the "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" will get their act together and represent themselves to the world as a united group, but until then, this will just have to be the way the world deals with them. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I agree with the current state, because Assyrian organizations such as Assyrian Democratic Movement also use this, I was against the name Assyrian/Syriac ... excluding Chaldeans. But you realize that this is going to create other problems, as it was before The TriZ and his side debating over the name change, now it will be Chaldean and others debating for the change back. Anyways, is it possible for you to make the change of the first line as I requested ... so that all sides are pleased? Malik Danno (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

but why? We already have "The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (also known as Assyrians, ...)" -- do you feel that we need to list "Assyrian people" as separate from "Assyrians"? That really seems to be splitting hairs now. --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

you seem to forget that 'Assyrian People' are 'Assyrians' no matter what religious denomination. I want that to be put inplace so that there won't be any more issues with this naming thing. If the title becomes that, then i feel to appease both sides the first line should be the Assyrian people (also known as bla bla bla). Listen Dab, both you and I know that if a more legitimate 'poll' was taken than the voice of the others would not be heard ... lets not start another poll which will lead to no mention whatsoever of Syriacs and Chaldeans here ... this is just one way to ease this debate. P.S. saying the US census has this doesn't make it legitimate, because there are many who call us Chaldo-Assyrians (UN), Assyrians etc. Malik Danno (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget to keep your own personal POV aside. You can create how many polls you want, the result would be the same. The TriZ (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Should we make a note in the religion section about how "The gods Ashur, Sherua, Istar, Nanaya, Bel, Nabu and Nergal continued to be worshiped in Assur at least until the early third century AD" [30] (by Dr. Simo Parpola, University of Helsinki).--24.248.39.186 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Folk Myths and Legends

What do you think about including a section about Assyrian folk legends? Like the legend of the Bridge of Dalaleh or of Mando and his brothers [31]?--24.248.39.186 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Requested move

Assyrian people → Assyrian Christians — The current "Assyrian people" article talks about a modern Syriac (Aramaic) speaking minority in the Middle East not about what is commonly known by Assyrians (ancient Mesopotamian civilization). This has created a major ambiguity problem as internal links and readers looking for "Assyrian" are usually looking for the ancient Assyrians as traditionally defined in English dictionaries and cyclopedias. Besides, many Syriac-speakers who belong to the modern ethnic minority do not approve the appellation "Assyrian" and refer to themselves by "Syriac," their traditional historic name. The article seems to totally disregard that. --HD86 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this requested move involve making Assyrian people a disambiguation page so that its incoming links can be routinely disambiguated a la Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links? --Una Smith (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. A disambiguation page exists already under Assyrian, Assyrian people needs just to redirect to it. HD86 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see where a specific move has been suggested. The strawpoll is still open, but has only received four votes so far. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
ah, I think you may have reacted to trolling. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Move request can be found at [32]. The TriZ (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Above, I have copied the move request and rationale. --Una Smith (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Assyrian" in English dictionaries

HD86 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern "Assyrians" in English encyclopedias

A name used since the 19th cent. for the Church of the East. It became popular especially in Anglican circles as a way of avoiding the name Nestorian, which was disliked by the Syrians themselves and appeared to prejudge their orthodoxy.
A name adopted in modern times by members of the Church of the East (q.v.) who claim descent from the ancient Assyrians.
No mention under Assyria(n), mentioned under the "Eastern rite church" apparently with no mention of the fact that they are called "Assyrian" at all.
No mention under Assyria(n), under "Nestorian Church":
Most Nestorians, numbering about 176,700, live in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, where they are generally known as Assyrians.
It represents the ancient church of Persia and is sometimes called the Assyrian (or East Syrian) Church.
In recent times they have been called, chiefly by the Anglicans, the "Assyrian Church", a name which can be defended on archaeological grounds.
The Assyrians (also known as Syrians and, disparagingly in Tsarist Russia, as Ayssorians) refer to themselves as Aturai, Surai, or Kaldai (? = ‘Chaldeans’). They are descended from the Aramaeans (see *Aramaic) and speak a *Semitic language which derives from the dialect of classical Aramaic universally known as Syriac

CONCLUSIONS:

  • The Syriac Christians are described as "a nation" only by the Wikipedia's current idiosyncratic article. Syriac Christianity is a church, there is nothing called the "Syriac people" much as there is no Catholic people.
  • The different Syriac ethnicities are not collectively called "Assyrian" anywhere. In fact, the Christians of Iraq themselves were not called so until recently. To describe all the Syriac minorities in the Middle East as an "Assyrian people" is inappropriate. HD86 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you there: Syriac Christianity is not a nation and there is no such thing as a Syriac people. I agree also with the fact that all the Syriac minorities aren't "Assyrians". Us calling ourselves "Assyrian" (for the most part) until recently does not mean we aren't assyrians! Malik Danno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Problems with this article

This article adoptes obviously biased nationalistic POV's.

  • It qualifies all the modern Syriac Christians as one people or one nation, which is far from being an objective describtion as the Syriac Cristians are not really a "nation" but are several ethnic minorities living in several Middle Eastern countires under different names. Many of them do not speak Syriac but speak the local languages (Arabic, Turkish, Iranian, e.g. the Maronites of Lebanon do not speak Syriac at all and many of them call themselves Arabs) and the groups hardly have anything in common but belonging to Syriac Churches.
  • The article uses the disputed term "Assyrian" in reference to all the Syriac Christians from Levant to the Caspian Sea, which is ridiculous indeed besides being outspokenly biased. The article even draws an imginary continuity between the ancient Mesopotamian Assyrians and the so-called Assyrian nation of today (which includes all the modern Syriac Christians). HD86 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
well, then how about you place your esteemed signature at one of the alternative names suggested? Assyrian Christians isn't an option, since the term refers to the East Syrian Rite. --dab (𒁳) 07:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose the move for the moment at least. The proposal is unfortunately phrased in terms that are provocative and insulting to the modern-day people who call themselves Assyrian. Rather than risk a heated battle over this move, let's take a step back and have some unemotive discussion of the issues first. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move on the same grounds as Andrewa. Gabr-el 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Some issues as I see them. Any on which we can reach consensus will help. Some may be easy; This is not an area in which I claim particular expertise. Some are even answered by the current article, but that doesn't mean it's agreed, it just means the last editor agreed!

1. One people or two? Can and/or do the modern-day people claim a connection to the ancient Assyrians? How strong a connection? How widely accepted a claim?

2. Is there a primary meaning of Assyrian, or is it ambiguous? (And if there is, what is it?)

Maybe just start on those. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa, may I recomment you read this talkpage? As in, the active discussions? No need to even consult the archives. You may also want to read Assyrianism and Names of Syriac Christians. Why would you want to request a personal briefing on stuff that you can simply read up in article space? In a nutshell,
  1. one people, with sub-ethnic groups defined along denominational lines. We don't have any source treating them as separate ethnic groups. The "connection to the ancient Assyrians" is discussed at Assyrianism#Continuity_claims, but for naming purposes isn't much more relevant than the connection of the Germans to the Germanii of Tacitus, or that of the British to the Pretani: The British would still be called British even if it could be shown there was no continuity whatsoever with the Iron Age Pretani.
  2. Assyrian needs to be disambiguated. Assyrian people is somewhat ambiguous, which is why we have the "Assyrian people" may also refer to the Ancient Assyrians headnote, but it is clearly most commonly used of the modern people.
--dab (𒁳) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've read both these discussions and the article, of course, and if you think they are helpful, certainly refer to them. I certainly didn't intend to request a personal briefing. But frankly, discussions with headings such as Stupidity above are unlikely to be helpful. They merely show that the contributors have failed to make any attempt to follow Wikipedia policy, and that's born out by much of the discussion. I'm hoping we can improve on that.
But do you believe that consensus has been reached above on any of the issues I raised? What was it? I'm fascinated.
Alternatively, do you believe that it would be better to continue with the above debates, rather than to proceed with this requested move? Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry -- Assyrian Christians never was an option for the title. We have looked into all options arguable under WP:NAME here. If you want to keep the article at this title, sign here. If you want to move the article to "Assyrian/Syriac", sign here. This entire section appears to be completely unaware of what has already been discussed, on this very page. Can we please try and focus a little bit? --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa, you're asking about:

  • Whether the modern and ancient Assyrians are one people. You will not find one respectable reference associating itself with that claim. As it is apparent from the links to encyclopedias I provided above, no source treats the modern Assyrians as a continuation of the ancient ones. The modern Assyrians are usually treated under entries on Nestorian/East Syriac Christianity. Some sources make statements about the racial identity of these people, most do not, which is not a bad idea concerning the heated nature of the subject.
  • Whether there is a primary meaning of Assyrian. Yes there is a primary, well-defined meaning of the word Assyrian that you can find at almost any dictionary or encyclopedia. I have failed to find any dictionary or encyclopedia referring to the modern subjects of the Assyrian Church under the entry "Assyrian." Try and check yourself. So I would say that "Assyrian" is pretty much not an ambiguous word and it refers to "somebody from Assyria, an ancient Mesopotamian kingdom" or "a dialect of the ancient Akkadian language HD86 (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/Parliament.html - There is your credible source HD86 to prove the link between Assyrians in the past and now. And its by the British House of Parliament Member, Stephen Pound. Gabr-el 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it is more about what dictionaries, encyclopedias, and most people understand by "Assyrian." This sympathizing politician understands by it the modern Assyrian Christians in addition to the Assyrians. Most other people do not.

"Assyrian Christians" is a good name because:

  • It respects how those people call themselves.
  • It is unambiguous with "Assyrians."
  • It avoids making statement about the racial identity of these people (and thereby slightly less offensive to the other Syriac denominations which are included by this article).

HD86 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I am glad now that you are prepared to respect our feelings; that's a start for now. Gabr-el 01:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think both of these arguments are wildly overstated. There do seem to be examples of a respectable reference associating itself with that claim, and one is given above. On the other hand, this one speech to parliament is hardly adequate to prove the link between Assyrians in the past and now. Suggest both sides should try to step back a little and consider and present their facts rather than such rehetoric. I doubt the closing admin for this requested move will be any more impressed by it than I am.
I'd have doubts about the name Assyrian Christians because it seems to be based on a claim that the people in question are not Assyrians at all. IMO that sort of logic is not likely to produce a good article name in terms of Wikipedia:naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa. The following Article is done by an world renowned Assyriologist. I highly suggest you take a look at it Andrewa. Its from the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies: http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf I have many other articles as well if you are interested. Also check this website out. http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/database/gen_tpl/t12/t0000779.php click on the arrows for them to drop down the full menu. This projects goal is as stated "The Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project (Melammu) investigates the continuity, transformation and diffusion of Mesopotamian culture throughout the ancient world from the second millennium BC until Islamic times. A central objective of the project is to create an electronic database collecting the relevant textual, art-historical, archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence and making it easily accessible on the Internet. In addition, the project organizes annual symposia focusing on different aspects of cultural continuity and evolution in the ancient world." This can be found at http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/home/home.php Best Regards. Ninevite (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but let's remember what this discussion is about. There's a move request at WP:RM and fairly soon, an admin (and it won't be me, I'm too involved in the discussion) will need to decide whether to close or relist it, and what action to take on the request if it's to be closed. The purpose of this section of the talk page is to help in those decisions.
Frankly, I can't see how any of the above is helpful in that context. It seems to be part of the personal briefing that I was accused above of requesting. And I explicitly said I wasn't. Oh well. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is that hard to make a decision on the primary meaning of "Assyrians." It is a fairly common word that is found in all dictionaries and cyclopedias. This was the rationale behind the move request, although I have expressed here other unrelated objections to this article. HD86 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The question of primary meaning is a lot more complicated than that. The very fact that there is debate is often taken as a prima facie argument that there is no clear primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually to say that "there is debate" reminds me of G.W. Bush saying there is debate over evolution and climate change. Who is debating? Have you seen any specialists debating who are the Assyrians? The debaters here belong to the ethnic minority which "borrowed" the name "Assyrian" from the Assyrians. This is not a real debate. HD86 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

this is a debate about a name not a fact. If you can't get this straight, I don't see why you even bother to comment here. A name is purely a matter of convention. If all Assyrians agreed to call themselves "the Smurfs" tomorrow, I am sure that all national and international organizations will be perfectly happy to humour them. The single problem is that they can't agree among themselves. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Flags

The flags in the identity section are very confusing. You have the Assyrian flag tagged as "the assyrian flag" the Caldean flag as "Chaldean flag" and the Syriac flag as "Syriac Flag" now ... this will cause confusion as people will see this and assume that the Assyrian flag is meant to represent only those who are members of the Nestorian Church and those who are members of the SYriac/Chaldean churches are not represented by the Assyrian Flag. That is incorrect ... When the Assyrian flag was created it was created for all Assyrians even those under the Chaldean/Syriac churches. To this day the Assyrian flag represents Nestorians, Chaldeans and Syriacs ... having it tagged as the "Assyrian Flag" while the two under it are "Syriac Flag" and "Chaldean Flag" will just make it seem like the Assyrian flag doesn't represent the syriacs and Chaldeans which is NOT TRUE. Malik Danno (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bla bla bla, cry me a river. The Assyrian flag represents those who call themselves Assyrians, no one else. I can create a flag that I say represents all countries in the world, does that make it the flag of the world? The TriZ (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, how old are you? Why do you always change the subject whenever I ask you that. The way you respond in these discussions you make yourself look like no older than 16 years old or have a basic High School education and no more. The matter of fact is that you are failing to ignore the large numbers of Chaldeans and Syriacs who do not recognize the "Chaldean and Syriac flags" and who use the Assyrian Flags to represent their ethnicity. While the Syriac flag and the Chaldean flags are exclutionary to only members of their churches ... The Assyrian flag includes members of all three churches ... and that should be noted. Malik Danno (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

...again you deny the Syriac and Chaldean etnicities. The flags doesn't represent the churches, they represent the nations. This is elementary, how old are you? I seriously doubt, no, I'm 100 percent confident you have no higher education that I have. Not that it matters. But you seem to be fixed about that, instead of reading up in the subject. The TriZ (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that you don't even know what constitutes an ethnicity and what does not. (P.S. dont give me the wikipedia page on ethnicity b/c we all know how unreliable and unscholarly wikipedia is). Here a question ... which of the following are an ethnicity to you:

  1. Assyrian
  2. Iraqi
  3. Mandarin
  4. Catholic
  5. Austrian
  6. German
  7. Protestant
  8. Canadian
  9. Chinese
  10. Aramean
  11. Syriac

After you answer this I will realize what your definition of ethnicity it My point is that Assyrian is an ethnicity just as Aramean is an ethnicity. Syriac is not an ethnicity ... if it is then are you Aramean or are you Syriac (please don't embarrass yourself and say that you are half, because that will just be hilarious) and Chaldea was ... in some part a distict ethnicity. Malik Danno (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already know you don't. That's obvious. The Wikipedia ethnicity page is a good article that explains different ways to see ethnicity on or different definitions of etnicity. I guess I would say I'm Syriac. But it's complicated like everyhing else with this subject, in Germany the word for Syriacs is Aramäer, so would those in Germany say they're Arameans? No, it's like Dab said, the translation for Aramäer would in English be Syriacs. The TriZ (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about German here ... I'm speaking English! In English there are an Aramean people (which is an ethnicity), and there are Syriacs (who you claim to also be an ethnicity). So under these two ethnic groups, (In English) where do you belong? P.S. German term is very confusing b/c if Syriacs is Aramäer' then what is the German word for Arameans? Malik Danno (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is once again getting out of topic. The point is that the Assyrian Flag which is seen in this page was created by Assyrian Universal Alliance and was meant for Nestorians, Chaldeans and Syriacs ... and I think that should be noted because it will confuse people who think that Assyrians have excluded themselves from the other two people with the flag which never happened. Malik Danno (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't help that you can't understand simple things. There is no Aramean ethnicity, the ethnicity is Syriac and the Syriacs are the decendents of the Arameans. The Syriac-Aramaic flag represent the Syriac nation. The Assyrian flag represents the Assyrian nation. You don't get this? The flag doesn't represent a church and it's members. How can I be more clear? The TriZ (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrian flag represents the Assyrian nation : Now I ask you ... to the creators of this flag (from then to this day), who belonged to this 'Assyrian nation' you speak of? Malik Danno (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

look, these flags are discussed purely based on WP:DUE. The "Assyrian flag" is properly the flag of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, which is a private association without any sort of official recognition. As such, the flag is a logo of a private interest group. The AUA is a member of Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, which I suppose makes it notable enough to be discussed, but as far as I can see, the UNPO is also strictly a private organization without any sort of UN recognition or similar. The same holds for the other flags. They are private logos, and are merely discussed for being in de facto use. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't get what you mean by the Assyrian Flag being private. I mean, Assyrian Universal Alliance has as much claim of the flag as much as I do, and as much as any Assyrian (Chaldean and Syriac). The flag is known to represent Assyrians worldwide, and even though UN is not affiliated with UNPO it still recognizes the flag as the flag of Assyrians. What seperates this flag with the Kurdish Flag, or Turkman flag etc. Malik Danno (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous ppls category

Would User:Gabr-el mind explaining their reasons why the removal of Category:Indigenous peoples of Southwest Asia was reverted? Afraid the remark "Oh boy. Thank you!" left in their edit summary is not all that helpful.

In case the reason for the category's removal is not clear from the text of my original edit summary, the descriptions appearing in the indigenous peoples article and related categories themselves, or the extensive body of literature on the topic, I'll summarise:

  • in addition to the generic everyday meanings of the word indigenous, there exists a contemporary term and concept "indigenous peoples" widely seen and used in national/international scholarship, law, politics, and organisational discourse (both governmental and NGOs)
  • this concept has in practice a specific (if at times hard to pin down) usage, that differs from the everyday one(s)
  • the indigenous peoples category scheme is intended to follow/be used for this specific concept, per its main article and related others
  • in particular, the sense of "indigenous peoples" intended for the cat does not (merely) refer to any given people or group originating from some given area, or who've had a long association with an area, or who might be considered 'first inhabitants' of an area
  • nor does it refer (in general) to any given people or group who who may be considered an ethnic, linguistic, religious or politically marginalised minority in some territory (although generally speaking indigenous ppls are one or more of those)
  • for the present case, it does not appear that "Assyrian people" are notably/consistently discussed, represented, legislated for, self-identified, or otherwise mentioned as an "indigenous people" (in the specific sense) by organisations, govts, scholars and fora that usually deal with indigenous peoples' rights and concerns
  • Hence, categorisation as such seems unwarranted here.

It may be that there are significant mentions of "Assyrian people" out there by recognised orgs such as UNPFII or IWGIA, where the identification/claim is made. Happy to reconsider the point if such mentions can be found; but otherwise, my proposal is to remove that category.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the category my friend. We cannot agree who or what the Syriacs/Assyrians are, but we can at least say that we are a Semitic people, and Semitic peoples are on the category!!Gabr-el 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree they can be classified as "indigenous", in the sense of "marginalized by a historic conquest", that conquest being, of course the Islamic one in the 7th century. The Assyrians/Syriacs are a cultural remnant of the pre-Islamic period. Of course, since this is the Near East, history goes back even further, and we have information of indigenous populations that predate even the Assyrians or Aramaeans of the Late Bronze age. This is just a reflex of when written sources set in. The earliest population of the area we happen to be aware of would be the Sumerian and/or Hurrians, who were later conquered by the Semites. This is complicated in that the Assyrians/Syriacs are, of course, Semites conquered by other Semites. In this sense, we could call the Spanish "indigenous" to California, because they were Europeans conquered by other Europeans (the Anglo-Saxons). --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Most recent moves

Everyone keeping up? Anyone want to fix the archive links of this talk page, or isn't there a lot of point? Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also been relisted at WP:RM, despite never having been really completed in the first place (see WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves Step 1). Not sure where the process should go now...! Andrewa (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The current name is certainly better. However, it may be true that this discussion needs more input. After being involved for a while, and after reviewing the history of this article, I get the feeling that this article has been hijacked by a group of nationalists who have been inappropriately skewing its content and for a long time. HD86 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

the article is finally getting somewhere, at last providing some usable summary to the reader not already up to their ears in Assyrian/Syriac ethnic ideology. This article should seriously be off-limits to all partisan editors for a few weeks so the giant mess their antagonism has created can be cleaned up. The category system alone is a nightmare. Can somebody please think of the readers?? Take a minute to think about that you are probably not interested in the average reader after looking at this article for two minutes will walk away saddened with an impression of "what a bunch of immature jerks". Just think about it, ok? And then consider putting your petty naming issues on hold for a couple of days until we can make this a readable piece of the pedia. Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac is fine for the title, but for the article body, "Assyrian" suffices completely. We establish that "Assyrian" is one common name of the "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" people, so we can bloody well use it. "Assyrian/Syriac" is fine too, and no, "Assyrian/Syriac" is not "ignoring the Chaldeans", since the Chaldeans are a subset of the Assyrian/Syriac people. "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" is a compilation about as strange as "Americans/Texans/US citizens". Saying "Americans/US citizens" is not "ignoring the Texans", ok? We can still use "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in the title, because in this case, it is very important to keep smiling a lot, avoid rash movements, and assure everyone that they're not being discriminated. But we shouldn't take this to the point of producing unreadable articles because we have to say "/Chaldean/Syriac" in every other sentence. --dab (𒁳) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying but after "Assyrian/Syriac" is fine too, and no, "Assyrian/Syriac" is not "ignoring the Chaldeans", since the Chaldeans are a subset of the Assyrian/Syriac people. that's when you are wrong. It seems to me that you still don't know what the term Syriac means in this case! Sure, it means Syriac Christians (nestorians, chaldeans, malakites, mayanalas, etc.) but that's not what it means in this sense!! Let me ask you this before we go any further ... in the case of "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" what is 'Assyrian' 'Chaldean' and 'Syriac'. because your metaphore of equating Syriacs to US citizzens while Chaldeans being Texans is very very wrong. Malik Danno (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I completly agree with what Mr. Danno has said above me. Dab I think you have done a great job so far in updating this page to the present state. I have a question I notice the Assyrian Template at the top of the page is missing many pictures than before. Why were these pictures removed without discussion. I think the first template was much better because it included characthers such as Ephrem the Sryian which was a syriac/assyrian important historical figure as well as the Ancient Assyrian King Nasripal. Secondly I have noticed in some of the sections there are links to Assyrian Music, Syriac Music, sports, etc. Has there been any discussion in combining these two pages since they are very much alike perhaps to Assyrian/Syriac music covering both articles instead of having two separte. Those are my 3 cents. Ninevite (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

the confusion is one of exonym vs. endonym. Formerly, it was clear that English terms are exonyms, while the endonyms are of course Aramaic. Today, with the huge diaspora, many Syriac Christians have lost their language, and so use the English terms as endonyms. Now let me make this clear: As an exonym, "Syriac" and "Assyrian" are exactly syonymous, while "Chaldean" refers to a subset of Assyrians/Syriacs, namely the Chaldean Christians. As exonyms, these are mere names for the people-formerly-known-as-Syrians, without any implication of cultural continuity. As endonyms, the Syriac Christians now speaking English (or Swedish, or German) naively have come to think that calling them "Assyrians" equates them with the ancient Assyrians, while calling them "Aramäer" equates them with the ancient Aramaeans, and that this is somehow mutually exclusive. Every group is entitled to building their own group identity, and to their own infights. The problem starts because these internal matters began to interfere with the exonyms. Thus, "Syriacs" as an exonym merely means "adherents of Syriac Christianity", while "Syriacs" as an endonym means "the community affiliated with the Western Syriac tradition identifying as Syrians or Aramaeans". Because of this hopeless ovrelap of exonymy and controvresial endonymy, the US census has opted to draw a line and just use "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" and stop quibbling. Our article lead here is now doing the same. Make no mistake that WP:NPOV, and WP:NAME compels us to use English language exonyms. We can discuss endonymy, and we do, at names of Syriac Christians, but Wikipedia's voice talks in exonyms throughout. I hope this explanation helps clarifying the heart of the problem a little bit. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:AramaenSyriac

I rolled back your edits my friend; its strictly forbidden for users like us to be adding in un-referenced POV edits. No offense. Gabr-el 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User: HD86

Your sources are not stating what you want to be put in the article. They say one thing and you are saying another! Discuss your point here before vandalizing the page more. Malik Danno (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we have to call it progress that the edit-warring now takes place at a single article instead of playing hide-and-seek with people creating counter-articles under alternative titles all over Wikipedia. Wow. We have managed to contain the "Syriac" problem within the bounds of a traditional content dispute. We'll now only have to clamp down on the pov-pushers and those violating WP:RS and WP:DUE, and we'll finally have a nice and readable article on this group. Excuse the sarcasm, but this has been very difficult. Yes, I will endorse a no-nonsense approach at this point, and the "ban-hammer" will be swung if necessary. If not by me (being involved), by such other admins as are willing to even look at this. Fwiiw friesian gives a good account of the situation, and is an intelligent, informed, responsible source as online essays go. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And the cabal swoops in!

Briefly (3 sentences max, please), will all parties explain what's going on here? I have read the above dialogue, but it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff at this point. Please keep the summaries focused on the problems of the article notwithstanding who edits it. Thank you! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Xavexgoem, can you do this on your talkpage or at some mediation page please? I warn you that you will need to invest time to understand the topic. Read the friesian link for starters. Then read Names of Syriac Christians. Of course, I assume you have already read this article (all of it). Once you've done that, you should be up to speed. We already have a number of admins who have been following this, and I feel you should be pulling your own weight if you want to become involved. If you ask the "parties" to explain themselves, you'll only walk away confused, because they use very malleable terminology, and you need to understand the topic before you can follow what they are saying. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to go this route for the time being - I understand your concerns; if need be, I can relocate the discussion to another page (at medcab, most likely). In the meantime, I recommend with a quick summary (throw in all your NPOVs, Vs, general issues; just try to be candid with each other is all I ask) So if it's alright for you, I want to see how far I can get on brass tacks, if you know what I mean :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) For efficiency's sake, this often works better (and quicker) than having the informal mediation folks having to pick up all the context and background. You'll have to trust me on this one ;-)

Actually User:Dbachmann uses this "go read first" with everybody. Having been involved for a while, I can say for sure that nobody needs to read all what he refers to in order to make judgments here. I do not know if he just has a deeply confused outlook on matters or if he is biased, but I really haven't heard anything logical coming from him as yet, he's only about "stay away" and "let me do this."

My case is clear, these folk have been deleting well-sourced information and removing tags without justification. The only justifications are coming from User:Dbachmann and they do not seem to make any sense. HD86 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you HD86 to refrain from deleting sourced information, and to write words in the edit summary so that we won't be removing such sources. Gabr-el 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What information are you talking about? If you're talking about this talk page, I already told you it was an accident. HD86 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No no, in general I mean. Gabr-el 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

so HD86 is suggesting people should not try to understand what is going on here, and just keep shouting at one another instead. I provide a coherent and "logical" summary right above. So does the friesian page. It isn't my fault you aren't amenable to reason. --dab (𒁳) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, he deletes the referenced identity section with no valid reason whatsoever, and he removes the dispute tag. This means that he refuses mediation. HD86 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your friesian page is one of my sources and you have been deleting literal quotations from it repeatedly. This page clearly states that these people are Aramaic and lists the "modern Assyrians" under "Ethnic Nationalist Myths," which entirely contradicts your fervent policy on this article. I doubt much that you really know what you're talking about. HD86 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

← Alright, I just woke up to this, so forgive me if it takes a few hours to parse :-p I'll be back shortly and resume from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to dab wanting me to read the history - I agree completely. However, there appears to be an insinuation that he's stalling this effort. I'd prefer we stuck with content at the moment; please trust me on this. Still parsing :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If the above discussion was a microcosm of something greater, here's what I see the problem as at the moment. We can build from here. I respect Dbachmann's idea to move this to its own page, and I do believe I'll get to that point shortly.

  1. HD86, you have been accused by Gabr-el of removing sourced material without leaving an edit summary.
  2. Dbachmann, you have been accused by HD86 of stalling this effort by making the mediator go through the archives.
  3. Parties have been accused by HD86 of removing sourced information and tags without justification.

Is this all true, so far? Xavexgoem (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I'm giving a pass on #2... I see nothing wrong in gaining the needed context to proceed; however, we're dealing with a separate behavioral issue, so I'm gonna hold off on getting that context till we've gotten this point, if this is OK with you.

you should be careful about separating user conduct issues from content issues. "Removing sourced information" is not an offence, but very important wrt WP:DUE and WP:SS. HD86 has been told as much. The only problem here is ignoratio elenchi. I am not sure why you call yourself "mediator", Xavexgoem. As far as I'm concerned, you are just another editor showing up asking "heya, give me a summary". If you are a mediator, I am a mediator, because I am as uninvolved in the dispute as you are. I came here a year ago and have since been trying to contain the warring factions, and separate the empty rants from verifiable content. You are welcome to join me. Let me know when you are ready. Frankly, your approach is flawed. You need to focus on content and ignore the political noise. By highlighing political noise and ignoring the actual issue, you are helping the trolls. Please try to compile a list of actual, bona fide, content issues. You will realize it is very short, or non-existent. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken :-) I'll get to you on talk (IRC? Skype?) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SCREW IT, LETS JUST SPLIT IT ALREADY!

I am sick and tired of Dab removing every source, aramaen or assyrian. HD86, Triz and Aramaen-Syriac should have their Syriac page back, if they have references. And it looks like they do or else we won't have this horrendous title. And we should have our Assyrian page back as well.

I want no more of this bigotted denial that I get from HD86 and no more reverting and removing. Dab, you're an admin, and you've spent well over a year on this page and its only gotten worse. Gabr-el 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm. Enjoyable rhetoric, but that wasn't really an argument. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
And who are you sir, to come so late into this discussion, and mock my thread? You have not seen the madness that has occurred in this article. Jesus said that a man shall be at war with members of his own household... this talk page has lived by that verse. My argument, since it is not clear to you, is that we should split it back again because it kept everyone from biting everyone's head off. Gabr-el 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Moi? Oh, I've been following this for a while. It's very entertaining, albeit rather silly. However, it's fairly clear where we go from here: this article stays in one place, with no more content forks, and Wikipedia:Summary style is brought into place to cut down the bloated "cultural" section (that is, start a new article for this and leave a summary in place here). That can probably be done in a few other places as well: plus, we do not stick in "but they should be called this!" material that belongs, if anywhere, at Names of Syriac Christians (and arguably it's offtopic even there). Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They don't have any references. If they had, I wouldn't object to splitting. We have an article on every conceivable subgroup already, and it is perfectly unclear what else could be split off this article. We do not avoid content disputes by creating content forks, and this is what you are suggesting. You also want to control your temper, and try to convince Moreschi you are editing in good faith, anything else will just backfire. --dab (𒁳) 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Pay particularly attention to the last clause of that, chaps. Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dad (Moreschi). Now Dab, I don't understand you here. You are saying "they" do not have references. I don't know to what faction you are referring to, but here is the bottom line:


1) Either references do exist, and we should split the articles.
2) Or references do not exist, and we should have one article and one name. Gabr-el 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And by one name I do not mean the horrendously ugly compromise that we have there with 2 slashes. Gabr-el 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. Ugly it may be. But at least it has some basis in sourcing. Unlike other alternatives, such as "Aramean-Syriac", which doesn't even have any google presence. I don't think anyone here is too hung up on the actual title: it just needs to be grounded in reality. The important thing is one article for one ethnic group. Moreschi (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article lately!! It is no longer one article for one ethnic group. it has become 1 page for 1 religious denomination. This page has been vandalized to the extreme by the Aramean faction mainly User:ArameanSyriac. I mean just look at this line : Most Syriacs belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church (ʿIdto Suryoyto Triṣaṯ Šuḇḥo) which got 4,000,000 members around the world.[91]. The name Assyrian and Chaldeans has been taken out of 90% of the article. It has become a page on Syriacs and the incompetent admin User:Dab is not helping the matter. This has become a "syriac" page! That's why it needs to be fixed. Malik Danno (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, well, that can be fixed. ArameanSyriac has clearly written a lot of rubbish in very broken English that needs cleaning up and removal. Don't worry, I'll get round to that tomorrow once I have a better connection.
  • BTW, "vandalism" isn't, strictly speaking, accurate or helpful. This essay might well be thought to apply, though. Moreschi (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shrug - Moreschi, the extent of your contributions on this article.Gabr-el 23:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Now someone is getting somewhere. Gabr-el 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Now we are really getting somewhere. And Dab, I am not trying to make a personal attack against you; only critique your logic. As I have said, either references exist for the Aramaeans or they don't. And if they don't... Gabr-el 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) now blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. His latest revert against consensus was the straw that broke the camel's back. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Hasn't the page been Fixed Yet!!

It is clear that ArameanSyriac has vandalized 3/4 of the page, yet his 'contributions' are still around! Why haven't his vandalism been deleted or fixed yet? If by tomorrow they are not fixed, I will do it myself, and I would not want to do that because then I will be accused myself. Please someone delete the ridiculous claims of his (Syriac Orthodox are 4 000 000 etc). Malik Danno (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see a 4 million figure anywhere. Gabr-el 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Under Religion it says "Most Syriacs belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church (ʿIdto Suryoyto Triṣaṯ Šuḇḥo) which got 4,000,000 members around the world.[91] ". Also look at Demographics for Syria, Turkey, and Diaspora (Aramean-Syriac's vandalism) look at "Culture" for Literature, Sports, Religion, Festivals, Music, Dance All those where vandalized by User;AramaeanSyriac which strictly talk about Syriacs and ignore Chaldeans and Assyrians ... Those need to be deleted or fixed. Malik Danno (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop calling content disagreements for vandalism. What's the problem with saying the Syriac Orthodox Church has 4 mln members? Isn't it true you mean or what? Explain yourself. The TriZ (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Malik is disputing that. By the way people, and this goes for everyone, vandalism is not vandalism if its an attempt to improve the article, no matter how ridiculous 4 million members may seem to some. Having said that, I don't think that if we were to group all Syriacs together they would amount to 4 million. Gabr-el 06:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What's beeing said is that the Syriac Orthodox Church has 4 mln members, this if course includes the members in India. What sounds so ridicoulous with that? One may argue that it is not relevant for this article, but please, it is more of an underestimate of the total members of the church, than anything else. The TriZ (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Then it should be removed if its not relevant - this is about Assyrians and for your argument Aramaens, not Indians. Do you want me to cite Nestorians in China and Catholic Syriacs in India as supporting the AssyriansGabr-el 07:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what your talking about Gabr-el, I only explained what the sentence said and that the statement isn't incorrect. Perhaps it's not relevant, or maybe it is, I haven't said anything about that. And this article is not about Assyrian and "for my argument Arameans". This article is about the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac population, you guys better realize it and stop treating it like it only handles the group that identifies as Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Assyrians/Aramaens/Chaldeans/Syriacs etc. Well, why then include 4 million Syriac Orthodox number, if some of them (in fact many of them) are Indian? This is irrelevant. Gabr-el 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When you guys say 4 000 000 from source [[33]] and ignore the other figures (100 000, 100 000 and 300 000) it shows that you have an agenda. Why is it that you use the source that has 4 000 000 and ignore the two figures that have 100 000 and the other that has 300 000. I mean the figure 4 000 000 would be an outlier and would be discounted in any statistical study. It is the other three figures (that are closer in numbers together) which would be taken as real figures and that 4 000 000 would be discounted for being too high compared to others. That's beside the point, why are you only looking at that example ... look at all the other examples I have provided. Ok you're right lets not call them vandalism, let's call them "contributions", his "contributions" only talk about Syriacs ... 3/4 of the page now deals with Syriacs and not Assyrians and Chaldeans. If his "contributions" are not fixed or deleted soon, I will do it myself. (this is the second time I have said this to you guys) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix and delete them, but be prepared to defend them (and I will defend them if I can). Dab and Moreschi, I know you are busy admins, but you guys can revert whatever edits you think are not appropriate later. Gabr-el 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You make no sense Malik, just keep out and things will work themselves out. There are alot of fixing to do, but it has to be done by neutral editors. The TriZ (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You know what Gabr-el I will do it. The TriZ, you fail to realize this is Wikipedia, anyone can change anything they want (that's what makes it so flawd). You have been here defending User:ArameanSyriac's "contributions" but you dont want me to edit the page ... BIAS MUCH!! Also it has been 5 days and things have not fixed themselves ... so that point of yours is wrong. P.S. I am neutral ... you its just that you are too bias to see that. Malik Danno (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I edited up until Religion, I realized that he has ALOT of "contribution" to this page and it will take a while for anyone to change all his "contributions". Gabr-el if its not too much trouble can you help with contributing with ArameanSyriacs "contributions" Malik Danno (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
And you asked for my age and my academical status? Are you serious? I have hard to even believe English is your first language. Gabr-el, apart from you, has a sharp intellect and won't be doing edits like yours. The TriZ (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See Gabr-el what I expected to happen happened, The TriZ is all for keeping User:ArameanSyriac's "contributions" while he deletes all my contributions. He is not here for the best intentions of the page, rather he is here to implement his Syriac-Aramean agenda! The page has become a page about Syriacs and he know that, yet he decides to keep it the way he is. I say that we allow him to start his own page about Modern Arameans, and keep this page about Assyrians (Nestorians/Chaldeans/Syriacs). Malik Danno (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Triz, whilst I appreciate your strong allegiance to the Syriac Orthodox Church, it was not nice to say that Malik does not have a sharp intellect, and I respect him. I also respect you. But look at the difference between his and your edits:

1) You state that most Syriacs belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church, a POV that you cannot support. Malik's edits make no such POV. 2) You state that the Syriac Orthodox Church has 4 million members. This number seems to include people of Indian ethnicity who adhere to this Rite. Well then this information MUST be thorougly reviewed, so as to state what the ethnic Syriacs adherence is, not total adherents to the Syriac Orthodox Church. How ridiculous would it be if I cited the Catholic Church's 1 billion Christians to say that Chaldeans are 1 billion strong?

I have made some temporary edits, and they're temporary because I hope to edit it later. Gabr-el 01:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion is not the only place where User:ArameanSyriac's "contributions" are found ... They are EVERYWHERE in this page. Why can't we just delete his "contributions" altogether and leave it the way it was before. He was banned from editing for 72 hours due to that, yet we still have them ... why? Malik Danno (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If that is the reason why he was blocked, then it should be removed. Triz, you see this? Aramaen-Syriac was blocked for supporting those edits, you want to keep them still and go down the same path? Gabr-el 02:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Gabr-el I mean to say that he was banned because of "contributions" to this page specifically (because I don't know what page) but I said it because of what Moreschi said above in this pages' talkpage "AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) now blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. His latest revert against consensus was the straw that broke the camel's back. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)" ... Once again, I didnt say that he was kicked out for "contributing" to this specific page, but he nonetheless was banned. Malik Danno (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize khony, I know what you meant, but did not state myself clearly. Gabr-el 06:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just look at your latest edits Gabr-el, you two can obviously not edit this article in a neutral way. Just stay out of it, it's for the better of the article if you do that. Because simply replacing Syriac with Assyrian is not going to make this article any neutral or good. I mean, Assyrian literature? Please. The TriZ (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote down "Assyrian Literature", where is that? Furthermore, if its literature produced by Assyrians, its Assyrian literature, even if its written in Aramaic. If a Jew wrote in Yiddish, it doesn't make it any less Jewish literature. Gabr-el 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Name change?

I have two questions:

1. Who (i.e. admins) authorized changing the name of this article from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people ??

2. Were any of this page's editors notified prior to this change? Because I certainly wasn't.

--- Šarukinu (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

--- Neither was I. It was a sneaky move and I highly despise the fact that I was not informed. Gabr-el 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the bias and unreliable world of Wikipedia :D Malik Danno (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The move is very tenacious considering that it involved only 5 users and passed , and Wikipedia policy is with only a vote. Gabr-el 02:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to revert it back to it's original state, and then we are going to decide on this properly. We have to have all of this page's previous editors to vote. If any admins are going to attempt to have a say in this, it would be ideal to involve more than one. Let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is a major source of information for many people (although definitely not in academia). We cannot allow the bias of a couple of people to influence the information that thousands of people obtain from this page. The next time anybody decides to make such a major change, I sincerely hope that enough people will be consulted beforehand. --Šarukinu (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are at least two admins contributing to this discussion, and I expect there are several more watching. But being an admin, to quote Jimbo, is no big deal. It just gives us a few more tools, and a lot more accountability. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like a good resolution, I suggest we start a new Archive for that process. My input will be any name, but we have to at least put into the page that the name is representative of Nestorians, Chaldeans and Syriacs. Malik Danno (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Please stop trying to go so fast, people, particularly Malik Danno. This is going to have to be done carefully over the next couple months. Hysterical shouts of "FIX IT ALL NOW" are not going to help. That's not the way Wikipedia works: there is no deadline. Brute-force editing will simply be reverted and the perpetrators blocked. Try to get some consensus here first based on rationality, compromise and sourcing. Moreschi (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


Moreschi, with all due respect, I do not agree with what you are saying there. Lets use an example ... What if I were to go on the "Christianity in the Middle East" page and I edit the entire page ... On the page I add a large amount of "contributions" just about the Church of the East. I use bias sources, and turn 3/4 of the Middle East Christians page just about the Church of the East with NO consensus what-so-ever. If that were to happen I were to be blocked, but it would make no sense at all to keep my "comtributions" on the page and leave 3/4 of the page just dealing with the church of the east for Months!! What would happen is me getting blocked and all my "contributions" being deleted. Why isn't that the case on this page? It is clear that a nationistic user who has an Anti-Assyrian agenda has put in vast amounts of "contributions" to a page with no consensus at all! Why is it that although agreed upon that it was wrong and even being blocked for it, that it will take months for us to fix up his "contributions"? Malik Danno (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I must echo Malik's edits. There is a difference between improving an article, and reverting an article to its previous, better status. The difference? You are confused and thinking about the former, whilst we are demanding a simple rollback or revert click for the latter. Gabr-el 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact Moreschi, if what you say is true, and wikipedia takes a long time to be "improved", why did Dab and the others make a speedy and uninformed move in less than a few days!?Gabr-el 23:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so according to Andrewa, the admins have no real authority, are pretty much just useful for their "extra tools", and supposedly have a lot more accountability. Well then I guess that makes any and all of the admins involved accountable for these ridiculous edits. We have "two admins", according to Andrewa, who lack sufficient knowledge about the subject matter and attempt to come off as "experts" on the Assyrian identity issue. The mere back-and-forth squabbling of a few users on Wikipedia is not representative of the core issues, or any issues for that matter, within the Assyrian identity dilemma. Any expertise you admins think you may have, based on your observations of such squabbling, take it with a grain of salt.

So to the admins who have become so willingly involved in this matter, thank you for your efforts, but you have caused more damage than good. You have given some radical editors the green-light to go forth and make a mockery of this once-reasonable article. To be completely honest with you, I think it would be best if from now on you simply provide your "extra tools" when needed, but otherwise keep out of these matters. Judging by what has become of this article, I think many of us would agree that your assistance is no longer required, nor is it warranted. Admins such as Dbachmann have introduced themselves as experts, and more importantly, as "authorities". Furthermore, they have abused this non-existent authority by making unreasonable edits themselves. This is all there in the archives and in the edit history. If anybody wishes to challenge me on this, let me know. But I've said enough. What does everybody else think? Let's invite some of the previous editors of this article. This is how it's done. --Šarukinu (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarukinu's overall message. I don't think the admins claim to be experts, but I am still "upset" about the whole move thing that occured. Gabr-el 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Gabr-el, they certainly attempted to portray themselves as authorities, if not experts. --Šarukinu (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Dab and Moreschi probably so but at least Dab was bothered to take a part in this discussion. Being dedicated to preserving a NPOV amongst all parties is not wikipedia policy, however. If an admin was asked by 5 holocaust deniers and 5 holocaust supporters to make it neutral, he would not dare deny the holocaust half the time to make it "neutral". And standing back and observing the discussion certainly does not make one an expert. Whilst no seems to have explicitly claimed to have been an expert, the edits in this article point to such an attitude. Gabr-el 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Brute-force editing will simply be reverted and the perpetrators blocked. Try to get some consensus here first based on rationality, compromise and sourcing - Moreschi, 2008.

I'm curious, wouldn't the recent name change of this article be classified as "Brute-force editing"? I would argue so. Did the editors responsible for that edit reach a consensus of more than a handful of people? No. Did they even attempt to notify any of the past editors of this article to attempt to gain a more reasonable consensus? Not that I know of. Was it rational? Perhaps. You need to ask yourself these questions first. --Šarukinu (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts too. Gabr-el 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though I believe the current title to be more in line with WP's NPOV policy than "Assyrian people", I must agree with the above statement. dab's intervention is a clear example of brute-force editing, and an abuse of his admin powers. While the discussion was still being held, dab deemed it necessary to force his own ideas, and not for the first time. I strongly believe that another admin should get involved here. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
And whilst they are at it, please block User:Shagzr1234, who has broken the record for vandalizing the article 5 times in 12 hrs. Gabr-el 18:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The admins don't have any "power", as Andrewa stated. Accordingly, we do not require their assistance. If they want to provide any suggestions and mediate discussion, which is what they're supposed to do, if anything, then that's fine. But they have taken it too far. Certain administrators can lose their privileges, and I will personally see to it that it happens, should anything like this occur again. As soon as my final exams are over, I will contribute to the article and any discussions. Until then, bshena. --Šarukinu (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply in detail to the above. But I think I should say:

  • Most (possibly all) of what I'm quoted as having said above is not what I said at all, and much of it is not even true. If you think it matters, check it.
  • A move that anyone could have done is not an abuse of admin powers, simply because they weren't used. If you want to prevent these preemptive moves (it wasn't the first of course) then ask for page protection.
  • Admins are entitled to the same protection under the behavioural guidelines as anyone else.

Let's get back to the issues. Andrewa (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Dab, that editor who thinks he is the King, to protect this page twice already in the past week. I reasoned that since Dab is already editing it at will, he may as well protect it from further vandalism, like User:Shagzr1234, or from unconstructive edits by User:Aramaen-Syriac, whose 72 hour block, will run out! Furthermore, it is, at least in my opinion, an abuse to rapidly move an article without informing all editors involved. There were only 5 editors involved, one of them was Dab the admin. Me, and a few others were not informed. Gabr-el 17:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Admins are also susceptible to having their edits criticized should such criticism be warranted. Gabr-el 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course. But please comment on content, not on the contributor . Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I directly "quoted" you on, Andrewa, was your comment about "brute-force editing" and the fact that admins don't have any special privileges that put themselves above the regulations of Wikipedia. According to what you said, admins only have "extra tools", which, as we all know, are in addition to the ability to block (problematic) users. So "most of what [you are] quoted as having said above" is in deed what you have said, and is true, unless what you said yourself was not true... "check it". Page protection will not work, because there are edits that need to be made immediately, and that will not prevent such problematic users from vandalizing this article and making dumb-founded edits in the forseeable future.
What I said was not directed towards you, but rather it was towards Dab, so I apologize, I should have specified more clearly. I hope you will understand that I, like many others, have certain trust issues now when it comes to admins having anything to do with this article and issue. In fact, one of the "issues" we need to "get back to" is some of the unwarranted edits in this article made by admins. But first, we need somebody to move the page back to "Assyrian people", and then we can work from there, as I have suggested before (I do not have the time to be making such edits now, as I noted in my last post). The reason I am suggesting this is because Dab's move was not backed by enough consensus, was very sneaky, not entirely rational (which will be the focus of subsequent debate, I'm sure), and thus not warranted. Who is willing to move the page back to Assyrian people? --Šarukinu (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that most of this is again quite simply incorrect. For example, move protection will work for exactly what it is designed to do... prevent preemptive moves. While it won't physically prevent an admin from performing a move, in practice it will be effective even with them, because the software gives them a warning to double-check that what they are doing is supported by policy. Admins do heed this warning, as if they don't they then risk losing their admin status.
The system is not perfect. But no matter how much I assume good faith, I can't find anything in this entire post that would help us to improve either the system or the article. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Andrewa, my issue is with dab's preemptive move. The first step that must be taken is the reversal of his move from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. For some reason, everybody seems to avoid this issue. I've outlined my reasons for criticizing dab and his edits below. Please follow, and provide any necessary input. --Šarukinu (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have already explained why I do not believe this was an abuse of admin powers. If you don't believe me and wish to pursue the matter further, then again I suggest you use the channels provided for this. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

you will be surprised to learn that the admins do have some power if you keep up the unproductive WP:POINT WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, Šarukinu (et al.) The move was not sneaky. I invested a lot of effort to (a) establish the arguable article titles and (b) ask for input in a strawpoll. The strawpoll received all of five votes, and mine was the only non-partisan one. It is more than plain that you guys cannot solve your own dispute. You need surveillance and policy enforcement, and I am prepared to work with all admins present to help maintaining order, neutrality and policy compliance. It would be best to enforce article probation here, as on Kosovo, and slap blocks on any unconstructive behavior. It took half a year for the Kosovo article to settle down in acceptable shape, and we can achieve the same here. But this will require unpopular decisions, and some clamping down on the more indoctrinated pov-pushers. This will likely include most accounts named after Assyrian kings and the like. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not going on and on about this point for the sake of attacking you. I have already asked you before to take matters in to your own hands. At the moment, you've only done half that and this article as a result is in such a resulting state. You've conceded to some compromise, but I asked you to protect it and you haven't. Our "going on and on" was just us wanting to start the move vote again. By the way, I thought the strawpoll had 3 votes for the new title and 2 against? Gabr-el 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to get further admin help, there are channels for that. Use them. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, dab, you attempt yet again to enforce your non-existent authority on non-admin users - please understand that you have no authority here, neither on the issue at hand, nor the edits being made on this article. Your job as an admin on Wikipedia is to provide assistance via your extra tools and to block problematic users, when necessary. If you have reason to suggest that I am a problematic user, please support such a claim. However, in my entire history as a user on wikipedia, I have never vandalized a page, nor have I ever attacked/abused any user, or done anything else to warrant such a threat from you.

Your move was sneaky, because the majority of this page's editors were not informed, neither prior nor subsequent to your edits. A more inclusive effort would have involved sending messages to users, asking them to provide their input; in this respect, you clearly did not "invest a lot of effort", or any at all, for that matter. Had you have notified more users, there would have been much more equal representation of those in direct opposition to the move, and a proper discussion could have ensued. Thus, I argue that your edit was in fact sneaky, and thus illegitimate, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

Furthermore, discriminating against users for such an arbitrary reason as having an "account named after Assyrian kings" is something that can get your admin status revoked. Threatening users for questioning and criticizing your actions is also worthy of the same consequence. Remember, Dab, your admin status was granted to you based on whatever credentials you may have had at the time. You are slowly verging on abuse and misuse, so it would be wise not to give reason to suggest any inadequacies or abuse on your behalf.

If you are still not convinced, allow me to quote WP:Administrators:

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed..

A number of editors are questioning and criticizing your actions and edits, and I'm afraid you are not responding civilly, as is required of you. Patronizing us for attempting to deal with a very sensitive issue, which, let me stress, has been significant for quite some time now, is equivalent to abuse, and it is not your place to make such remarks. You are entitled to your opinion (which I respect), as is everybody else; however you must convey yourself in a civil and respectful manner, which you have clearly failed to do. Also, attempting to assert your non-existent authority by threatening to block users when not warranted is also considered uncivil.

Lastly, let me direct your attention to yet another Wikipedia guideline, as per WP:Administrators:

Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.

Although you claim to be neutral with respect to the Assyrian naming dispute, and to your credit you do appear to be neutral in that respect, you have clearly voiced your opinions against nationalism, both in previous discussions in this very article and on your user page. This is a direct conflict of interest; thus, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, there is strong evidence to suggest that you should not be involved in this article in anyway whatsoever.--Šarukinu (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
These are serious allegations. In my opinion they are baseless and a waste of everyone's time.
Wikipedia is not the place to express nationalism. But if you believe you have a case, again I ask you to raise it in the appropriate channels. Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on your user page. --Šarukinu (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I've replied there. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Move change to Assyrian People

Support

  • Gabr-el 07:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am in support of this, BUT I just want to say that I am for whatever will Unite our people ... so during the page we have to put that Under the Assyrian name it includes all Chaldeans and Syriacs!! I was for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac name in the beggining, but having seen how the page has turned into an Aramean-Syriac page, I have to say I am 100% against that. I say we turn it to Assyrian People, have it mentioned that Assyrians include Chaldeans and Syriacs, and let ArameanSyriac and The TriZ start an Aramean people page and pray that they get reliable sources to start their own page (not dealing with Syriac Orthodox Church). Malik Danno (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I would support that as well. Gabr-el 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this move back to Assyrian people. I'm not even sure why we have to take another vote to revert an edit that was illegitimate in the first place. Rest assured that this recent change will incite yet another "circus", far worse than the previous one that dab referred to. --Šarukinu (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support this move back to Assyrian people. Its more appropriate then the current name. Also the current name sounds awful. 70.135.106.88 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support this move back to Assyrian people. This articles name like the History of the Assyrian people was incompetently moved to the current status with no discussion or consensus whatsoever. The current article is the result of the abuse of an admins power(Dab). Ninevite (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support this move back to Assyrian people. This article now has no meaning and is a joke, an ethnicity put aside two church names? this does not make sense it is clear that 'Aramean' fanatics have totally destroyed the page it should be reverted back to how it was before. Aturaya (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the move back to Assyrian people. There is NO need for name calling- it is common sense to have separate pages for different peoples, and to not force a merging just because there are similarities. There will be no problems in the future as long as it is understood how Wikipedia articles are to be constructed, and how consensus is the rule, not just one person. This is coming from someone who has absolutely zero affiliation with any group involved, which usually helps. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe most people agrees that it's basically the same people, only that groups within the people call themselves different names. So the people is kind of split in three camps, the Syriacs, the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. You can read more at Names of Syriac Christians. The TriZ (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the possibility of creating two separate articles. Having separate articles for the same people as in the past has caused more problems than solutions. The original article entitled Aramaean-Syriac page got deleted on the grounds that it was a fork. A similar thing will likely happen again if the decision is made to create two separate articles. Therefore I would like to respectfully comment that this page should be named just Assyrian/Syriac People instead of the current name which is very awful to the ears. By not putting chaldean in the title, that does not mean we are being prejudice, we can just mention that the Assyrian/Syriac people are also known as Chaldean, syriacs, etc. We have already successfully established the naming dispute within the article page so those who are further interested may dig in deeper into other adjacent articles. Creating two articles will likely result in one getting deleted as done in the past therefore why do we not just keep it at Assyrian/Syriac for now to see what happens next. I have voiced my opinions above but I am willing to change it to the double term if for whatever reason the final decision is to be made to create two separate articles instead of keeping it to one. This is my humble opinion. Ninevite (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I support to move back to Assyrian people IF we have two articles, one named Assyrian people and one named Syriac people. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  • this will just start the whole circus over, with "Syriacs" pretending they don't realize this article is about their group and creating pov-forks all over the place. The past year has shown that this is no solution. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So Dab, basically you are opposing this move on the grounds that it will create more "pov-forks", even though you yourself have refused to give them a page because in your words, they don't have good references. By changing the name to its current status, you have admitted some of this pov in an attempt to appease users whom you have accused of providing no references. Furthermore, as you have seen with users like Aramaen Syriac and HD, we're not exactly making progress with this title either. Gabr-el 17:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
We are not making any progress cause you and Malik do not understand that his article is about the entire group and not the subgroup called Assyrians. Therefore you are changing things, like calling the work of Ephrem the Syrian for Assyrian literature. And the Aramean-Syriac people article wasn't deleted on the basis that it was unreferenced, it was deleted cause it was seen as a fork, this can be seen in the deletion discussion. The TriZ (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Then we should have a major article for all Syriac groups, and then smaller articles for every other people. But Dab refuses to concede on this point, refuting what you are saying by claiming that you have no references. Gabr-el 17:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop puttin words in Dabs mouth. This article is about the entire group. There already exists smaller articles for the sub-groups, such as Assyrianism, Chaldean Christians and one should also be created in Arameanism. The TriZ (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Dab said so himself, why don;t you take a look above and read?Gabr-el 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though the correct name should be Syriacs, the current name is neutral and shouldn't be changed. The TriZ (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The only name which won't make us kill each other on wikipedia is "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", it is time to end the name conflict and include all our names, eventually the Maronites could even be added to the article. Let's stop the name conflict by not changing the article's name and focus on developing this article into something good, which our youth can take advantage of in their identity crisis.--Yohanun (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I would Agree because I am all for the unity of our 1 nation. But you have to realize, the last time this happened there was LARGE amounts of "contributions" done by User:ArameanSyriac to the page that are still around until now. Even though he was blocked for it for a certain amount of time, he came back to do the exact same thing and without any penalty. That's why I have changed my view ... let them have their of Aramean People page and let them polute that page and keep them out of the Assyria one. Malik Danno (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't let one random user user destroy our image to the world. We are one people and we must start realising that. We are too few to be divided. We see and experience today a major threat against our people as a whole, not as different groups.
The Kurds who have at least 7 sub divisions come along even though they do not understand 1% of each other's dialects, at least we do understand each other to some less extent. We have to keep this article alive for our people's sake. We can do this together and we should start right now.
This afternoon we had a demonstration in Sweden against the Turks and Kurds confiscation of Mor Gabriel in southeastern Turkey, northwestern Assyria. We had at least 5000 Assyrians/Syriacs united, most of whom belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Church waving Aramean and Assyrian flags as one united people with prominent Swedish parlamentians on place. We are one, and we need to act as one what ever some random user is saying or doing.--Yohanun (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Believe me Khon I am all for unity. If you knew me in person you would realize how passionate I am about uniting. I would be for this proposal however there seems to be no reason why I should agree with "My" history and everything else that assyrians hold close to them being changed. For me that is where I draw the line. For others simply the name is where they draw the line, but i am more accepting by trying to give unity a chance. But again, if unity means me and my people (or others recognizing) having to change everything they believe in then count me out. We have to at one point ask ourselves what is co-operation and what is appeasement. This, I believe, will turn into appeasement. If I realize that the name would stop any more "contributions" such as the ones ArameanSyriac has made then I would be for it. However seeing that his "contributions" have not even been deleted yet that seems highly unlikely.
P.S. I hope you don't mind that I pushed your comments over, just so it will be easier to tally up the votes in the end. Malik Danno (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Is there any particular reason that this proposed move (from Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people) is to Assyrian People not to the previous title Assyrian people? Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Same thing, no? A capital letter shouldn't make a difference, unless somebody objects. --Šarukinu (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Same thing? No. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Suroye. Gabr-el 23:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, Gabr-el. --Šarukinu (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The Aramaen faction will never accept Assyrian, and we do not want Syriac either as if to imply that there are no Assyrians. How about Suraye? Gabr-el 01:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what any faction will accept. What Wikipedia seeks to present is, ideally, the totality of significant human knowledge, that is to say, as much accurate, verifiable information as we can. Inevitably, some people do try to use Wikipedia to suppress particular pieces of information, and/or to present their personal opinions. So while we assume good faith we also know that not everyone will respect or understand what an encyclopedia is and is not.
Sorry if that's a bit confronting, and I'm making no allegations as to particular people here. Rather I'm inviting you all to ask whether your personal ambitions for Wikipedia match its principles, and to consider giving these principles a go if they don't. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you realized that every Assyrian, Syriac Aramaen and Chaldean calls themselves "Suraya" without hesitation. Gabr-el 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with your proposition there Gabr-el because then you are picking a name that deals with only us who are involved in this name dispute (Assyrians and Syriacs). What about the average Wikipedian who wants to know about Assyrians? In the English WIkipedia it should be in english ... just like Turkish People and Kurdish PeopleMalik Danno (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
What he said. Moreschi (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I am tired of seeking a compromise. Assyrian can't satisfy everyone, but at least it will satisfy most people. Gabr-el 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Satisfy most of the partisans on this talk page, yes. Unfortunately that's not really relevant. Moreschi (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
And again, I'm afraid this is not the primary consideration. As an encyclopedia we seek accuracy, rather than any sort of political correctness. We seek consensus as a way of seeking this accuracy. This process relies on the contributors accepting Wikipedia's principles, and so the views of those editors who consistently ignore these principles are simply ignored; That's also part of the process. Sometimes for convenience we may block or ban particular editors, but it's not only blocked or banned editors whose views are discarded. It doesn't always work, but often it works rather well. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if this is true, I'm afraid it's not the primary consideration when it comes to deciding what we should call the article in English Wikipedia. And please, comment on content, not on the contributor. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
So is saying that you don't understand a personal attack? Gabr-el 19:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll get a coffee... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll go on wikibreak. Gabr-el 20:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Slashes

Although there's no convention banning it, I think we should avoid slashes in the article name. They confuse the software, which regards this talk page, for example, as a subpage, which it isn't. Minor point which we can fix when some of the dust settles, if it's still relevant. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Something to bear in mind, yes. Moreschi (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another case in point... Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-07 Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Currently, the infobox reads Syriac people, which is in a sense correct. Subpages are only disabled in the main namespace. In any other namespace, Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-07 Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people is a subpage of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-07 Assyrian/Chaldean, which is itself a subpage of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-07 Assyrian etc. etc.. Andrewa (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to Assyrian people

Is this move request still alive? It doesn't seem to be listed at WP:RM any more, and the move template is gone from the top of the page, but the poll hasn't been closed.

Either way, I'd like to tentatively suggest (not yet recommend) an alternative: Move back to Assyrian people.

I've several reasons for this (in no particular order):

1. The more I think of it, the sillier it seems to allow slashes in article names. There must be a better way.

2. The main argument against this name seems to be that it supports Assyrianism. On reflection, I think this argument actually works better the other way around. Wikipedia has naming conventions, and in controversial cases like this it is particularly important to follow them. Our choice of the name Assyrian people would not indicate support for Assyrianism, as the fact that their choice for an article name and ours are the same is either coincidence or a sign that they are winning the minds of English speakers. Either way, it's no argument against the name. On the other hand, if we decide to abandon our naming conventions and reject the name Assyrian people purely because those who oppose Assyrianism don't like it, we are subtly taking their side on this matter.

3. It should be Assyrian people rather than Assyrian People simply because, again, that's our naming convention.

4. Another argument is that some find this name offensive. Avoiding offensive article names is not policy here. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. We unapologetically have articles on fuck and shit which are both offensive terms in my culture.

I'm not calling for a poll at this stage, just comments.

In particular, there are three issues as I see them:

1. Is it true that Assyrian people is the common English term for the article topic?

2. Are there any important arguments against the name Assyrian people, other than the claimed link to Assyrianism? There has been a lot of talk of course, but this seems to be the underlying problem. At the risk of not assuming good faith, I think we need to consider the possibility that the other issues are simply tactics raised to support or oppose this cause.

3. Is the claimed link to Assyrianism a valid reason to reject the name?

I know this is a bit long-winded and repetitive, but as I put some time into examining the issues I found I was surprised by my conclusion, and hope it might be helpful to look at it all again. Andrewa (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you have evaluated the situation correctly, Andrewa. Although I grant your arguments make perfect sense and I understand them. The problem is that, yes, English usage of "Assyrians" and Syriac "Assyrianism" was co-incidential in the earlier 20th century. The problem is that the offense the name gives internally has recently begun to affect English usage. That is, in the 2000s. These "slashed" names in official US and Swedish sources are a result of the internal conflict. At some point, the US census bureau must have grown tired of getting calls from outraged "Syriacs" asking how dare they call them Assyrians. So they opted for an awkward but PC and neutral designation, "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". Since the 2000s, it has become impossible to call the people anything else in English without stepping on anyone's toes. So yes, the "claimed link to Assyrianism" is a valid reason to reject the name. Not Wikipedia-internally, but in the real world of English usage, and consequently Wikipedia needs to follow suit. I know this is childish. It is, however, childishness that takes place in the real world, and Wikipedia isn't free to ignore it. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is however free not to comply with this childishness, and that's exactly what I think our policy indicates we should do. It's not ignoring it so much as deciding it's not our thing.
Yes, the US and Swedish census authorities have both decided to use versions of the slashed name. This is not necessarily for reasons of political correctness or because they received complaints. Their overriding responsibility is to collect accurate information. Using these names is a way of maximising the probability that people will answer their questions accurately. We're not in their position, so there's no reason to think that their example is one we should follow.
I think you've summed up the case very well, and I still don't find it at all convincing. But thanks for doing it. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Andrewa, at the recent google searchs that was done, I believe the conclusion was that Syriacs was the most common name. The TriZ (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. What do you conclude from this? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
That changing the title of this article to Assyrian people wouldn't be motivated by WP:NAME or any other policy for that matter. The TriZ (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
According to my google searches, Assyrian is the most common name. That being said, there are still several things wrong with using google as a barometer of which term is most commonly used. First, follow below:

Google search for "Assyrians": 1,170,000 results
Google search for "Syriacs": 32,300 results

Since a google search for "Assyrians" brings up over 1 million hits, many (if not most) of which refer to the ancient Assyrians, it would simply be much too labour-intensive and would take far too long to determine how many of these 1 million hits refer to modern Assyrians as opposed to ancient Assyrians. Thus, we cannot make an accurate comparison using the plural of each respective name. If we want to compare what is most common, we have to use one of the following conventions:

1. The respective name with "people".
Google search for "Assyrian people": 18,300 results
Google search for "Syriac people": 6,770 results

2. "Modern" plus the respective name.
Google search for "Modern Assyrians": 3,260 results
Google search for "Modern Syriacs": 215 results

3. Respective name plus "Christians" (although this may not be inclusive of non-Christians)
Google search for "Assyrian Christians": 29,200 results
Google search for "Syriac Christians": 14,500 results.

These are just a few possible combinations - I'm sure there are more. From the looks of it, "Assyrian" still seems to be more commonly used. But this brings me back to the point I was trying to make. Using Google as an indicator of which term is more common is flawed to the extent that a Google search brings up duplicates. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on academic sources - suffice to say that google is not academic. So let's try google scholar:

Google Scholar search for "Assyrian people": 128 results
Google Scholar search for "Syriac people": 10 results

Google Scholar search for "Modern Assyrians": 61 results
Google Scholar search for "Modern Syriacs": 0 results.

Google Scholar search for "Assyrian Christians": 246 results
Google Scholar search for "Syriac Christians": 184 results

Now, I'm not sure if any of you have access to online academic journal databases, but through my account with the University of Toronto I was able to perform this search on various such databases.

First, using an academic article database such as JSTOR, the results are as follows:

JSTOR search for "Assyrian people": 23 results
  • However, upon further review of these results, only 7 of these articles make reference to modern Assyrians.
JSTOR search for "Syriac people": 1 result
JSTOR search for "Syriacs": 19 results
  • Only 7 of these articles make reference to Syriacs of today.
  • Of these 7 articles, at least 2 also make reference to modern Assyrians, albeit in separate contexts.
Thus far it appears that "Assyrians" is more commonly used than "Syriacs". If necessary, I can post the respective results from other academic journal databases upon request. If anybody wants screenshots of these searches (as I'm not sure how many of you can access such databases), I would be glad to provide them.
However, a final note of caution. Many of these google searches come up with hits that contain references to both Assyrians and Syriacs. Perhaps we should be searching for hits in which either term is used to the exclusion of the other, or something along those lines.--Šarukinu (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it oh well here it is. Here are the searches I found although Google is not the deciding factor in academia.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=modern+assyrian+-india Total 19300

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/iz.html

  • ==ETHNIC GROPS WORLDWIDE== no mention of Syriac

http://books.google.com/books?id=uwi-rv3VV6cC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=political+handbook+of+the+middle+east+assyrian&source=web&ots=AFH452RuMY&sig=Nd6NJAZi1fg2QZ8B-RGWvTLLgGA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA232,M1

  • According to the ==POLITCIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE EAST==
  • The Chaldeans are the part of the ancient Nestorian church (Church of the East, Assyrians) who accepted the Pope's authority finally in 1831 and became a Uniate Church.
  • Catholic missionaries started working amongst the Assyrians in the 13th century. The Chaldeans retain their ancient rites and Syriac liturgical language.
  • Assyrians were instrumental in passing on Hellenistic, Syriac and Christian culture to the Arabs. They were great scholars, physicians, and missionaries and by the 8th century had churches in Central Asia, India, China, Tibet and Mongolia.
  • The Assyrians were almost totally wiped out by Tamerlane in the 14th century and they have since survived only in isolated mountain area of Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros mountains with Hakkari near Lake Van as their centre for centuries. During WWI many Assyrians were massacred by the Turks and Kurds. Many of those who fled to Iraq were massacred by the Iraqi forces in 1933. The whole nation was dispersed.

The Chaldeans are the Assyrians who accepted Roman Catholic supremacy as a :::*Uniate church, a process started in 1551 and finalised in 1830.

  • Sorry for the Length but these searches through google clearly show that Assyrian is the dominant word used amongst the other allegations. I hope this sheds some light, although I know some users will just dismiss these claims and just say no he is biased, I will only respond to this if any conflicting views speak politely and respectfully as I will in return. Best regards.

Ninevite (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

lol. Modern Syriacs? You do know the name Syriacs has only existed for like 50-60 years or so? Doing a google search on Assyrians is if course meaningless since Assyrians is refering to the ancient Assyrians. Syriacs can only refer to a modern group, since the term is modern, therefore it can not be ambiguous. Also, when searching for Syriac Christians versus Assyrian Christians, try also Syrian Christians (which is still used to describe the Syriac Christians). The only meaningful to do here, is to compare Syriacs vs Assyrian people, and its been shown that Syriacs has the most google hits. Sure, there are some hits under Assyrians that refers to the modern group, but it's the same under Syrians, which still sometimes is used to describe the Syriacs. The TriZ (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of those claims, the purpose of using modern in my searches was to find exatcly that modern sources that is applied to these specific people. User Sarukinu has done a better job in her sources right above me in conveying that Assyrian is the most commonly used term in the english languge. The sources I have provided are from the CIA Factbook which makes absolutely no metnion of a Syriac Ethnictiy or languge but it clearly states a Assyrian ethnicity and Assyrian Languge. As user Sarukinu and I have shown Assyrian is indeed the term. I have no problem as I have mentioned before in stating these people have fallen under these various names such syrians, syriacs, and so on but as far as the article title is concerned Assyrian through various google searches has shown to be the dominant term in the english language. Assyriologist Simo Parpola, argues for a common designation Assyrian, on grounds that: Simo Parpola is professor of Assyriology at the University of Helsinki, Finland. ...

"In this context it is important to draw attention to the fact that the Aramaic-speaking peoples of the Near East have since ancient times identified themselves as Assyrians and still continue to do so. The self-designations of modern Syriacs and Assyrians, Sūryōyō and Sūrāyā, are both derived from the ancient Assyrian word for "Assyrian", Aššūrāyu, as can be easily established from a closer look at the relevant words."[2] Syrian has also been used to identify Assyrian in many cases as given through ancient and modern sources. Those are my four cents. Syriac is a very broad term that specifically refers to people who speak that dialect whereas Assyrian implies a languge and ethnicity. Countless sources have also proven so in the case of Chaldeans respectfully. As you know and many others in this article syrian ceased to be used ever since the establishment of the Arab state of Syria.Ninevite (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you make no sense with your childish and naive claims. Let unbiased users decide wheter or not Assyrian is the most common name. And about Simo Parpola, he is as much biased as you are. So no need to throw around with his name and his titles, I mean, have you even heard of Sebastian Brock? The TriZ (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think that Dr. Parpola is biased? Is it because he does not support your position? I'm curious to know, Triz. --Šarukinu (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And if you truly want an unbiased search, you need to equate the terms "Assyrian" and "Syriac", as I pointed out. A google search on "Assyrians" is not meaningless, because "Assyrians" applies to both modern and ancient peoples. The only problem with using "Assyrian" is that you get well over 1,000,000 hits, and it would take too much time to go through each hit and determine whether it refers to ancient or modern Assyrians (or both).
And I don't see the problem with "Modern Syriacs". The term "Assyrian", as used to refer to the modern ethnic Assyrians in the English language, originated around 150 years ago, did it not? So why is it that "Modern Assyrians" is ok, but "Modern Syriacs" is not? "Assyrian" was only used in the English language for about 100 years or so longer than was "Syriac". I don't see what would make "Modern Syriacs" any less valid as a search term than "Modern Assyrians".

And lastly, I performed a Google Search on "Assyrians", just as before, but this time I went to advanced search and I asked Google to exclude any hits that contain the word "ancient" (I also asked to only show results in the English language). This is still quite a rudimentary process, and it has removed many hits which refer to modern Assyrians as well. But as you go through the [500,000+ hits], you will see most of them pertain to the modern Assyrians. Click any random results page, and you will see that this trend holds true. If anybody has any questions about this, I welcome them. --Šarukinu (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, then I guess your urging for a move to Assyrians? Which if course is not an option really, since it's to ambiguate. I know what your trying to say Sarukinu, but you can't do like that. Try a search on Syriac, -lanugage, and you still almost get a million hits, which many refers to the Syriac people. You can even try search on "syriac -language -christians -music -orthodox -peshitta -wikipedia", and still get 800k hits which many refers to the Syriac people. Search on Syrian Christians and you get more hits than you do with Assyrian Christians which all or many refers to Syriac Christians. So the logic behind what your saying doesn't work. Also I don't see any reason at all for you to trying to add Modern or anything else like that, doens't make any sense and your only trying to manipulate with statistics. The TriZ (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The only person who is "naive and childlish is you." By the way youre the most biased person in this whole talkpage. I have provided countless links and you havent provided "jack" , besides putting down other users by laughing at them or saying their logic is zero like this "Lol, logic equals zero. Anyway, Syriac Christians is one thing, Syriacs another. The TriZ (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)." Instead of constantly bickering and whining with established sources Like Simo Parpola who is a world renowned Assyriologist, whom views you clearly disagree with for whatever "naive reason" provide some sources of your own. You obviously have a problem with academic points views that disagree with your own such as the CIA FActbook, World Ethnic Groups, Politcal Handbook to the Middle East and so on. By the way do not pose questions at me, this article is about the name and not your personal feelings. You have failed once again to understand my english, as you have done in the past. Try reading the last sentence of my earlier post and you will see that you fulfilled my prohphecy and calling people who disagree with your minority view biased. I know its difficult for you to accept any views that are conflicting with your own, but try to be productive instead counterproductive as youve been in this discussion. I do however give you credit for constantly going off topic, You have done an excellant job in that, and its up to you if you want to contiue. Also if you do plan on reading my last sentence you have also failed in being respectful to other users on this issue, I said I will reply to my post if those with conflicting views show respect for others, you have disrespected me and those who have brought the other side of the issue, by name calling and dismissing views without providing evidence of you own.Ninevite (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please cut the bullshit? Seriously. I mean it's not me claiming that the Syriac Orthodox Church changed name from Assyrian Orthodox Church in the 50s or 60s or whatever. So if you can't act constructively, then stop writing here. The TriZ (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The only "bullshit" here is yours. Stop manipulating words you bigot. Provide sources or get out of this conversation, you are counterproductive, and watch your languge here, the only thing you have exhibited here is your lack of education, maturuity, communicational skills, and dont threathen me here, you obviously have a problem with academic sources that destroy your minority view so stop bickering. Also the accusation you made above is compeltely false it was malcik who made that accusation and it was I who just happen to give a link that he might be interested in after the fact he stated it. Stop changing the meaning of words to satisfy your propagandistic justifications to eliminate all of your oppoistion. Dont pose questions towards me, and the only reason why I replyed to your incumbent assault was to prove a point, you dont like what I have to say then I suggest you dont reply to my posts. Grow Up! Ninevite (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Triz, I'm not manipulating statistics. I'm just showing examples of possible searches we can perform in order to gain a better understanding of the big picture. A search for "Syrian Christians" brings up mostly hits that relate to the Saint Thomas Christians from India. Sorry, looks like we have to stick with equating the terms "Assyrian" and "Syriac". We shouldn't even be using google as a reliable source anyways. Stick to academic journal databases, as I suggested. --Šarukinu (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Guys you have to realize that The TriZ is so embedded in the "aramean" identity now that there is no other exception but his own. If you were to provide a million sources he still would not budge. It has been engraved in his mindset that he is right and there are no other logical answers but his own. He has proved that he is unwilling to compromise to any other points but his own. Any other point is "bias" "pathetic" "stupid" and any user that disagrees with him is "stupid" "spreading propaganda" etc. You guys should stop focussing your attention on him, rather try to build this page with the rest of the members. I mean if the blesser Mar Ephrem the Syrian himself came down and told him that he and all Syriacs are Assyrian I strongly believe he would not change his position. People like this do not help any pages, rather damage it by deleting any points which they don't agree with and putting theirs points in. He has also proven countless times that he is a hypocrite by his overarching defense of User:ArameanSyriac even after he was banned, yet when members tried to correct his "contributions" he went on the offensive that they were trying to spread propaganda. As I said earlier, we should focus our attention to those who truly want to contribute positively to this page and not others who want to input their point of view while ignoring all others. Malik Danno (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above account. I find it very very hypocritical of that user when he or she solely defends Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAssyrian%2FChaldean%2FSyriac_people&diff=253038749&oldid=253036274 who denies the existence of Kurds, who declares that all Arabs should be thrown into concentration camps and indoctrinated in Aramaic, who denies the existence of the Somali People, Who regards the Ethiopians as descendants of dogs, who is one of the foremost frauds in revisionist history, who denies the existence of the Assyrians. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/propagandist-dr-muhammad-shamsaddin-megalommatis-can-he-change-the-history.html and http://www.buzzle.com/articles/prof-dr-muhammad-shamsaddin-megalommatis-a-cock-eyed-liar-and-an-iconoclastic-hacker.html . According to this hypocrite the denialist, revisionist, liar, and fraud I have mentioned above is not biased but the World Renowned Assyriologist, Simo Parpola, is biased. According to the Two faced user the CIA Fact Book, Political Handbook of the Middle East, World Ethnic Groups, Library of Congress, Google Scholar, Google Books,, JSTOR, and Google Search engine is biased because it does not support his propagandistic minority views. There is no problem with that incompetent Megalomattis who denies the existence of several ethnicities because he supports his incompetent views. Please keep your double standards for yourself. You have clearly shown the users in this discussion that you are incapable of cooperating with others, as well accepting scholarly peer-reviewed sources that dismiss your invalid Aram Nahrain Claims. Keep the double standards for yourself. Sarukinu don’t waste your time trying to explain our findings to this narrow minded user, our findings beyond a doubt prove our point and he or she just hasn’t the stomach to accept it. His support of that of so called buffoon of a historian is evidence enough to what lengths he or she would go proving his or her point. Our sources that are neutral that counter his claims are of course biased and his are not no matter how bizarre his sources maybe. Many users have come to concrete conclusion that this user is simply intolerant of other views no matter how relevant or prestigious they are and he is yet to provide any sources whatsoever of his own in proving all the evidence we brought is not true.. The user above me is correct let us continue this discussion without him, we have spent too much time babysitting these toddlers around here let us move on. Of course I predict another dismissive remark regarding all the claims we have made, I have grown used to it however from him. Ninevite (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Why is Parpola biased? Everyone that's involved in this knows that Simo Parpola has choosen side, and that's the Assyrian side. For example, Kenneth Nordgren mentions in "Vems är historien?", pp. 99, [34], that even though recognized linguists such as Otto Jastrow pointed out that the language is to be called Syriac, the Assyrian federaton was supported by Simo Parpola, in the question of whether the language is to be called Assyrian or Syriac. I haven't bothered to read what Nineveh 209 or Malik has said, but I don't mind having a discussion with you Sarukinu, since you at least are willing to discuss the issue, and not bringing up groundless conspiracy theories. The TriZ (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to read what Nineveh 209 or Malik has said ... point proven :D Malik Danno (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh really, so what's the point? Use one sentence to describe your point. The TriZ (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Read my post and you will know. Why should I take orders from you reducing it to one sentence? Malik Danno (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
So it's readable, I can't find the point among all the personal attacks. The TriZ (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not my fault that you can't find the point, I think it's sad that you only got the "personal attacks" from that Malik Danno (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I catched was your personal attacks, was that the point? It's not difficult, summarize your point in a sentence or a two, and make it readable for me (since it's obvious that it was directed at me, right?). The TriZ (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. Your current position of "arameanism" has put you in a place where you are unwilling to compromise with anyone/thing that has a different view. In your eyes your point of view if the correct point of view and there is no other because they are all false. I believe that you are unable to continue a proper educated discussion because in such discussions both sides have to be willing to compromise, yet you are unflinching. It is useless to provide sources to you because any/all sources no matter how reliable will just be discounted by you as being "propaganda" and once again you will be unable to compromise your position. Malik Danno (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So that's your point? That my current position of "arameanism" has put me in a place where I'm unwilling to compromise? Yet I choose to use the double-term where it is appropriate, yet I support the current name of the article, yet I'm the one trying to show all sides of this conflict, etc. Doesn't this show that your "point" (or should I say, your statment?), is groundless? Is it not actually the opposite here? Is it not you who is trying to move this article to Assyrian people? Was it not you who removed the Syriac instutitions from the article and kept the Assyrians? ...and so on. The TriZ (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are unwilling to consider that your church use to be called "Assyrian Orthodox Church", you are unwilling to think of the fact that your Patriarch went to League of Nations meetings and called himself and all Syriacs Assyrian, you are unwilling to recognize that when the first immigrants came to the west they came as "Assyrians" and not "Syriacs" or "Arameans", you are unwilling to consider the fact that in 1950s your church leadership began adopting the "Aramean" nationhood and turned away from their Assyrian nationality. You are unwilling to even read [35] and have a proper discussion on it rather you discount it as just being "false" and "propaganda". Now I already know what your response will be because as I said your position of "Arameanism" has put you in a place where nothing else but your point is valid. I ask you ... If you are going to keep your current position then at least do it with some form of discussion ... If you see a point in the article you don't agree with, I encourage you to prove it wrong! don't just say that its bullshit and propaganda (which is what you have been doing). Malik Danno (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that is actually what you've been doing. I already explained those non-saying pictures on a monastery in Jerusalem, I can't make you read it if you don't want to. Obviously I'm unwilling to consider that the church has been called or is called Assyrian Orthodox Church since there are no valid proofs, sources or anything whatsover. The TriZ (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You haven't even attempted in reading the article have you, Your point on the picture doesn't make sense at all, but just for argument sake let's say you're right ... what about the rest of the points ... the Jerusalem convent is just a tiny section of the article, care to explain the rest of the points? Malik Danno (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think I've seen that before? We have been gone through that several times. I'm not going to waste time discussing such a site here, as you probably don't with a site as AramNahraim, right? And tell me what doesn't make sense about the picture, perhaps you haven't fully understood my explaination, but again, this whole picture-matter was discussed in Swedish Wikipeida, with the help of Israealan and Arabic users, and the only conclusions that could been drawn was that the Monastery had never changed name, the only thing that had change was that that the Jerusalem offices had translated the Arabic where it said "The Syriacs..." to "Assyrian" in English. The TriZ (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Listen, the picture which you keep on talking about is only 2 sentences of the entire article, what about the rest of the article? Why are you only choosing to discus 2 sentences of the entire article? you saying "I'm not going to waste time discussing such a site here," just once again proves my point that you are unwilling to have a proper discussion. Ok wince you are not willing to discuss them then I will ask you a question ... explain why your Partiarch, Mor Barsum, during the League of Nations says: "We have the honor of bringing before the Peace Conference the information that H.B. the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch has entrusted me with the task of laying before the Conference the suffering and the wishes of 'our' ancient Assyrian nation who reside mostly in the upper valleys of Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia..." ... what about Patriarch Mor Aprim Barsum on his visit to USA some commented on his comments saying "His Eminence has given lectures on the psychology of the Assyrian people in the United States. His mission has been to create an understanding of the Assyrian people by Americans, because most of them, although well-educated in Assyria have been forced by a changed atmosphere into menial occupations." and in the 1919 Peace conference he was mentioned on stating "During the peace conference he appeared to demand indemnity for the Assyrian churches sacked during the World War" ... note not Syriac nor Aramean churches. Why is it that in 1952 that Mor Barsum (who as stated above stated that he was Assyrian) all of a sudden published a book titled "The Syrian Church of Antioch, in Name and History." where he adopts his former Assyrian nationality and adopts an Aramean one? Also if the Syriacs had always followed their Assyrian ethnicity then why is it that "Members who objected were locked out excommunicated and driven out."? Also how do you explain the various law suits pertaining to the name change where the Syriac church leaders confiscated the churches from the lay people. How do you also explain "Parishioners of the Church of the Virgin Mary in Worcester, Massachusetts and the Paramus of New Jersey refused to comply with the identity change. They succeeded in keeping the Assyrian name 'by registering their parishes independent of the main church under a trustee group'. Archbishop Mor Cyril Aprim Karim later succeed in removing the term Assyrian from the Virgin Mary church in Worcester, but in Paramus the Assyrian identity of the church still prevails."??
Now I know you will once again divert the point, maybe call me one or two names, but in the end you will avoid dealing with the questions. Malik Danno (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ArameanSyriac

I just want to point out once more that User:ArameanSyriac is still up to his old tricks. His "contributions" are turning this page into a Syriac/Aramean page. He keeps adding "contributions" to this page whthout any consensus. The block clearly didn't do anything to stop fim from his old ways as he is still doing it. I suggest a permanent block do to his excessive "contributions"

P.S. why are his old "contributions" still around let alone the new ones? I will do what all of you are scared to do and delete his recent "contributions" Malik Danno (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you start writing like a normal person or are you completly inable to do that?! What does it take for you to understand simple matters? Do we have to hit you on the head with the fact that this article is about the entire group and not the subgroup known as Assyrians or are you just ignoring this simply because you dont like it? The TriZ (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thank-you for proving my point ... having said that then you should be 100% against what ArameaSyriac has been doing to this page ... that is turn it only to a Syriac page ... now are you a hypocrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
ArameanSyriac added Syriac instutions alongside with the Assyrians, with that said, it is only balancing the article and is completly neutral and motivated. I think the problem here is you, who've been acting destructive and clearly obstructing the positive work on this article. The TriZ (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop attacking each other. Triz, if he is adding in referenced material about Syriacs, that is fine, for now. Gabr-el 23:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If that's all he was doing then I would be fine with it, but He clearly is trying to turn this page into an imfomation only on Syriacs. I mean just look at it ... even a person with as much bias as you would realize that. He was also blocked because of what he was doing and you are defending his actions? Bias Much? Malik Danno (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You make no sense whatsover, and you should take some vacation off. Because again, you are'nt making any constructive contributions to this article. For example, Arameans has as much to do with this article as Assyrians, you remove one, then you have to remove the other. You will be blocked aswell if you don't keep your own biasm and POV for yourself instead of insisting on implying it in the article. The TriZ (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You constantly saying you don't understand is not making me look bad ... its making it seem as if you are unable to understand the simplest of discussions :). but honestly tell me what Arameans have to do with this article. Don't just say the adoption of the Aramaic Language ... because that link is separate from the Also See section and that is acceptable. Malik Danno (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Just read what I wrote above, what's so complicated that you don't understand? The two big sub-groups of this people believe either that they are the decendents of the Arameans or the Assyrians. The Arameans are therefore as much relevant as the ancient Assyrians for this article. The TriZ (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
So if there are any people who assume they are something else they should be mentioned in this page? Your Patriarch and almost ALL Syriacs here in Canada call themseves Arabs ... does that mean we include Arabs too? Chaldeans also say they are decendents of Ancient Chaldeans ... include Chaldeans too? Some Syriacs in Lebanon claim they are closer to Phoenicians than any other group do we include Phoenicians as well? Don't forget the minority Assyrians who call themselves Kurds these days ... want us to include Kurds in this group too? If we use your 'approach' then why be a hypocrite and not include all those people mentioned above? There are more Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs today who call themselves Arabs then call themselves Arameans ... why not advocate the introduction of Arabs in this page more than Arameans? Thank-you for that set up by the way :D Malik Danno (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you delibaretly being ignorant? I said the two big sub-groups, and spreading lies like those are very offending. There are multiple sources of where the Patriarch have said that the Syriac people are the decendents of the Arameans, now saying the Syriacs are saying they're Arabs without any sources backing up the claim is indeed very offending. The TriZ (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Set up? Arabs? If you have more claims like these, please provide sources and stop embarass yourself. The TriZ (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The TriZ you have to realize something ... Just because you don't agree with something that occurred doesn't mean that that it never happened. That logic is just ignorant. I mean you NEVER want to accept the fact that the Syrian Orthodox Church was called Assyrian Orthodox Church before 1950s and your patriarch calling his people arabs. It HAPPENS. If you don't like something doesn't mean it never happened ... be real please. Turks do the exact same thing, they outright deny the Assyrian/Armenian Genocide because they can't handle the fact that they did it.
P.S. Bishop Hazail Soumi (Syriac Orthodox Church) called himself Assyrian too :D Malik Danno (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Still no sources to back up your claims and statements (and you'll never find any for obvious reasons). The TriZ (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Give me a source (outside the bible) that states the Egyptians enslaved Jews ... (Don't bother looking there isn't any). Once again following your logic it might be taken that you are denying the factuality of the Bible and the existence of Moses. Just because I can't source something doesn't mean it hasn't happened ... But i guess whatever makes you sleep at night better ... If you feel better about yourself in 'assuming' that your Patriarch didn't call himself and his people arabs, Your Church didn't use to be called itself Assyrian Orthodox Church pre-1950s, and Bishop Hazail Soumi didn't say that Assyrians and Syriacs are one nation then any source which is provided ... then sure for your sake ... those things never happened, The Assyrian/Armenian Genocide never happened, Moses was not a real person, and 2/3 of the old testament is not real. Malik Danno (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, are you saying 2/3 of the Old Testament bears any relation to historical fact? Because the Armenian Genocide certainly did happen. And as for Moses...Moreschi (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You seem to believe Wikipedia is a religion and that your own word is the bible of Wikipedia. That is not the case, if the Bible was used as a source, this article would be named Aramean people. You make no sense whatsoever, it is not I who are stating something, it is not I who are trying to prove something here. It's like going to court and saying that someone has stolen 100 dollars from you, but that it's up to the other guy to prove that he didn't steal them, and if he can't do that, then he must have stolen the money from you. You see? No logic at all. The TriZ (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Aramaean Syriac has created another fork. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_people

This user has been warned several times regarding this situacion and he is still defiant. While others on this issue from both sides have done a decent job in trying to cooperate this user has not. This user continues to disrupt this projects work in all facets. In order to move forward with this article we need to dispel users such as this from hindering our progression. This behavior is not helpful towards our article but rather very distractive. Ninevite (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and your so helpful, canvassing and making personal attacks are indeed helpful ([36]). The TriZ (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This remark was not by any means directed toward you bigot. Know your place in a conversation, open your eyes and and look at both sides of the coin, despite all this users incompetent edits you still defend him, just shows your hypocrisy. By the way dont play these games with me you have a very long history of attacking users such as this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&diff=254561730&oldid=254539077. or this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=254865500#Disruptive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_possible_sock_User:130.17.92.17. I wont be responding to anymore of these offtopic subjects you bring up. Stay on topic and stop adding further frustration to mission here and dont expect me to respond to anymore things like this Ninevite (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:AramaeanSyriac has indeed recreated a previously deleted fork as claimed above, and that Dab has again patiently fixed it. Thanks Dab. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
He has, no one denies that. That isn't the issue.The TriZ (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Careful, I was actually replying to Ninevite's post of 03:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC), but his later reply to you broke the string formatting. I think you may have been misled by this, but I suggest we don't fix it now because that will just make it evern more confusing. Anyway, they both have, and I'm glad you agree about that (one of them at least, it doesn't really matter which), and it's relevant because this section was originally about AramaeanSyriac's behavour, as was the post to which I was replying, and because Dab's behaviour has elsewhere been criticised and admins generally described as useless, rather unfairly IMO, and because as that particular problem was noted on this talk page it's good to have the resolution also noted here, to save others who might otherwise fix it wasting time checking it for themselves. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what side of the coin have I missed Nineveh? Sure, do look at my history, it's clean, that's more than one can say about your history. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that your not in any ways at all trying to contribute to this article and the entire Assyrian/Syriac issue, your just trying to implement your own personal agenda. And it needs to stop and if you can't contribute in a construtive manner, than don't edit anything at all related to this. The TriZ (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

why is this being discussed on this page? I have blocked the user for six days for his disruption, I hope this takes care of it. The block will just escalate to two, four and eight weeks if he doesn't reform, so I do not think this is in any way a problem. Don't let a single renegade user distract you. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A note

It is depressing that, all the sub-articles about this ethnic group's culture are really awful and have received very little work. Might somebody like to fix this? As a diversion from flaming on this page? The traditional reason for accepting patriots at Wikipedia is that they tend to write very good articles about their own culture. Not in this case, it seems. Moreschi (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[offtopic personal attacks removed] --

  • What I'm trying to say is this. If this article is to improve it needs some help from people who know the culture and are able to back that up with references. I'm hoping that's you as a collective. I can add plenty of {{cleanup}} and {{citation needed}} tags in the right places, and I can copy-edit and fix the grammar (badly needed), but unless I do some serious research it's quite hard for me to make really significant fixes. Now, I'm quite happy to do said research - this is a truly fascinating subject - but I'm hoping that I don't have to. Moreschi (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely I'm willing to help with adding some cultural information, finding sources can be a bit tougher but it shouldn't be a problem. The TriZ (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. BTW, I agree that Assyrian/Syriac should be used throughout the article. With the title where it is for now this make sense. Moreschi (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There must be a better way. Assyrian/Syriac is not English. Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is. It's clunky English but it does make sense. Moreschi (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. English atrocious sense make sometime. Can understand not good mean no way. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And of course, see the heading Slashes above for reasons to avoid the slashes in the article name. Assuming this may eventually change, following the (possibly temporary) article name in the text is possibly a waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa, you are right, it sounds awful. But no, you are wrong, that's not a reason to avoid it, because this awful designation has been chosen out of necessity. And no, using a "clunky" proper name isn't on the same level as broken syntax, as you seem to imply. You can still build elegant English sentences, even if they inlude a jarring proper name. The Assyrian/Syriac patriot teenagers have brought this upon themselves: they try to defend what they think is their nation's honour, and what they end up achieving is making their nation look like a bunch of pathetic cholerics. This is tragic (or comic, depending on where you come from), but it is not for us to fix it. The situation is

  • this people is scattered in tiny pockets of diaspora all over the place
  • it is also split into hostile factions which hate one another's guts
  • they generate huge political noise in their host societies asking to be referred to by their "correct" designation (only which one this is they cannot agree on)
  • this has been going on since the 1980s
  • this cannot be solved by just considering them two separate groups. They cannot agree on "ok, you are the Syriacs and we are the Assyrians", because of course both claim the same heritage, both claim Ephrem the Syrian as one of their own, etc. Indeed, this whole mess is entirely a consequence of the designation "Syrian" having become ambiguous since the foundation of the Syrian Arab Republic. Sometimes I think it would be best to just go back to "Syrians" and live with that ambiguity.
  • the various authorities in the various host countries in the 2000s have finally thrown up their hands in despair and decided to just use a clunky "slashed" designation hoping this would buy them peace
  • Wikipedia should now follow suit in the hope it will buy peace on-wiki too. Or if it doesn't, it will at least annoy all parties equally, which is the last resort of WP:NPOV

personally, I think "Syriacs" is the best term, because

  • it is an "emerging noun", i.e. has very little use historically as a countable noun, it used to just refer to the language. The English language is well capable of promoting "Syriac" to countable, and indeed this has been done in the past, in the sense of "the church fathers writing in Syriac".
  • it doesn't prejudice the "Aramaean" vs. "Assyrian" ethnic fantasies. The Assyrianists claim that Syria is from the same root as Assyria anyway, and that it should be considered synonymous. So let them use it synonymously already and be happy with Syriac.
  • there isn't any ambiguity with the ancient Assyrians
  • there isn't any ambiguity with the Assyrian Church of the East: "Syriac Christians" refers to the entire group, while "Assyrian Christians" refers to the ACotE only.

But, apparently the Assyrianists refuse to accept "Syriacs" just to spite the Aramaeanists. English can use both "Syriacs" and "Assyrians", but we need to be very clear that the terms are used synonymously, and we can not take references talking about one or the other term as referring to two distinct groups that could be treated in two distinct articles. As long as English usage is undecided about "Syriacs" vs. "Assyrians", and as long as use of either term will be sure to draw protest from one camp or the other, I can see no solution other than using "Assyrians/Syriacs" throughout. Yes, this is annoying. But not as annoying as babysitting any other solution from the crowd of angry young patriots that is sure to come after it.

  • as a final complication, just when you think you have sorted it out, some joker is sure to jump out of the bushes screaming "what about the Chaldeans!". Of course, "Chaldean" as a designation is on an entirely different level, referring to a well-defined true Assyrian/Syriac subgroup, the Chaldean Christians. But the logic of the general immaturity of this thing commands angry young Chaldeans to join the fray in the sense of, hey, everyone else gets to scream their favourite name at the world at large, why not us, so they insist, if you use a slashed term, make sure to include us too. So the US census bureau with a heavy heart has opted for the impossible "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac".

And of course, as Moreschi points out above, the excitement of all this leaves our angry young patriots with no time or patience to actually work on the articles covering their own group, so we end up with epic talkpages but really crappy articles. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that using the slashed name isn't on the same level as broken syntax, my point was simply that just because the meaning of an utterance is clear that doesn't make it good English, as you seemed to infer. I gave a far more obvious example simply to make that particular point.
I wonder, perhaps despite what you say to the contrary, is the solution to have separate articles? If some of the people regard themselves as Assyrians and some as Chaldeans or Syriacs, doesn't this amount sociolinguistically to there being three groups? The fact that they each claim that the others should join them and use their chosen name is irrelevant. We would of course state in each of these articles (assuming we can verify such claims) that the members of this group regard their group as including the others, and wikilink to the other articles.
See above for comments on why census authorities use slashed names, and why we shouldn't follow their example.
Disagree that we should compromise our naming conventions in order to buy peace. That is a very dangerous precedent. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Disregarding NPOV or other serious policies in order to buy peace is wrong, yes. When it comes to the naming conventions, which are really fairly trivial, we can afford to be a bit more flexible.
With regard to your other point, not really. Ethnicity we can take to mean language + cultural heritage. The Chaldeans have a bona fide different heritage from the others, so we have an article on them as a sub-ethnic group. The others...not really. While obviously self-description plays a role in how we tackle the knotty problem of ethnicity, it becomes irrelevant when such claims fly in the face of reality; I, for instance, do not become ethnically Tamil just by describing myself as such. Remember, the partisans on this talk page are not claiming to be much different from each other; they are disputing what is the right name for one group, based on contrasting claims of cultural heritage for them all. Moreschi (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dab once again you fail to grasp the big picture. Adopting the name Syriac for the article title will just create more problem. Look at it this way. Every "(Blank) People" section has a history section. If we infact change the name to Syriac ... what will happen to that section. Will it say that Syriacs are decendents of Akkadian/Assyrian Empire, because many Arameanists would not be pleased with that. They would want the history section to state that they are decendents of Ancient Arameans! You will see that problem occurring everywhere on the page. I mean just look at it now ... with the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac title you see that some have diverted the article to separate Assyrian and Syriac festivals, Music, food etc. Also under this Syriactitle, who will it mention? Would it mention those who call themselves Assyrians Chaldeans and/or Syriacs? What about the Maronites (Phoenicians), who don't share the same ethnicity of Assyrians, would they be included? And what about the various churches in India who use the Syriac name as their religion ... would they be included? Both those people are not the same "people" as the Assyrians(Chaldeans & Syriacs) but under that title they have just as much right to be apart of it, since they are in fact Syriacs! If that were to occur then this would not be a "people" page anymore and a denomination page. Also I don't appreciate the name calling, especially from an admin ... don't let it happen again please. Why do you always cast aside the Chaldean issue ... They have as much legitimacy to be mentioned as Syriacs do. You have to realize something ... When we talk about "Syriacs" (when dealing with Assyrians) we are not talking about the general term of Syriac Christianity ... rather we are talking about the members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church. They are members of the Syriac Churches yet they are mentioned throughout the article, so why are the members of the Chaldean Church not mentioned as well? Chaldeans has just as much legitimacy to be mentioned as much as Syriacs in this case. Don't give me the argument of Assyrians = American Syriac = US citizen Chaldean = Texan, because that is wrong. If Assyrian = American then Syriac = American Protestant and Chaldean = American Catholic (Nestorian = American ... umm ... Morman i guess :S). Malik Danno (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, logic equals zero. Anyway, Syriac Christians is one thing, Syriacs another. The TriZ (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

the excitement of all this leaves our angry young patriots with no time or patience to actually work on the articles covering their own group, so we end up with epic talkpages but really crappy articles
There are many things wrong with this statement, Dab, but I'm neither surprised, nor do I have time to address all of them just yet. At any rate... The reason these articles are so "crappy", as Dab put it, is because of the increasing desire for people to be politically correct. To an extent, this is important. But I think we have crossed this line.
Have a separate page for "Assyrians", "Chaldeans", and "Syriacs", just as before. Only this time, each of these articles will be paralleled, in a sense that they will all tie into an underlying ethnicity. Conversely, they should not contain contradictory content, for example one page saying "these people are indigenous to North Iraq only" and the other page saying "these people are indigenous to Syria only. However, this is obviously much harder than it sounds, and contradiction may be inevitable in some cases; therein lies the difficulty. At any rate, we can then improve the page that discusses the naming dispute, and emphasize the shared lineage and shared ancestry between these three main groups.
This page, as it is now, is in terrible shape, and I have suggested over and over again that we revert it to "Assyrian people", as the decision to make the move was only made based on a few votes. The ingenious solution was to have yet another vote to move it back to "Assyrian people". I am (not so) sorry to say that this is hardly constructive, but rather counter-intuitive. --Šarukinu (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Politically correct? No, it's just that nobody has done any work on them. This is not rocket scientist stuff. And you have failed to provide one convincing reason to have two articles on what you essentially admit is the same ethnic group (the Chaldeans are a different case, being a valid sub-ethnic group). Moreschi (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All of you should stop being that backward. Only with the current name on the article will all parts be more or less satisfied and we are able to put the names aside, which we have not been able to do for the last years on wikipedia, which has resulted in a really bad in shape article about our nation. Put the names aside, and start developing the current Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people's article. You don't even see the Kurds with 7 different sub-ethnic groups constantly killing each other fighting over these stuff. --Yohanun (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but at the same time I don't want my history, culture, language, festivals etc. to change as a result of this name, which is what has happened here. There has to be a balance between what we are willing to give and what they are willing to give back. If both sides agreed to this then there would be no animosity, however if one side is not willing to complete their side of the deal then I'm not going to go out of my way to appease them.Malik Danno (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Malik Danno. A sufficient consensus was not reached prior to making this move. First and foremost, it should be reverted. I seriously do not understand why this is taking so long. I made this suggestion two weeks ago. --Šarukinu (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The current standing for the votes is a unanimous decision of 5 to 3. This current standing has not changed for days if not weeks. Clearly a consensus has been reached and the side that has won is the ones favoring it back to original name. The first time this name was changed there was absolutely no vote whatsoever for Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. Dab changed this title without even informing the other side but he had no problem in informing this user. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_TriZ&diff=253575768&oldid=253044743. None of the editors who have contributed to this page were informed nor were they even given a voice to express their discontent with this move. My findings along with Sarukinu’ without a doubt proves that Assyrian is indeed the dominant name of this group of people. Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Search Engine, JSTOR, Library of Congress, CIA Fact book, World Ethnic Groups, Statesman’s Yearbook 2008, Political Handbook of the Middle East are just a few examples we have provided in clearly indicating what is the appropriate name. I suggest those who haven't read the recent articles that have been posted take a close look at our findings here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac_people#Move_to_Assyrian_people The one who is disagreeing with our findings is a bigot who has called all searches invalid, stupid, bias, propaganda, and so on without providing any sources of his own. He claims that all of the above sources are biased because they do not reflect his minority views. This has gone on for long enough, far too many admins have been submitting to the will of hot heads in Sweden who have done nothing besides distract the people who are working on this page. Those few hot heads in Sweden do not represent the entire Assyrian People, therefore their views of making this Name Aramaean Syriac which has absolutely no google hits whatsoever is invalid. Enough attention has been give to that faction. This page will be reverted back to original state with the first sentence remaining the same. The vote is 5-3 and there many Assyrian editors who don’t even know about this vote who have not participated. Ninevite (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

not a chance. If we are to change the title back to Assyrian people it will be done via the bona fide consensus of outside editors and not the gang tactics of the partisans on this talk page. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

you fail to realize that the same can be said about the decision to change the article from "Assyrian People" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People" by Dab. Malik Danno (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Dieter is certainly not partisan. Him, myself and Andrewa are just about the only objective voices here. The Triz may be partisan and non-objective but at least his participation has been reasonably constructive. The rest of you? Bleh. maybe one or two exceptions.. You have certainly not proved that you're anywhere near objective enough to have your opinions considered. Moreschi (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep your vulgar language to yourself. just because you have hopped on the band wagon a week or two ago doesnt mean youre an expert on this issue. What constructive edits have you done besides mocking those of the majority. The blehhere is your understanding of the the issue. You clearly have failed to read any of the posts in the previous discusion. Finally do not discount our votes by saying they are Psuedo Consensus you have absolutely no right or authority to make that judgement so I suggest you keep those personal feelings out of the talk page. Dont threathen users here just because they disagree with your actions instead work with them. I will raise this in the appropraite channels from now on instead of this useless talk page. Ninevite (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Insult? I don't think even you could take "partisan" as an insult. Oh, and authority? I'll think you'll find I have a lot of that. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again Moreschi you fail to realize that a similar claim can be made by any other person against you. Also its funny how you have picked people that are all on the same side as being "constructive" ... hmm no not bais at all. Also The TriZ being more constructive ... you have to be joking me. He is unwilling to compromise one inch, when I have given him opportunity to share our sides in the article he has failed to hold his end of the bargin. He has defended User:ArameanSyriac's "contributions" even after they resulted in his banishment. Yes and a person who says the following is clearly for the enhancement of a page: "Lol, logic equals zero" "Malik, I'm starting to believe you are stupid" "You can't blaim your obvious lack of reading comprehension" "Bla bla bla, cry me a river" "Sorry, you make no sense with your childish and naive claims" "Are you delibaretly being ignorant?"
Another clear example as to why Wikipedia is the most unreliable and backwards information centre on the internet. Malik Danno (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you have adopted the tactis of Simo Parpola, to cut and paste words and sentences out of context. What kind of edits have ArameanSyriac done that I've defended? Show me. The TriZ (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac_people#User:ArameanSyriac + look at the page's history and you will see that after he was banned there was an atempt to re-due all his "contributions" and you kept undoing them. Malik Danno (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your link isn't working. Show me a diff of where I've done what you're saying. The TriZ (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, you are against putting the name back to "Assyrian People" because "If we are to change the title back to Assyrian people it will be done via the bona fide consensus of outside editors and not the gang tactics of the partisans on this talk page. " and yet you are perfectly fine when the page was changed from "Assyrian People" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People". In your own words that change by dab was inappropriate because "If we are to change the title to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People it will be done via the bona fide consensus of outside editors and not the gang tactics of the partisans on this talk page. ", so please Moreschi stop contradicting yourself and make up your mind. Yet when I mentioned that to you, you went on the offensive and said that I along with everyone else on my side is not constructive...Malik Danno (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Malik. These Assyrian pages have been overrun with a highly partisan gang. Neutral points of view are no longer welcome. (Taivo (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
Oh yeah, please do explain yourself! The TriZ (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion below in which you state that Malik Danno should not even be editing on this page is evidence enough of my comment. (Taivo (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
I seriously doubt you have an Ph.D. in linguistics. Read Maliks wikipage and you will see he is an Assyrian himself and therefore his views can not be NPOV, which they obviously aren't either. The most active "partisan gang" here is the one that includes Malik. Please, do read the entire discussion or the different sum ups of the central discussions before leaving such comments... The TriZ (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Another comment from TriZ proving my post above. (Taivo (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
Another comment by you showing your ignorance, you have choosen to get involved in this, is it not right by the other involved to ask of you to "read up" before taking sides? I welcome non-partisan users to this, it is needed! But please, "I agree, Malik. These Assyrian pages have been overrun with a highly partisan gang.". Who is this partisan gang you speak of? The TriZ (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Taivo dont pay any attention to this bigot he constantly contradicts himself. He is just upset because they deleted his aramaean-syriac page so he is back for some pathetic revenge. I am happy you have joined this conversation, I trust your words far more than the bigot above who constantly mocks other users for proving her wrong. Again you have more right than probably any of us here to state your opinions. You are a expert in linguistics and as I have said in the past I am honored to have a professional of your ranking on this talk page. Dont waste your time responding to the user above me who as you see constantly puts down non-partisian users, instead provide us your input. As a final note dont let uncivil users above push you out of this conversation as they have done in the past when met with logical opposition, I will support your presence here until the end. Best Regards Ninevite (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Some Sections

Can we please delete the sections on this page titles "Festivals" and "Music" ... They are very poorly constructed and they pertain to functions/events of one of the three subgroups of this page. These sections were created by User:ArameanSyriac (who was blocked for his negative "contributions" to this page) yet they are still here. I ask us to delete these two section on the basis that they are very poorly constructed, there is little to no sources and provides little to no benefit to this page. Malik Danno (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we really delete them? Why don't we work on expanding them? These sections can potentially be very valuable to this page. --Šarukinu (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We should absolutely not delete them, just because Malik doesn't like the content of them. This is exactly why such a user as Malik shouldn't be touching this article. Also, Shmayo (talk · contribs) seems to have the same problem, since he removes the names of Ishok Yakub and Josef Özer, simply because he can't stand that they are Syriacs, while they're obviously two of the famous singers. Do a google search or whatever, Josef Özer is also the one that's probably the most known in the diaspora outside the Assyrian/Syriac community. The TriZ (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Šarukinu, lets disect the Festival section:
  1. it starts out with The Assyrian/Syriac people celebrate Easter the first Sunday after the full moon that occurs on or after the vernal equinox. Now this is not true, That is only true for the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Ancient Church of the East, while it is not true for Chaldeans, Assyrian Church of the East, and Syriac Catholic Church ... either include the other three churches or delete it
  2. then, The Assyrian/Syriac people are following an older calendar than the calendar that the Western Churches follow: therefore their Easter occurs later., once again it only deals with the members of the Syriac Orthodox and Ancient Church of the East members and not the other three churches, the other three churches should be included. Also this sentence is very awkward and grammatically incorrect.
  3. then, On Maundy Thursday all Assyrian/Syriacs take the Eucharist on their first church visit in the morning and during the afternoon foot washing takes place. Twelve persons in the parish, who symbolise twelve apostles, are chosen to perform the foot washing. On Good Friday a crucifix, a symbol for Jesus' body, is washed with water, dried, and wrapped. Then the crucifix is placed in a flower-decorated coffin. The coffin is carried around in the church and finally, the coffin is hung over the church door so all visitors to the church can walk beneath it and hence display their reverence. Afterwards, the coffin is carried down and the crucifix is placed in a smaller coffin. Then the water, in which the crucifix was washed, is mixed with vinegar and myrrh and is dealt out to the congregation. The bitter taste is a sign of participation of Jesus' suffering. Now this section gives me the most laugh. As in the other two sections, it is only with the Syriac Orthodox Church. This is not even the costom for all Syriac Orthodox Churches as well. What User;ArameanSyriac has done is put inpace the traditions of his church and made it seem like the entire Assyrian people follow those traditions. I mean even the Syriac Orthodox Church here in Canada doesn't follow that specific way of doing things.
  4. again Holy Saturday is a day of peace and quietness. There is only a service of worship at night, but on Easter Sunday, the little coffin is opened and the crucifix is held up as a sign that Jesus is alive.[89] as i have noted above
Overall this festival section is filled with grammatical error, and only includes the "festivals" of User:ArameanSyriac's church. Also it is bad that this entire section has just one source. Malik Danno (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
So what are you going to do about it? Fix it! Wikipedia is an on-going process! Provide sources, fix the grammatics, include other traditions and festivals, with the time you've spent complaining, you could've been fixing the entire section. The TriZ (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"Josef Özer is also the one that's probably the most known in the diaspora outside the Assyrian/Syriac community." But Habib Mousa is much, much more famous than Josef in the Assyrian/Syriac community. But yes, Josef is known by some swedes, but it's not often you hear Josef sing in the Assyrian/Syriac language.
Ishok is a joke. Can not make his own music, and not that famous.
"...simply because he can't stand that they are Syriacs." Habib and Ninib are also Syriac Orthodoxs. Shmayo (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Josef always sings in Syriac, are you serious? What else do you think he sings in at Syriac weddings and partys? I'm not saying Habib Mousa aren't famous, but more people know of Josef today, than Habib Mousa (including non-Syriacs/Assyrians).
And about Ishok Yakoub, it is your personal opionion that he is a joke, and that he can't make his own music, but the fact is, he is perhaps the most famous of them all.
Whether Habib and Ninib are Syriac Orthodox or not, doesn't have anything to do with this, I suggested two Syriacs and two Assyrians, two keep it all balanced, why involve the Church affiliation? The TriZ (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I have no clue whatsoever about that many West Assyrian singers, so I will trust The TriZ in stating who is famous and who isn't. But since there isn't a real argument against keeping the Festival section the it will be deleted. I ask all members to please refute each of my points above if you want to keep this section. So far there hasn't been anyone refuting deleting this section. This Festival section belongs to the religion section more than it does with the Festival section. If you are against the deletion then please state

  1. (and explain why my first point is wrong)
  2. (Same thing and so on...) Malik Danno (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The festivals can be of religious nature and still be festivals, I see no problem with that, I haven't checked the grammar or so, but I'm sure such things can be fixed. The TriZ (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the festival section just as The TriZ pointed out for me to do. If there are any disagreements please do not just undo, rather talk about them here. Malik Danno (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep the good work going! But have in mind, please, try to have a NPOV when your writing (The "had nisson" piece for example) and try not to use AINA, Zinda, Aramnahrim, and other biased sites as sources. The TriZ (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now its time to work on the Music section. I was wondering why it doesn't mention anything about ancient music ... i mean Assyrians invented the first string instrument in the world (harp) and Music was a huge part of Ancient Assyrian culture. but anyways refer to the section below to the music section of this page. Malik Danno (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done to Triz and Malik for working together in this article. I say these words not lightly. Gabr-el 05:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the festival section can still be worked on. I suggest to short it a little and have it like this,
"The Assyrian festival Akitu (Assyrian New Year), remains as one event that is still followed from their pre-Christian celebrations. The festival is called Kha B'nissan (first of Spring) in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic."
We have agreed to use the doubleterm (right?), but still, this is not a Syriac festival, it's only an Assyrian festival, right? And I removed a sentence because it was a little bit to much POV and since only a part of the entire group celebrates it, well, let's keep it short then. But maybe we can add a little bit more, but the sentence I removed was as I said, a little bit to much POV. The TriZ (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well its a festval for all Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs, now I'm pretty sure that a LARGE majority of Assyrians celebrate it. I also believe that there are others in the world who are Chaldean and Syriac who do celebrate this festival (those who consider themselves Assyrian) as I know many who live here. I also believe that if there is even one Syriac and one Chaldean who celebrates it then we should put it there. And this is not just a Church of the East festival as the church is even sort of against it (being pagan and all) but its a nationalistic festival. Malik Danno (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I'm not speaking off church affiliation. The TriZ (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, me neither, but the people that you call Syriacs which call themselves Assyrian celebrate this, and those who you call Chaldean but they call themselves Assyrian also celebrate this, so it is not just the exclusive "Assyrian" people who celebrate this but the inclusive Assyrian people (including Syriacs and Chaldeans) who also participate. If you only use the exclusionary Assyrian, then you are excluding those syriacs and chaldeans who also celebrate Kha B'nissan Malik Danno (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Sorry man, your complicating things, I'm speaking of those who call themselves Assyrians, those who call themselves Syriacs and those who call themselves Chaldeans, nothing else. The TriZ (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well i guess here now is the problem of what you define as "Syriac" (not Syriac Christianity). I see Syriacs as being Assyrians who attend the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church. I might be wrong, but from the statement above you see Syriacs as only those members of the given churches who call themselves Syriacs. To me that makes no sense because, lets say you call yourself Syriac and your brother calls himself Assyrians, does that make you both different ... I see it as both of you being Assyrians of the Syriac Orthodox Church ... what do you see you two as? your answer might solve the discrepancy. Malik Danno (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Music

Sections within this article are in dire need of copyediting, and I did so in Music. If there are any unsourced statements, please use [citation needed] after them until sources are given. Statements such as the one made about Chabo Bahé's music- "This song was the basis for a new style of Syriac music." is a prime example. Deleting material is most certainly not the best or primary option. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 15:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct ... I have posted a similar discussion above this one, First I say that we deal with the Festival section, then deal with the music section. Please if its not too much trouble read the section and if you are with my points then agree with it, if you are against my points then refute them so that it might stick around. Malik Danno (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert in this area by any stretch, but when I read Music, I thought it would help a lot. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are my disagreements on the Music section:

  1. There is no mention whatsoever about the music pertaining to Ancient Assyrians ... We had a significant role in music throughout our history, why don't we mention that here?
  2. The first line "In the earliest times of Syriac Christianity, Assyrian/Syriac music was used mainly for liturgical purposes" there is no source, It does make much sense and is most likely correct, but we need a source to back it up, If there are any sources out there please fill it in
  3. second line "In later times, the Assyrian/Syriac people felt that they needed a new musical culture to express their feelings, ideas, and suffering without associating it with a church." This is a very awkward sentence, but I do understand the point. In my eyes it can be summed up by saying that "as nationalism was introduced to the Assyrian/Syriacs their songs changed from liturgical hymns to nationalistic song, mainly dealing with their current loss of their homeland and pertaining to the greatness of their ancient empires."
  4. third line "Great Assyrian/Syriac lyricists studied the music used in churches and established new styles of music.[93]", this does not make much sense to me, so can someone please explain it, if not then I ask that it be deleted.
  5. these sentences " Most early Assyrian/Syriac songs were written and performed by Assyrians/Syriacs in Syria, mainly in Al Qamishli, that sought universal appeal. [93] In 1962, a Syriac lyricist named Chabo Bahé composed Grishlah Idi, which translated into English as She pulled my hand. This song was the basis for a new style of Syriac music.[citation needed]" should, in my eyes, be deleted, they are too specific in nature. And once again since User:ArameanSyriac made this section it only talks about the Syriac involvement of music and no other.
  6. this sentence "Some well known Assyrian/Syriac singers in modern times are Habib Mousa, Josef Özer, Sargon Gabriel and Linda George." I suggest Sargon Gabriel be taken out (I love his music as well), but there isn't a page about him on wikipedia, I think he should be replaced with a musician who has a page on wikipedia or make a page for him!
  7. last sentence "The first International Aramaic Music Festival was held in Lebanon from 1 August until 4 August, 2008 for Assyrian/Syriac people internationally.[94]" once again is way too specific, and I feel it is partisan.

If there are any disagreements please point them out before any changes are made. Malik Danno (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"In 1962, a Syriac lyricist named Chabo Bahé composed Grishlah Idi..." Again, this is wrong. Ninos Aho wrote the song. SyriacMusic.com, which AramaeanSyriac used as source, is wrong here.
"I think he should be replaced with a musician who has a page on wikipedia..." Juliana Jendo? Shmayo (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
About Chabo Bahé and the song Grishlah Idi, the source says "Chabo Bahé who already in 1962 had written lyrics in the spoken Syriac (Safro Msafro Bsafrayto) wrote “Grishla Idi”, which Joseph Malki composed in 1967. Grishla Idi became the spark of the new form of lyrics and folk music beginning from Kamishli to reach the whole world.". It says Bahé wrote the song but that it was composed by Joseph Malki. I don't know about Ninos Aho, but I think we need to trust this source for now (until another reliable source can be found) because it seems to me to be a relativitely reliable source. The TriZ (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I thought about, should we really write "Assyrian/Syriac music"? I mean, sure, it will be complicated and confusing maybe to write a part for Assyrian and a part for Syriac music, but perhaps it is needed to be done that way? I'm not saying it should be that way, but it can be discussed at least so there won't be any confusions about it. The TriZ (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write some of the original material, but I did see where it came from. I felt it was better to add a fact tag rather than just remove it all to be sure. I would lean more towards a consensus remove if they were proven to be incorrect though. I am handicapped because of my lack of knowledge on Assyrian/Syriac subjects not dealing with political or military history, and so I'll leave that up to you all. I do not, however, approve of someone erasing sections because they threw a fit and tried to take toys that weren't theirs anymore and go home. That's not very professional or right... Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since User:ArameanSyriac deleted the Music section three times, I was willing to make another music section that he is unable to delete. I am asking you to help inprove this section as it is not at its highest potential right now. Malik Danno (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7156590.stm
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7307192.stm
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/world/middleeast/26christians.html?_r=2&scp=7&sq=assyrian&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
  4. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-05-iraq-saturday_n.htm
  5. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-02-03-kirkuk-bombings_x.htm
  6. ^ http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/
  7. ^ http://www.aina.org/reports/iiacstfosh.pdf
  8. ^ http://www.aina.org/reports/assyriansiniraq.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.aina.org/reports/isdppb20060802.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_8&oldid=1161130961"