Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 3

Untitled
For discussion about (official) statistics on Assyrians : please add your data at Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics

Kurds Are Not Related
Though there may have bene intermingling between them, Kurds are not related ethnically to Assyrians. Assyrians are semitic while Kurds are Indo-European, two completely divergent ethnic families.
 * Fair enough. :) I reverted you because your particular edit happened to blank most of the article, as well -- if you're using the Google toolbar, there's a currently unresolved bug with that, so it may be the culprit. Otherwise, thanks for your time. Luna Santin 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A New beginning
Lets start out fresh from the beginning. Chaldean 03:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nahrainean (Nahraya)
Check out the article. ---> Nahrainean


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

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Assyrian people → Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs … Rationale: although these four groups overlap and share the majority of their culture of language with each other, many do not like the term Assyrian and find it too politicized. I am requesting the move to a more neutral title. — Gareth Hughes 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~ . Unsigned opinions will be struck out, and each individual is expected to contribute under only one username (no sockpuppets).


 * Support — as proposed, and formerly discussed. — Gareth Hughes 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I'm more interested in the well-oiled workings of Wikipedia than political correctness. "Assyrian people" is much more likely to be used as a link in an article than "Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs". Anyone who would find "Assyrians" offensive should really examine their priorities, since the significance of most of these ethnic groups faded out millennia ago. Besides which, most of those groups already have their own pages. See Chaldean and Aramean. In English, Syriac is a synonym for Aramean. Splitting hairs any further than that isn't conducive to the smooth running of Wikipedia. Kafziel 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Srong Oppose - How funny :) Just like I predicted you would do 2 months ago Gareth.
 * I have constantly suggested to make a page like - Syriac speaking people, where everyone can be included, and at the same time, it would not try to kill the Assyrian ethnicity, by returning the Assyrian people the was it used to be. But Gareth seems to have made up his mind to change this page to "Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldean, and Syriacs" and is just waiting other users back him up on the idea. Chaldean 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Source
 * You as a moderator have disappointed me, but I still respect you. But, your should have no power at all what so ever with Assyrian-related pages as you have become Completly one sided and baised. Chaldean 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Srong Oppose - This move would be offensive to some. As per norm. -- - K a s h  Talk 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How can it be offensive to include other ethnonyms? Calling Aramaeans "Assyrians" is considered offensive by many ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You just answered your own question I believe -- - K a s h  Talk 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditionally support -- I temporarily endorse this option, since no one has yet come up with an alternative that has widespread support. By the way, I think the "and" should be replaced with a comma. (Personally, I prefer Syriac Christianity, Syriacs, Suryāye, or something with Syrians.) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was no dispute so why would there be a need for an alternative title? -- - K a s h  Talk 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: All those groups you've listed are topics for other articles, not synonyms with this one. The "something with Syrians" you want is already there: "Assyrian people". Kafziel 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering Syrian to be a synonym or derivative of Assyrian is disputed. There are quite a number of theories about the origin of the word Syrian. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the current title, I already provided an evidence that uses the Assyrian title . Until we have no strong evidence we can't change the name. I don't think Assyrian is an uncommon title. Jalalarbil 14:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose for reasons already mentioned. --Hectorian 16:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Srong Oppose - This is all Syrian Baathis propoganda to eliminate the Assyrian Identity and to replace it with a Arab Syrian identity ultimately through implying that Aramaeans are descended of the same nomadic desert dwelling Arabian inhabitants. This might be new in America but this goes back to the days of the Ottoman empire when the Arabs were just getting independance from the Turks. They adamently tried all they could to dispute the Assyrian Identity by either claiming them as Arab Christians or as Kurdish/Turkish Christians, etc.King Legit [personal attack removed] King Legit

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * I think it's not currenly a matter of voting but more discussing and citiation:

See here: http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm

I've honestly met many Chaldeans who strongly identificate themselves as Assyrian but with a dialectical variation.

Jalalarbil 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Our buddy Benne here seems to be trying to hide facts here. I have proven this fellow to be a propergandish person in other pages that goes around in Germany wikipedia and changes any reference to Assyrians into "Aramaean." If you go look at the Germany Wikipedia of the page Chaldean, you will see it states "Chaldeans are Aramaeans" - This is the work of our buddy Benne. Now, for the claim he makes: Calling Aramaeans "Assyrians" is considered offensive by many  - Benne here is not telling you what this "aramaean" movement is all about and the size of it. Fact 1. The word "Aramaean" is nowhere to be found in the Middle East. Nobody in the region calls themselfs as. Fact 2. "Aramaean" ethnicity is only being claimed by a small population of Syriac Orthodox members in Germany and Sweden. How small you ask? Out of the 1.5 million Syriac speaking people, an estimate 80,000 leave in Germany and Sweden. Of course not all of them belong ot Syriac Orthodox church - that cuts down the number dramatically, and not everyone within the Syriac Orthodox Church is going with this idea of "Aramaean" ethnicity - so in the end, your looking at 1% of the total Syraye population claiming this "Aramaean" ethnicity. So where going to be worried about offending 1% of the population Subject on Wikipedia? If thats the case, then I'm sure there are some Kurds who don't liked to be under the title of Iranian people. So are we going to change that as well? Just wanted to fill in everyone about the roots of this issue. Chaldean 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did make a few edits changing "Assyrer" to "Aramäer", and I admit that in one case I made a mistake, but your statement is a downright exaggeration. (Please note that the ethnonym "Aramäer" is quite widespread in Germany.)
 * The following statement, however, is simply not true: If you go look at the Germany Wikipedia of the page Chaldean, you will see it states "Chaldeans are Aramaeans" - This is the work of our buddy Benne.
 * I've never edited Chaldäer.--Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I continued to be appalled by the bad nature of comments about this article. The subject of moving to this very page was discussed informally a while ago. Currently, the article refers not only to Assyrians but to Arameans, Chaldeans and Syriacs as well. Although I believe, as do most others, that these different designations apply to one and the same people, no one designation is accepted by the people as a whole. The majority of West Syrians choose not to call themselves Assyrian, or identify with what they perceive is the political agenda of Assyrian Nationalists. If this article continues to be called 'Assyrian people' (even though it explicitly states throughout that other groups who reject that title are included), it will remain seriously biased. If information about those who reject Assyrian idenity is removed, they will be cut off from their shared heritage. I know Syriac and Aramaic, I've read the historical documentation and I have many friends who use another identity to Assyrian just as their parents and grandparents have done. Covering this up is an ideological whitewash. — Gareth Hughes 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate oppose. Perhaps this article would be better off if it was split up again. :( Perhaps I could email Pylambert for advice.... &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assyrian National Identity
Gareth Hughes: What we have here is a mockery of truth. You deleted the information about the Assyrians which I posted on the front page. Seems like this is a game for you, truth does not seem matter and you are determent to fool people to believe what you want them to. What happened to presenting a neutral point of view? Neutral point of view means to present both sides of the argument and let the reader make up his own mind. Every facts I posted which you removed I can document not by quoting someone's opinion but by hard facts from the ancient and medieval sources but you are not interested in facts. What kind of bigotry is this? warda

You have no knolwdge of the Assyrian history yet you pretend to know it all. Which part of these facts you can not believe so that I provide you ancient referrences to prove them right.

All nations have grown and evolved by  assimilating other people. After centuries of intermarriage they become united and share a specific homeland, unique culture, history, language, and identity. There is no reason to judge the Assyrian by a different standard. After their defeat Assyrian were ruled by the conquering nations who did not spoke the Syriac language nor worshiped as the Assyrian did, therefore there was little assimilation favoring the Assyrian. It is true that the Syriac language was spoken by the Assyrians and the people west of Euphrates in Syria and beyond, but at a time when most people during their life time traveled no farther than ten miles from   where they were born such cross countries assimilation was not possible.

Much has been made of the Arab tribes who after becoming Christian learned to speak the Syriac language but they lived mostly in tribal communities in Syria and the border region of  southern Mesopotamia. There is no reason to believe they intermarried with none Arabs. It is known fact that they sided with their Moslem brethren against  the Romans and the Persians revealing their unshakable loyalty to their Arab identity. Most converted to Islam voluntarily and the rest were forced to do so by Muslim Arab rulers. See; http://www.muhammadanism.org/bell/origin/p182.htm

Being Christians was not a license for wholesale intermarriage between different nationalities and culture. For example Assyrians and  Armenians have  lived in neighboring communities during most of the Christian centuries,   but there was no  wholesale intermarriage between the two. Other factors such as ancestry, language, culture and the community pride did not allow this. One can also cite none marriage between the Assyrians and the contemporary so-called 'Arab Christians' of Iraq; i.e. none Arabs who have long forgotten the speaking of the Syriac language therefore consider themselves Arab.

Christians in central Persia were predominantly Syriac speaking prisoners from Syria and Mesopotamia relocated during various wars. The native Persians were forbidden to convert to Christianity and when they did they were harshly persecuted and even killed. Learning the Syriac language was not mandatory for those who become Christians. In a letter to a  Persian archbishop  called Mina by the seventh century  Patriarch Ghivargis (660-686), he  writes: “we have written this in the Persian language [so that you can understand it better]. Read it through several time, until thou understandest it perfectly.” The Persian Christians according to Patriarch Eisho-yahab far more willingly converted to Islam as early as the 7th century.

All references to the Kurds in the Syriac language show that they lived in the mountains of Zaqrouz and often came down to plunder.

The Turkish tribes who converted to Christianity lived in central Asia. According to one Syriac document they had translated the two Testaments into their own language. Those who were brought by the Caliphs   as  mercenaries were Muslims and  others who later arrived as invaders were neither christians nor spoke the Syriac language. The very fact that Turks today speak the Turkish language proves this fact.

The Christians among the Mongols were few and far in between. they were mostly the wives of the mongolian Chiefs such as  the wife of Changiz khan and  the wife of Hallaku but neither the father nor the son practiced Christianity. Within thirty years after their arrival in Mesopotamia Mongols for all practical purposes  become Muslim because it far suited their temperament than the pacifist form of Christianity which the Assyrians practiced. The claim that the Mongolian spoke the syriac language is not true.

Overwhelming evidence indicate that Christian Assyrian  identified themselves as Suryaye and Attouraye  (Assyrian) and were identified by others as such therefore there it is unreasonable to  ignore this realty. See www.christiansofiraq.com/facts.html

The tendency to question the contemporary Assyrian identity results from lack of knowledge of their history. For example Nineveh which was destroyed in 612 B.C. was resettled and according to Joan Oates, 'babylon' it was a considerable town during the Parthian and the Sassanian period. During Christianity it was the sacred city of the Christian Assyrian including the Syrian Orthodox Church. A special fast called the Rogation of the Ninevites has been observed by the Assyrians since the early Christianity as tribute to their ancient forefathers, which has survived to this day.

The ancient Assyrian new year was celebrated in the city of Edessa or Urhay in mid 2nd century of Christianity according to Eusibius of Ceasarea. The Principle deities worshiped there were Nebu and Bel. The city of Ashur was resettled and the Assyrian god Ashur was worshiped there way into Christianity. Temples for Ashur Bel, Sin, Nergal and other deities were discovered in the city of Hatra of the Christian era. The central Assyria was always known as Attour in the Syriac manuscripts throughout Christianity. Why would a people other than Assyrians want to preserve the memory of the ancient Assyrians and identify themselves as their descendants if they were not. The Parthians had changed the name of Central Assyrians to Hadiab, the Arabs called the land Iraq. the Kurds who currently rule northern Iraq call the land Kurdistan. To say that Assyrians called themselves Assyrians only because they lived in Assyria is absurd because no one forced them to call it by that name. By the 16th century the Assyrians had  survived primarily in the plain of nineveh, the mountains north of Mosul, the Tur-abedin region in southwest Turkey and Urmia in northwest Persia in a triangular area no larger  than a hundred miles on each side.

King Legit: By the very fact that you write Assyrians slaughtered people and then deported them you are contradicting yourself. You betray your lack of knowledge of the Assyrians and even other nations. I suggest you read the following site to inform yourself. Cruelty of Nations and the Holier Than Thou Preaching warda

---

King Legit: All nations have assimilated others who become part of them, this is how nations are formed and grow. The conquerers do not get assimilated by the conquered people, it is always the other way around. The ancestors of the modern Assyrians are the ancient Assyrians, historical evidences attest to their survival into christianity. See: references to Assryians during all centuries

The city of Nineveh which was destroyed in 612 B.C. was resettled and during the Christianity it was the sacred city of the Christian Assyrians including the Syrian Orthodox Church. The city of Ashur was resettled and the Assyrian god Ashur was worshiped there way into Christianity. Temples for Ashur Bel, Sin, Nergal and other deities were discovered in the city of Hatra of the Christian era. A special fast called the Rogation of the Ninevites has been observed by the Assyrians since the early Christianity  as tribute to their ancient forefathers, which has survived to this day. The central Assyria was always known as Attour in the Syriac manuscripts throughout Christianity. Why would a people other than Assyrians want to preserve the memory of the ancient Assyrians and identify themselves as their descendants if they are not . Did the Arab conquererss did that? The answer is no, they called the land Iraq. Do the Kurds who have taken over northern Iraq call it Assyria? The answer is no, they call it Kurdistan. Christian Assyrians have called themselves Assyrians side by side with Suraye and have been known as such by anyone who has come in contact with them.Those who call themselves Assyrians are the remnants of the Christian inhabitants of northern Mesopotamia the homeland of the Assyrians. Anyone who will deny their Assyrian identity might a well deny the identity of all other nations and force them to call themselves by some other name.

Gareth Hughes or UTC who control the information on this Wikipedia site are not interested in thousands of  facts confirming our  Assyrian identity or provide factual information about the Assyrians. They seem to be driven by a desire to question  the identity of today's Assyrians even if it means  undermining their rights  in their historic homeland in Iraq. By undermining the Assyrian identity of our people they are not only helping their adversaries also contribute to our disunity and decline regardless of what we call ourselves. They have no idea what they are doing but are too arrogant to realize it. Warda

King Legit. Assyrians have varied complexions as all other nations do. Assyrians have been driven out of their homeland and have lived in various climates for example in Urmia it snows in the winter and the temperature declines below zero but not in northern iraq which has a desert climate. How dark or light a people are depends on the temperature of where they have lived for many centuries. Warda I am from Urmia but when I look at pictures of the Assyrians of Iraq I can see how similar their features are to those whom I have known in Urmia. By the way Sargon or Sharu-kinu means just king and not legit king.

---

Assyria deported all the mentioned groups and Assyrianized them. I've said this before. It isn't something really to be proud of because people were slaughtered yet that is the reality. There is no way to tell who the Ancestors of the modern Assyrians are. They include all of the conquered peoples of the lands taken by the Assyrians as well as the conquerors of the Assyrians. These are all possibilities and nothing can be outright proven for or against. Just look at Assyrians' physical appearances. Some are dark, some are light, some have dark hair, some have red, blonde, brown, etc. Some are tall and some are short, some have completely different facial features from others yet all are united in that they share the same fate. The fate of Babylon. If the tower of Babylon teaches us anything it's that ultimately when something falls it falls hard and the Assyrian nation fell hard and it is still trying to regroup and make another run to the top. Look at all the confusion. We are Assyrians, we also maybe descended of all the previous groups as well yet we can't prove which we're mainly descended of. Let's say the United Kingdom falls and the countries are divided. Are the "immigrants" not the recent ones but the Anglo-Saxons going to claim that they are actually Britons (Brythons)??? YES they may yet it doesn't make it right or wrong.King Legit

Why dont you work on the Kurdish people and say how they are...
Strong OpposeMr Hughs; with all due respect, you are neither a member of this commuinty nor a scholar of such identity issues. Furthermore, as a so-called "west-syrian" Assyrian I am appalled at your appellations issue. The facts are simple and are not to be discredited. I refer you to Simo Parpola (scholar of Assyriology) for a discussion of the modern Assyrian heritage. Furthermore, the term Syriac-speaking Christian is ridicultous in that the modern language of these people is in fact not so-called classical Syriac. Secondly....calling someone a Syriac is grammatically incorrect. Syriac comes from the Latin Syriacus...It is a western word and concept for an Eastern people. Thirdly...it is an adjective refering to a church based liturgical language. Not a noun.

It continues to amuse me that even in cyberspace Baathism, Kurdification, and Anti-Assyrianism can run rampant and an Englishman is the one who is in charge of editing a page on a people who are quite capable of explaining themselves in their own terms.

The ethnic designation is Assyrian...add all the other names as religious titles only. You would only find Assyrians as members of all the above mentioned church communities. There are no Chaldean "West Syrians"...no West Syrian Chaldeans....no Nestorian Chaldeans....and no Nestorian Arameans...its simple logic...lets use it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Branchala (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 May 2006.


 * There is nothing like kurdification. Jalalarbil 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Branchala, I see that you are a new user who has contributed nothing except to talk pages on this article. You are perhaps then a sockpuppet or someone enrolled from a forum outside of Wikipedia. Your first sentence presumes to know me, which is rather insulting from someone who remains anonymous. I oppose an Assyrian whitewash because there are a large number of West Syriacs who do not wish to be called Assyrian. To include them under the label Assyrian or to exclude them from their heritage is an insult. I know Aramaic, and a number of modern and classical dialects. I have also read historical texts on the issues of identification. I am asking th community to recognise that a substantial proportion of the people have never used the identity Assyrian to this day. — Gareth Hughes 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To UTC 

UTC: You are the one who is insulting the Assyrians by using your control over this site to spread false anti Assyrian information to divide our people and contribute to their decline. There is no reason for those who do not wish to be identified as Assyrians to be included on a page dedicated to the "Assyrian people". If they do not want to be known as Assyrians they have the right to do so but should  leave us alone. You are disregarding and removing all the information attesting to the Assyrian identity  and substituting anti Assyrian information on the page about them. this can hardly be considered scholarly.

IF you think you know so much about the Assyrian history list the names of the Church of the East bishops of Nineveh. Let us know what the 13th century Givargis Warda identified his people as. He was not involved in today’s arguments for you to claim 'Assyrian white wash'. What did the 4th century Mar Aprim wrote about the baoota d Ninvayee? if you can not answer these questions you do not qualify to judge our identity. If you can why would you question our Assyrian identity.

What you write on this site has real-life negative ramification for the Christians of Iraq. It contributes to the Kudish and Arab propaganda to question their identity and redefine them as Chrisitan Kurds or Christian Arabs. Saddam Hossain did not allow the Assryians to be counted as Assyrians in the Iraqi census. They could only be counted as Arabs or Kurds. He forced people to sign ethnic correction papers declaring themselves Arabs. Kurds in some instances are no better than Saddam. Why would you like to help such people to disposses Assyrians of their identity? This is not a game. You are helping the Kurds to take away the christian towns and villages  by claiming they are not the original people of these lands and asserting that northern Iraq has always been Kurdish homeland, even though they   arrived there mostly during the last two centuries.

The real Arameans have already been Arabized, and you seem to help the  extinction of the Assyrians also. As a people without a country Assyrians have little or no resources to defend themselves against the Arabization and the Kurdification propaganda in the Middle East with help by what you  write on this site. How can you sleep at night knowing you are part of this injustice?

The Aramean identity of the members of the syrian Orthodox church began when in 1952 Patriarch Aprim Barsoum decided to distance his followers from  the members of the Church of the East. You can read about it at: The syrian Orthodox Church Why are you disregarding these facts. Mar Zakha the present Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church recently in an Arabic article defined his people as Christian Arabs, which means those who call themselves as Arameans are on their way to be Arabized. Are you now going to include Arabs among an entry about the "Assyrian people"? What kind of encyclopedia is this which considers its primary mission to question the identity of the Assyrians? How can it be trusted if it disregards facts. warda

The follwing was deleted from the front page of this site.

There is an obvious anti Assyrianism in the Wikipedia entry about the Assyrians. Its writer’s intentions are to cast doubt about the identity of the Christian Assyrians leading the readers to believe that they are  not who they claim to be. One has to wonder why he judges the Assyrians by a  different standard than other nations? God did not create any nation with a specific DNA. Such inherited properties came about because of centuries of intermarriage. All nations have evolved by gradually assimilating people of other origin through conquest or migration.

During the last few decades alone tens of million of none Europeans such as Turks, Arabs, Indians and Pakistanis have migrated to Germany, France and England. In time they will become assimilated  into the general population therefore according to this writer’s logic  the English,  the French and the Germans no longer should be considered pure blooded and not the same people as they were before,  therefore any reference to them should include doubt about the varasity  of their identity and they should be forced by Wikidepia to  change the  name they call their nation. When are we going to force the Arabs, the Turks, the Persians in fact all the nations of the world to renounce their ancient identity because they have assimilated people of other nationalities by millions? Why does this writer discriminate  against the Assyrians? Most of what he claims is attempt to discount the identity of the Assyrians and question their racial purity a throw back to the Nazi era which ended with the death of millions because they were not Arians.

It is true that  the syriac language was spoken in Mesopotamia and other countries west of Ehuprates it did not mean there was wholesale marriage among people in these various countries,  especially at a time when most people did not travel more than ten miles beyond where they were born. from before Christianity up to the 7th century  the region west of Ehphrates was dominated by the Romans while  Mesopotamia was part of the Persian empire.

There is no evidence that the Persians or the  Kurds abandoned their langauge and spoke Syriac.The perssian language was known as Pahlavie classified as Indo-European and  the Kurd spoke the same langauge they do today. There is not evidence that the Persians who became Christians had to abandon their identity and their mother tongue. For example in a letter written  to a  Persian archbishop  by the seventh century  Patriarch Geivargis (660-686),   writes: “we have written this in the Persian language [so that you can understand it better]. Read it through several time, until thou understandest it perfectly.” In another document Patriarch Ishu Jahab (650-660)  complains that Christians of Persia are voluntarily converting to Islam even when they are not  being forced to do so.

Kurds are new arrivals to Mesopotamia. Until a couple centuries ago they lived primarily in western region of  Persia and the mountains between Iran  and Turkey. There is no indication they spoke the Syriac language. After converting to Islam they became the persecuters of the Christians.

Being Christians was not a license for wholesale intermarriage between different nationalities. For example Assyrians and  Armenians have  lived in neighboring communities during most of the Christian centuries   but there has not been wholesale intermarriage between them. Other factors such as ancestry, language, culture and the community pride did not allow this. Since the Christian Assyrians have only called themselves as Suryaye and Attouraye  (Assyrians)  it is preposterous to doubt their identity. See www.christiansofiraq.com/facts.html

It is true that some Christian Arab tribes spoke the Syriac language but they lived mostly in tribal communities in Syria and the border region of the southern Mesopotamia. There is no reason to believe they intermarried with none Arab Christians. It is a known fact that they sided with their Moslem brethren in wars with the Romans and the Persians which indicates their  loyalty rested with their   Arab identity even after becoming christian. Most converted to Islam voluntarily and the rest were forced to do so by the Arab rulers. See; Christian Arabs

The Turks who converted to Christianity did not arrive in  Mesopotamia. The Turks who were brought by the Caliphs  as  mercenaries were Muslims and  others who later arrived as invaders were neither christians nor spoke the Syriac language. The very fact that Turks today speak the Turkish language proves this fact.

The Christians among the Mongols were few and far in between. they were mostly the Ugarit princess married to the mongolian Chiefs such as the wife of Changiz khan,  the mother of Hallaku khan and his wife and few others. There is no evidence that tChangiz or his son practiced christianity. Within three decades after arrival in Mesopotamia the Mongols for all practical purposes become Muslims and had joined others in persecuting the Christians. The claim that the Mongolian spoke the syriac language or they intermarried with the   native Christians is an exaggeration. In all cases when a person married outside the Assyrian community he/she no longer belonged to it. These and other facts indicate that the Wikidepia attempt to question the Assyrian identity of the Christians of Mesopotamia is based on lack of knowledge and bias.

Assimilation process often flows from the subject people toward the ruling nation, from the poor and powerless to  the rich and mighty. Since Assyrians after their fall did not have  invading armies to force their identity on others nor  they had wealth or power to entice others to assume their identity one  can argue  that they are  racially purer than all other nations who have during their hisoty assimilated millions of various nationalities. One has to wonder when the above  writer intends to force all nations to renounce their identity since  at one time or another they assimilated people of other nationalities. If he will not do that why is he discriminating against the Assyrians? warda


 * You mean the title is original research?? Jalalarbil 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, of course I don't. I am saying that this narrow title excludes a large proportion of the people, who, historically, have never used it of themselves. I'm saying that it's biased. — Gareth Hughes 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria for an ethnic group is its people's common self-identification under one name (or at least two or several 'cognate' names). There are ethnic groups who maybe maybe dialectical, differences in speech but still all are defined as one ethnic group, On the other hand there are peoples who while all speaking SAME language but do not consider themselves to belong to one ethnic group. Then if for example, Syriacs don't identify themselves as Assyrian then there is no need to labell them like that. Ankawa.com is a very famous Chaldean, Assyrian, Syriac homepage. It enlists all names together rather than choosing only one of them. Jalalarbil 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

UTC- The only reason Chaldean and syriac are used is because there is a tendency for the these other denominations to segregate their members from the others not only reliously also socially. By pretending that the name of their church is also their ethnic identity they want to disourage their people to join the other denomination. Chaldean is a religioius denomination while Assyrian is a national identity. The term Syriac was ordered by the Bishops of the Syrian Orthodox Church before the US census of 2000, in an attempt  to discourage their members from identifying themselves as Assyrians, or Syrians. You seem to think that any name any bishop or Patriarch decides to call   his people with  is their true national identity. warda

I find this article to be rather well written. I contributed to it. Aramaic speakersKing Legit

Mesopotamians
What about Mesopotamians or Mesopotamian people and explaining that in Syriac Beth Nahrain or Nahraye entails not just the area or people between the Tigris and the Euphrates but the traditional homeland of all the Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs. Even People of Beth Nahrain would be propper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.27.183 (talk • contribs).

I just suggested (to the editor who originated the vote to move the page) that we create a disambiguation page at Mesopotamian people which would include Assyrian people, Arameans, Chaldeans, etc. This page, Assyrian people, would stay where it is. Is there some consensus for that? Kafziel 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done something like that already, and I pleaded to Gareth to go with the idea. I started Syriac speaking people, and I thought this would be an excellent place to talk about the commons of all in one page, but do not erase the Assyrian ethnicity by changing this page.
 * substantial proportion of the people have never used the identity Assyrian to this day. - Simply not true Gareth. Chaldean 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Mesopotamian people is just too vague to be any good. Such a term might be construed as including groups who have quite different cultural backgrounds but who happen to live in the region. In reply to Chaldean: I believe the majority of Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholics reject the designation Assyrian, and they prefer to be known as Syriacs, Syrians or Aramaeans. A small number of Chaldeans prefer to use that designation rather than Assyrian. Unfortunately, there is no worldwide survey of which designations people prefer, so this has to be based on experience. The leadership of the Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholic churches use Suryani/Suryoye as their official designation, and many of the faithful use that as their cultural designation, using Assuri/Othuroye to describe members of the church of the East. This is my experience: please include your experience as evidence for my remarks being untrue. We can only speak of what we know. — Gareth Hughes 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, it was you that started to put info on the Assyrian people page about the Syriac Orthodox Church. Who is forcing them to be part of the Assyrian people? Look at beginning stages of this page, do you see any mentioning of Syriac Orthodox members? If you think I am trying to paint everyone as Assyrian, then by ALL means remove any reference to Syriac Orthodox members on this page. Will that satisfy you? I am in no way supportive of putting the Syriac Orthodox members grouped with us. But one thing Gareth; where should these people go? So are they arab? Aramaean? Or only Christian? (Suryoyo/Suraya) - ok, so they dont care that much about what ethnicity they are, but they call themselfs mostly "Christian" in Sureth - ok now why should the Assyrian page be hurt because of this? If they wish not to be called any ethnicity, but only Surayes/Suryoyos, then thats more the fine! Please remove any reference or claim of these people from this page. So then what is the problem?

Here is the single fact: Assyrian is recognized as an ethnicity by the International body, as proven with there census data from Russia, Australia, Canada, Armenia, Gergoia, Ukraine, and New Zealand. Do you see "Chaldean" or "Aramaean" in these cnesus? No of course not, because Chaldean is considered a religion sect by the international body and you know all to well about the Aramaean movement. Chaldean 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that church membership has very much contributed to how the people see themselves. There are differences in culture between different groups from different areas, but these are quite minor when seen in the overall shared culture. A substantial number of Syriac Orthodox regard themselves as ethnic Assyrians, but a larger number describe themselves as Syriac or Syrian. Read the US census to see that Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac is one line together (note that Arab—Syrian is quite separate). Increasing numbers of Syriac Orthodox young people are identifying as Assyrian, where their parents and grandparents did not. Many Syriacs feel very strongly about their identity being labelled as Assyrian. — Gareth Hughes 10:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Split
I suggest to split this page, as I have suggested before. I never supported the transfer of the information in the Syriacs article, but I do endorse the idea of maintaining a single article that deals with the various ethnic and/or religious groups that form Syriac Christianity. However I don't think "Aramaic-speaking people" is an apt title. Many Suryāye no longer speak Aramaic, but still consider themselves Suryoyo, Süryani, etc. We should be able to come up with at least a working title as we continue to discuss the question of referring to the people concerned.

I believe this article, Assyrian people, should stay where it is, but deal only with the people who consider themselves to be Assyrians. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with splitting because it is divisive and the changes made in the article reflect all the mentioned groups.King Legit


 * Furthermore, I feel that you and many others aren't well versed in the subject and mainly state opinions, which should not dictate an Encyclopedia article.King Legit

Saying people speak Aramaic today is like saying people speak Latin today - both are wrong, as both languages are "dead" 141.217.41.238 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aramaic is spoken in its Neo-Aramaic form therefore it is not dead. English today is entirely different from old English yet it is still refered to as such.King Legit


 * Another thing: Benne if that is you with the IP address 141.217.41.238 please stop reverting the page. Chaldean, Aramaeans, Syriac Christianity all exist already as articles. What is there to split?King Legit

Srong Oppose
If its not broken why fix it? ‘Assyrian People’ is the correct Heading and should not be moved or attacked in this way, Assyrian is a name of national identity that should be respected. After all they have enough enemies already I don’t think they need more? No Assyrians attack the national existence of any nationality why you should attack the Assyrian identity?

It is easy to tell Who are the Modern Assyrians, first you should read more, secondly DNA, oh, Yes (Genetic) DNA is and has proven the exactness of Modern Assyrian as a separate Homogenise group that is different and not related to any of the Middle Eastern groups. That is science for you people Science.Ashurbanipal23 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Ashurbanipal23Ashurbanipal23 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) This page should stay as it is under ‘Assyrian people’ Assyrian identity is the Root name and the rest are just related parts.

I'm making the DNA statement in favor for Assyrian National Identity. I'm saying that if you were to try to prove any group descending from the ancient group that's what would have to be done.King Legit

Locked
I've locked the page. Please work out your disagreements here. Tom Harrison Talk 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you first rv back to the way it used to be, before someone started to write myths? Chaldean 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please point out the myths.King Legit

dab
Chaldeans redirects here. A note should be added pointing to the Khaldi, an unrelated people also known as "Chaldeans" in Greek sources. dab (&#5839;) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * on second thoughts, Chaldeans shouldn't redirect here. I'll make it a dab page. dab (&#5839;) 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Khaldi and Chaldeans are not that close Chaldean 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the people concerned
Since the name Syriacs is known to be used referring to either (1) all Suryāye or (2) only the people from the West Syriac tradition (i.e., Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics, Syriac Protestants, according to some also Maronites), and on the other hand the name Assyrians is found referring to (1) members of the (Assyrian) Church of the East, or (2) all people from the East Syriac tradition (i.e., members of the Church of the East and of the Chaldean Catholic Church), or (3) to all Suryāye, and there is apparently no consensus on how to refer these people, neither within the various communities itself nor in academics, I think we should have a thorough debate on this question here.

I believe it is not Wikipedia's task to solve this problem, but I am strongly convinced that WP should describe the people concerned in a way that is in line with its WP:NPOV principles.

My suggestion would be to refer to the West Syriacs, a.k.a. the Suryoye, as West Syriacs. Referring to the West Syriacs solely as Arameans or Assyrians will not be acceptable to many. Besides, the majority of the people in Turkey call themselves Süryani anyway.

I am not very familiar with the East Syriac tradition, but I can imagine using an umbrella name like Assyro-Chaldeans. I urge other contributors to react, and to come up with alternatives.

Please do not think that I am pro or against any self-appellation, for I am not. All I want to do is contribute to presenting an image that is balanced, and complete, including all groups and subgroups. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the Suryoye, as West Syriacs. Referring to the West Syriacs solely as Arameans or Assyrians will not be acceptable to many. - I agree with this. Go ahead, BUT you have to remember some things when writing this article, 1. A small minority within the overall Syriac Orthodox Church members consider themselfs "Aramaean"..you keep on trying to push this idea as if Syriac Orthodox Church members consider themselves a type of ethnicity, which is not true at all. They see themselfs as Christians. 2. You can't neglet the fact the the word "Aramaean" is nowhere to be found in the Middle East today. 3. You can't neglet the fact that some Syriac Orthodox Church members see themselves as Assyrian as well. Going from Syriac Orthodox Church officals, like the late Bishop Cicek to ancient officals like 12th century Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Michael the Great.
 * Syriacs can't directly go straight to this new "Western Syriacs" page..I suggest it to be a disambiguation page. Chaldean 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Neither I nor you can provide statistics on the number of Suryoye who consider themselves Arameans or Assyrians, because there no such statistics. All I can say is that I've met both, in Turkey as well as in Western Europe. My impression is that the majority just call themselves Suryoye.
 * 2. Well, I beg to differ. Like I said, I have met Suryoye who think of themselves as Arameans. And concerning your remark about Patriarch Michael, I found a citation that says: 'Michael, a 12th century Syriac-Orthodox Patriarch (d. 1199 A.D.), wrote in his voluminous Chronicle about 'the kingdoms which have been established in Antiquity by our race, (that of) the Aramaeans [oromoye], namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syrians [suryoye].' [] I admit, this is pro-Aramean website, but lets look up what the Patriarch wrote and cite that here on Wikipedia.
 * 3. I do not deny that. I am aware of that. But nevertheless I think it's wrong to refer to them as Assyrians solely. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Final solution
So, after having endless of debating for the past 6 months, I think the best solution can be;
 * Assyrian people - where it talks about Assyrians, including Catholic Assyrians (Chaldeans) and should have a small section (like "Syriacs") that talks about how some Syriac Orthodox Members who considere themselves ethnically Assyrian. The term "Aramaean" should be completly removed from this page as these people dont consider themselves Assyrian in the first place.
 * Suryoyo people or Suryoye people - where it should mostly consentrate on Syriac Orthodox people. The term Aramaean should not be all over this page, as we have established that most Syraic Orthodox do not identify with this "Aramaean" movement, but, there should be a small section in the page that talks about how some Syriac Orthodox members consider themselves as ethnically Aramaean. I want to make sure that this page will not be a page that promotes the idea of "Aramaeanism".

I will wait for replies Chaldean 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the split. I think we could also use "West Syriacs" for the Suryoye, but let's see what others think about this. Syriacs could be a disambiguation page.
 * However, I would still like to see an article that deals with the overall history of both West and East Syriacs, and about the various theories on the origin of the word Suryāyā. What should that article be called? Should we use Syriac Christianity for that? Or make it a separate article?
 * I am not so sure about the following statement: "as we have established that most Syriac Orthodox do not identify with this "Aramaean" movement". Who has established this? What are the sources? I would like to suggest the following site to you: Urhoy, that cites a lot of sources (including Greek and Syriac classics`) that state that the Syrians/Syriacs were originally called Aramaeans. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * * 1. In terms of establishment, you said it in your own words; "Besides, the majority of the people in Turkey call themselves Süryani anyway." And what do you think it means when Syriacs allinge themselves with organization in Europe with names suchs as "Assyrian Chaldean Syraini..." mean to you? It means they definatly are not for Aramaeanism. I think it should be taken as it is in that majority of Syriac Orthodox members dont call themselves Aramaean or Assyrian. By the way, you are aware Aramaean is nowhere to be found in Iraq too right? And like you said before, Syriac Orthodox members in Iraq may number as much as 80,000.. See, this is the reason why I hesitated to split all the pages in the first place, because I knew you would try to make the page of Syraic Orthodox concentrating around the idea of "Aramaeanism". If I drop the idea of trying to "Assyrianing" Syriac Orthodox (which I haven't, but according to you I have) then why can't you drop your idea of trying to "Aramaeaning" them? I agree that Syriacs should be a disambiguation page.
 * 2. both in Greek and in Syriac) that state that the Syrians/Syriacs were originally called Aramaean - benne, this is all in terms of literacy, not ethnically.
 * 3. East Syriacs, and about the various theories on the origin of the word Suryāyā. What should that article be called - I thought that is what Garth was trying to do with Syriac Christianity? Chaldean 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's my impression that most of the Suryoye in Turkey call themselves Süryani, but that's not an established fact (there simply are no statistics, as far as I know). At the same time, quite a few Suryoye I talked to said they consider themselves Aramaeans ethnically, but call themselves Suryoye to distinguish themselves from the pagan Aramaeans, or to stress their Syriac Christian heritage. One elder pointed out to me Genesis 10:22 "The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.", saying the Aramaeans and Assyrians are each other's cousins, and Genesis 25:20: "And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan-aram, the sister to Laban the Syrian." It's not my intention to overemphasise the Aramaean heritage of the (West) Syriacs, all I want to do is mention the sources that equate Aramaeans with Syrians, and include information about the Aramaean movement among the Syriacs.
 * What do you mean by this is all in terms of literacy, not ethnically? What do you think of the following citations from Patriarch Michael: "The kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syrians." and "The Children of Shem are the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Ludians and the Arameans who are the Syrians, the Hebrews and the Persians"? And what about Bar Bahlul's statement that "The Arameans then, whom the Greeks call Syrians, took hold of Aram."? You can even find citations from Chaldean clerics on the site I mentioned. All these sources are verifiable.
 * Previously, I suggested including the information in the Syriac Christianity, but Gareth said he preferred to have the article deal with the churches, and not with the question of ethnicity. It's still my preferred location for describing the Suryâye in general. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the final solution (Garzo and others I'm waiting words from the rest.) Chaldean 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No more SYRIAC writing. This HAS to be in ENGLISH. We can't title a page SURYAYE, OK. It has to be in ENGLISH. THIS IS THE ENGLISH VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA. SURYAYE means SYRIAN aka ASSYRIAN but nowadays for whatever reasons it is referred to as SYRIACS so if you want that then go with SYRIACS not SURYAYE. No one even in Syriac says SURYAYE, they say Soraye, Suraye, etc. user:King Legit

This is sad...really sad.
well forget about 'political correctness', the title of the page isn't flippin' capitalized! come on! and as for the rest, i tried to fix what i could, but my knowledge on this subject isnt extensive enough to be able to make all the changes i wanted to. This is a very poorly written article, and it's barely at all about their history, which i would think would be obligatory to keep up wikipedia's standard of excellence. this is a very confusing article for one who is unfamiliar with the Assyrians history and the shuffling back and forth of names and languages and foreign terms is quite frustrating. the section headings under 'identity' dont make sense, especially the multiple question marks, and there doesnt seem to be any discussion of the Assyrians when they ruled in very early times, when they were conquered by the Medes. oh, and the section on Assyrian music is entirely pointless, that tells the reader absolutely nothing about Assyrian music except how many periods there were. doesnt say when, doesnt elaborate at all, and is generally on the scale of the rest of the article, except that it's at least grammatically correct. geez 70.213.187.40 00:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Mica Shista

The reason you're getting multiple question marks is because you don't have Syriac Fonts or Unicode enabled.


 * 1) "People" isn't supposed to be capitalized. The title of the article is fine. See French people, English people, Chinese people, etc.
 * 2) Whether or not modern Assyrians are descended from ancient Assyrians is still highly debated, so what's written in the history section is rather limited due to Wikipedia's factual policies.
 * 3) The music section (like all of Wikipedia) is a work in progress. Instead of complaining about the overall quality of the article, you could try actually editing the section to make it better, or put an expansion template (Template:Expandsection) or a cleanup template (Template:Cleanup). --334 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WARNING
Please do not believe or cite the information about Chaldeans in this article as truth. This website is clearly biased and shouldn't be trusted as a source of knowledge about the Chaldean Ethnicity. Go to other websites such as Kaldu.org or Chaldeansonline.org for true information about Chaldeans. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisch59 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 June 2006.


 * Hi, I did go to that website that you said [khaldu.org] and what I read was "Contemporary Chaldeans and Assyrians:One Primordial Nation" - so would you like to explain yourself a little bit more or will you refuse to open your base of knowledge outside of your Bloomfield Hills community :) Chaldean 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Final Solution 2

 * Revamp this page and delete any refrence to "Aramaean" (since those who identify themselves Aramaean, refuse there Assyrian identity
 * Create a seperate page called Suryoyo - Talking about Syriac Orthodox, with a small paragraph talking about how some Syriac Orthodox consider themselves Assyrian, and another small paragraph talking about how some consider themselves Aramaean. (NOTE: the page Suryoyo should NOT have the ethnic template.)

If I dont see any rejection, I will go on with this in 3 days. If you reject, please give us another solution Chaldean 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * West Syriacs are not only Syriac Orthodox, also Syriac Catholic, and there are also a few Protestants among them.
 * I am not so sure why the ethnicity template should be omitted. Ethnicity is not the same as race (whatever that may be).
 * As I've pointed out before, there are also references to the Aramaean heritage of the ancient Syrians in East Syriac sources. Check . So I don't think deleting any reference from the Assyrian people page is such a good idea.
 * I noticed that the various ethnonyms in the article had been deleted from the article without previous discussion. As you can see, I re-added that information. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

, s
 * I know that, and that is what I assumed (All Syriac churches)
 * Because no nation in this world recognizes them as an ethnicity.
 * It doesn't matter, "Aramaeans" dont want to be associated with Assyrians, so we dont want to confuse the reader by putting Aramaean on this page.
 * I did not do that, see "Sargon" who thinks he has done a "tremendious" job in editing this page Chaldean 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No more SYRIAC writing. This HAS to be in ENGLISH. We can't title a page SURYAYE, OK. It has to be in ENGLISH. THIS IS THE ENGLISH VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA. SURYAYE means SYRIAN aka ASSYRIAN but nowadays for whatever reasons it is referred to as SYRIACS so if you want that then go with SYRIACS not SURYAYE. No one even in Syriac says SURYAYE, they say Soraye, Suraye, etc. user:King Legit

Two proposals for compromise and stability
This article has been contended hotly for at least the last two years. Whenever someone new comes along they will try to get it to fit more exactly to their own ideas of what this all means. It seems that there are a few of us who have been around long enough to see just how damaging it is when any one person attempts to impose their will on others. I have tried to be careful not to protect the page and block people, because I don't believe that that helps in the long run. I would like to make two proposals for compromise and stability. Rather than the disputed, minor changes discussed above, which, I believe, would not make the situation any better, I propose two sets of wider structural guidelines we could adopt.

To move forward with this article, I suggest that we agree a few points about the content of the article. We are all too focused on issues on which we do not agree that we miss the stuff we all agree upon. After all none of the regular editors of this article actually see themselves as anti-Assyrian. Consider, if you will, three baskets in which the content of this article can be placed: With this system we would have a simple way of assigning consensus to different additions. For example, if there was text in the article about Assyrians being identified mostly as Christians, that would be a basket-1 statement. If there was a statement about Aramaeans, we are still to find consensus whether those who call themselves such should be included, so we say that's a basket-2 statement. If there was a statement that said that Assyrians are going to get to heaven before everyone else because they are so holy, we would say that that's a basket-3 statement ad it shouldn't be in the article. With this system it is easier for us to find agreement. If I know that everyone will agree on a statement I can add it (and perhaps give an edit summary saying I hope you all think this is basket-1 stuff). If I know that there are going to be others who disagree with something (i.e. that it's basket 2), I know that I should discuss it on the talk page instead of putting it in. If I know that something is basket 3, then I can make sure that it gets removed from the article. The good thing is, if I have something that I want in the article but know that there are others who don't want it, we can all agree that it's basket-2 material and use the talk page to work out how to deal with it. This approach is better than edit warring over the page as we are forced to recognise what others might think before they have to tell us.
 * 1) Basket 1 — in this we place all material and facts that everyone is happy with.
 * 2) Basket 2 — in this we place all material and facts that are agreed by two or more people, but not accepted by everyone.
 * 3) Basket 3 — in this we place or the material and facts that we are all agreed should not be in the article.

Now a wider discussion has to be had about what this article is about. There was a move a while back to unite this article with the articles on related peoples. I partly agreed with this because the different definitions of who is an Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramaean are blurred (in that different people define them differently). I think we can all agree (basket-1 stuff) that these identities are related, even if we don't like certain of the names and draw the internal boundaries in different places. Thus, the idea of one article for all is based on this shared agreement. However, the disagreements on those names and boundaries makes the one-article idea difficult. Before the incomplete merger was made, there were quite a few different articles for each group, each one pushing their line. The advantage of this was that the whole aspect of what Chaldean means could be explored in a single article dedicated to that idea. The disadvantage was that there was no cohesion between the articles, and the articles contradicted each other. I now feel and suggest that a compromise be sought. For this compromise I suggest that there is one united article for all these groups that discusses their relation to each other and views of who is who. Then, each grouping can have its own article that expands on that designation, but should not be allowed to contradict the united article. Therefore, this article, Assyrian people, would become an article dedicated to what the Assyrians are all about, but it would have a link at the top of the page to the united article and would have to be edited in accordance with it. The united article would have a little bit about every group (with links to the articles on each), and it would be the place that we work out the balance that governs all other articles. This way, Aramaeans need not be mentioned in the Assyrian article, but both would be discussed in relation to each other in the main article.

I apologize for the length of this edit. I do not wish to impose these guidelines, but wish to offer them for discussion. If we are in agreement, we can begin to implement them. You may have ideas on how to do things more effectively, so please have your say. — Gareth Hughes 12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I say just split the articles and have a related article that unites all the groups. Basically I agree...King Legit

Shlomo Gareth,

Thank you for your proposals. I think they should be workable, if we can all agree on turning this set of articles into a neutral and reliable source of information about the people concerned.

I believe the first proposal deals not just with the Suryāye-related article group, and should therefore be discussed at a different forum, like the Village pump. However, we could try and bring this policy in practice here first.

As I have stated before, I agree with a single article about the Suryāye, with both sections within that main article and separate articles about the various (sub)ethnicities. However, I think this can be more properly done within the framework of a WikiProject, because there are quite a few other articles that now have Assyrian(s) in their titles but in fact deal with the Suryāye as a whole. We should have a discussion about whether those articles should either be renamed or split into separate articles for the subgroups. Kind regards, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Garth more actions less talking please! This page has been in ruins for 6 months now. Now I have a few questions;
 * "Then, each grouping can have its own article that expands on that designation" - Who are the groups?
 * "The united article would have a little bit about every group" - What will this page be called?
 * "this article, Assyrian people, would become an article dedicated to what the Assyrians are all about" - And that would include Chaldeans too right? Chaldean 13:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, my name has an e in it. The article has had problems for over two years to be precise, and there have been different attempts to deal with it. There has been, of late, too little discussion. It's no good taking action if someone is going to revert it. I used the word groups as a neutral term for each of the designations, as we each draw the boundaries differently. So, I would say that those who call themsleves Assyrian are one group of this larger related group. We have discussed different names for such a page before, but without much consent. If the united article stands beside the individual articles, its name can be more flexible. Yes, the article on Assyrian people would include Chaldeans in so much as the two names overlap. Likewise, an article on Syriac people would include Assyrians in so far as these designations overlap. Each article would probably referrence another as some people identify as both Assyrian and Chaldean, or both Assyrian and Syriac. — Gareth Hughes 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I agree on everything you have said so far. I just want us to follow the templates/ way other ethnic page have been written such as Greek people, Armenian people, etc. I dont see why we should treat Assyrian people page different. So can write this page the way other ethnic pages have been written? Chaldean 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So then what are we waiting for? It seems that Gareth is busy with Angalican pages while Benne is busy with Arab pages. Because I know the second I touch the page myself, it will get rv'd by Benne saying we have not discussed anything. Chaldean 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are others who would like to comment? I have said what I think about it, and am waiting for more editors to respond. I don't think we should do this hastily, that's why I think we should turn it into a project, in order to ensure more coherence between the various Syriacs-related articles. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that, as we have no united page yet, we put a copy of this page at Assyrian people/future united page and work on that so that it's a fair account of the different yet related people groups. Once that's done, and I'm going to do that straight away, we can start editing Assyrian people to remove sections dealing with those who do not call themselves Assyrian. I suggest that anything controversial (basket 2) that is already in the article about Assyrians stays in until we can decide what to do with it. I also suggest that all new material is uncontroversial (basket 1) until we can get the article settled down. Does this seem fair? — Gareth Hughes 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Please proceed with what you think is the right way with the right content..I will be observing. Benne, nobody else on wiki seems to care or know enough about this topic, thus only 3 of us remain to deal with this subject. Chaldean 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gareth, can we agree that this "united" page will not be a ethnicity page with the ethnicity template? Chaldean 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting the article. Testarosa changed the Identity section completely and no one reverted yet when I do something everyone gets riled up. There is NOTHING innaccurate about the Identity section. PLEASE present something innaccurate. How come no one said anything about that, everyone just left it in it's pathetic poorly written form.סרגון יוחנא

Consensus
Since Everyone agrees with a split. I'm going forward and abbreviating the section on Appelations.12.15.7.70

New Assyrians?
Excuse me sir. I just confused with the content of this article. Can somebody provide some neutral, academic and reliable sources which connect the modern Christian Semiric-speakrs of Middle East to the old Assyrians? To my knowledge they were assimilatted into either Iranic or Arab populations of their neighbourhood. TruthTruth 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If we would have got assimilated we would not have kept our church we have had for 2000 years, our language (which is an independent language) or our culture.

Semitic Christian speakers of Aramaic is what I think you're trying to say. And they are called Assyrian or Chaldo-Assyrian. User:King Legit

They are not called Chaldo-Assyrian, well should not be called so. Chaldean is only a religious term and the right word is aramaic-speaking assyrians or syriac-assyrians since all assyrians belong to syriac churches.

There is no such thing as Assyrians nowadays. The ancient Assyrians were assimilated into Aramaic world some 2500 years ago and later the same Aramaic people to other ethnic groups. Todays Aramaic-speaking community is a remnant of ancient Aramaic world and has NOTHING to do with ancient Assyrians. The title of this article is very confusing, untrue, forgery, and promotes political propaganda. Sure it should be corrected as soon as possible. TruthTruth 19:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * /Removed incivility by /


 * Dear TruthTruth, I do not like your argumentative tone. You probably know full well that a large number of Modern Aramaic speakers call themselves 'Assyrians'. It is not up to anyone else to decide whether that is right. However, the claim that modern Assyrians are the direct descendants of ancient Assyrians is hotly debated, and this article should remain neutral on that point whilst presenting the arguments and evidence on all sides of the debate. This page is a discussion page for improving the article. The article is to be neutral, and, whereas we acknowledge that it is not yet there, you should acknowledge that pushing another agenda here is not going to help. In this regard, please make comments about how your point of view can be incorporated into this article so that the overall point of view is as neutral as possible. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 12:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Assyrian people and their languages
Hello guys!! By the way Assyrian people's original language are Akkadian language, not Aramaic. Also the new Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language the Assyrian people spoke is heavily infused with Akkadian words. And also, Assyrian and Arameans are not from a same ethnic, in which eventually it would to be called this two race an Assyrians, its wrong! So Aramaic language is from Arameans people from Aramea, not Assyrian. If anyone still don't believe or unsure about what I said. Please see the article about sons of noah, within this articles, see the article about Shem for more detail. By the way this articles about Assyrian people is still DISPUTED!! So why the NPOV template is removed? &mdash; Emrrans 10:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Emrrans. Please be aware that writing words in bold capitals with exclamation marks after them is often taken to mean that you are shouting: it's not a good idea to start a shouting match. It certainly is overdoing it, and just looks a little silly: I, personally, find it difficult to take seriously anyone who writes in this way. However, some of the points you make are good. Akkadian was the ancient Assyrian language, and the Assyrian Empire came to adopt the more flexible Aramaic of its western provinces as a language of administration. Modern Assyrians speak Aramaic (in fact a small number of different varieties of Aramaic). I am still very doubtful about the claim of Akkadian words in Assyrian Aramaic: most of these are just common Semitic roots. Your direction towards to the articles on Shem and the sons of Noah is towards a school of dubious biblical interpretation. I do not have a problem with you re-applying the NPOV template on this article as I think there are still problems with it and it was removed rather too hastily. — Gareth Hughes 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian kings always married Aramaean wives. Aramaeans were merged with Assyria and Assyrians for at least 700 years. Aramea was the first area that was captured by the second Assyrian empire in 1300BC by king Adad Naririr I. Aramea remanied part of the Assyrian empire until its fall in 612BC. So, I am pretty confident that in that 700 year span, Arameans merged with Assyrians in terms of mix population. If the community of Assyria nad Aramea were not that close, why do you think the empire changed the language offically to Aramaic? Chaldean 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact Aram meant nothing more than highland which was a description of the Assyrian terrain. Yes it may have been an independent entity at some point in time however it never was of much signifigance. It was always subjecated to a more powerful empire. Aramaean scribes in the Assyrian empire were always pictured alongside Akkadian scribes. That at least points to the fact that they lived alongside each other and just as with Sumerian and Akkadian society merging to form classic Babylonian society the same happened of Aramaean/Assyrian society. In fact Assyria started as a Babylonian colony. Assyrian people today may very well call themselves Babylonian if they wished for that is the original established seat of the crown starting with the unification of Sumer and Akkad under Sargon of Akkad even though he ruled from Agade, the seat was moved to the holy city of the Gate of God. The official title of the king of Babylonia is "Sar Mat Sumeri u Akkadi" which meant king of Sumer and Akkad which was the title of Sargon. user: King Legit

Could you amateurs please take some time to read a little more before making accusatory and inflamatory remarks? What about saying that the modern Jews are not actually descended of Abraham. How can you provbe that or that they originated from Judea. Prove that. I'm not arguing it but this getting very offensive. Assyrians were the original propogaters of the Aramaic language after Akkadian fell in to only elite usage. Abdel Masseekh
 * It would be helpful if you signed all talk with your real name, or we might consider that you're trying to be sockpuppeteer! The article on Aram adds some information about the history. Although 'highland' is one theory of the meaning of the name, it is not known for certain what it means: Aram wasn't very high land. Aram was never a great empire, but existed as a number of city states west of the Euphrates, of which Damascus was the greatest. There is evidence that, in later Aramaean history, th city states united under one king, probably as a defence against Assyrian dominance. It is true that the Assyrians and the Babylonians used Aramaic as the language of administration of their empires, and this led to its widespread use throughout the Fertile Crescent. However, the Persian Darius I is probably the most influential benefactor of ancient Aramaic. — Gareth Hughes 17:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm.... Ok. But actually I m not a sockpuppeteer! Of course, in this English Wikipedia. The name "Emrrans" is just my nickname. Well, what I m trying to say is that I think is this article must be reconsider before this article starts to continually to confuse other Wikipedia reader. Also, and apology I must say if I m offensive and if I m wrong about this article. &mdash; Emrrans 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, see this link about history of Assyrians for what I meant. &mdash; Emrrans 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was writting about Sargonious making up the Abdel Masseekh name, which is just an unhelpful confusion. Of course, the article you mention has merit, but it cannot be swallowed whole because of its obvious bias. — Gareth Hughes 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So what is all about the Sargonious making up the Abdel Masseekh name? Well, Gareth Hughes, I think you're absolutely right, the article I read which is in the link I added in my previous discussion that entitled History of Assyrian have merit but cannot be swallowed whole because it has obvious bias. Not just mere "bias" but very bias also this article have. &mdash; Emrrans 11:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I switched my nickname to Abdel Masseekh. What is the problem?Abdel Masseekh


 * With all due respect. Maybe you've read a FEW articles on Assyrians. That doesn't render you an expert so whatever bias you feel there is, that is your amateur analasys. Once my business degree is complete I will be attending the University of Michigan to complete an Assyriology degree. I am interested in ancient Mesopotamia because I'm from there and that's what I mostly read about and study. I can say I dedicate at least an hour a day to studying ancient Assyria and modern Middle Eastern Society.Abdel Masseekh


 * Oh ok, so all of you guys who reply my first message win. Because now I m wrong about the Assyrian people and its language. This is because Akkkadian language are actually an Old Aramaic dialect in which that I've just go to it and read it about an article called Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. So this is my last message here. Goodbye. &mdash; Emrrans 12:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * now this would be ground-breaking linguistic research! If you discovered connections between Akkadian and Aramaic, you shouldn't waste your time with Wikipedia, you should write a book and become famous. Until then, kindly observe WP:NOR. I don't know why people here go on about the ancient Assyrians all the time. There is simply no demonstrable cultural continuity, neither do modern Assyrians engage in sun worship, nor do they speak an East Semitic language. If it wasn't for archaeology and philology, we wouldn't know anything about the ancient Assyrians at all. dab (&#5839;) 13:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So Modern Greeks worship Zeus? Your a minority in this world to reject the claim of Aramaic and Akkadian being closly linked. In my opinion; we know there are people out their that are downright anti-Greek or anti-Armenian..but we dont let them edit pages and try to post their views of the subject..I dont understand why we Assyrians are not treated the same way. Why do we have to state the "other opinion"? Why dont we dont that with every single subject? Cause, surely every single topic their are different views. User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dab, that is an insult. "There is no cultural continuity." Actually YES there is. We still name our kids, Sargon, Ashur, Ninawa, Nahrain, Shamiram, and so forth. That alone with the way we practice christianity are enough similarities to the ancient Assyrians. And we have stories of our kings and queens passed down for generations. We didn't learn these from western archeologists. There were people to this day that could read cuneiform so don't tell me that the west taught us our culture. Prove to me Jews are descended of Abraham then talk about modern Assyrians.

Draft replacement page
The replacement page for Assyrian people is currently under construction. Check this page out Assyrian people/.King Legit 12:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to deal with all Syriacs, it cannot be titled "Assyrians". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2006

(UTC)

Yes it certainly can and will. King Legit


 * Why? &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To whom are you asking this question? The term is greatly disputed, and therefore not NPOV. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was asking it to Sargon over here. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * lol @ "all Syriacs" Chaldean 02:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should email Pylambert to help with the draft... ;) &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice :). Truely one of the best users we had who had a good amount of knowledge about the topic. Chaldean 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've just emailed him. :D &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian is accepted by the majority otherwise it wouldn't appear in national censuses. User:Sargonious.


 * Look at the Azerbaijani people page. It has just become a featured page in front of wikipedia homepage. This is the right model for an ethnic group page. Notice how the language has been written about with only ONE small paragraph and of course is not the opening paragraph, but all the way down the buttom. Chaldean 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE DISPUTE?
There is no dispute.King Legit
 * Well, just a start: the very title is disputed. It claims to include all the people who at some point in time or still refer to themselves as Suryāye (or a variety on that theme), but its title suggests that it's only about a part of that group.
 * So I'd suggest either renaming the article, or narrowing it down in order for it to refer solely to those people who identify themselves as Assyrians, and have a separate article for the modern Aramaeans (if necessary about the Chaldaeans, as well), and one article dealing with all the people that make up Syriac Christianity. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Assyrian people/future page is coming along quite well. That page will replace this page when we feel it's ready. Then we have the proposal that we create a page for all people who are traditionally Christian and traditionally speak Syro-Aramaic: these two criteria then can be interpreted quite broadly to include Assyrians, Chaldaeans, Syriacs, Aramaeans, Maronites and Melkites. The last two groups have quite different histories, but were originally Aramaic-speaking Christians. The first four groups are much more closely related: most Chaldaeans see themselves as Assyrian and a significant number of Syriacs do also. So, the idea is that we have a page for each name, with one page that puts it all together. — Gareth Hughes 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair and reasonable. As long as the group as a whole is not called "Assyrian", for example, if we were to sum up the ethnic groups in Turkey. The same counts for the list of villages, and famous Syriacs. We will yet have to find a solution for those articles as well. What about reviving the old project you'd started? Perhaps we could call it "Syriac Christianity". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing. The statistics for Turkey on both the current and the future page are the same. That cannot be true if the current one is dealing with all Syriacs (which it claims to do), and the future one is to deal with only the people identifying themselves as Assyrians.
 * Besides, I think that number (5,000) to be quite low if it were to comprise all Syriacs, i.e. Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics, members of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldaean Catholic Church, and Protestant Syriacs (as far as I've seen, they usually call themselves Süryani, some consider themselves to be ethnic Aramaeans, some others Assyrians). I wonder if there are that many Chaldean Catholics and Assyrian Church members left in Turkey, since the forced evacuation of Hasana. But anyways, the total number should me more than 5,000, I reckon. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is desputed because it is a horrible page, plain-n-simple. Chaldean 02:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are much more differences among other ethnic groups such as the Kurds, Arabs, Jews, and Chinese. I do not see such discussion on their pages. I for one am a member of the Chaldean Church and have always considered myself, and the rest of my family, as ethnically, Assyrian. Its funny how opposition is only coming from non-Assyrians or clergy influenced by a handful of Syriac scholars with highly opinionated and unfounded theories. My suggestion is that you leave our people and our national and ethnic beliefs alone.--FirasJatou 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard someone call themselves Aramaean.
You people overseas think you have it all figured out. You leave your people and really forget who you are. Us Kurds call these people Assyrian and know that they are the same people call themselves Chaldean. Where do you get Aramaean? They don't even call the language that. I hear them say Sureet. To me that sounds like Syria which everyone in the middle east knows is based on the great Assyrian Empire. Some people overseas mess everything up for the people back home because they with their so called education are actually less educated on their people because they're hearing their history from an outside source who only read about it and never witnessed it.شيطان

Arrrghhh
Sargon, the title is irrelevant when the article has said "also known as Aramaeans, Chaldeans and/or Syriacs" for months now. If you want to split up the articles again, create separate ones. Please. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Syriacs
I have created a Syriacs page. The Assyria people page is now in the form of the "future" page.King Legit 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved future page
I have moved Assyrian people/future page to Talk:Assyrian people/future page as per Subpages. Mar de Sin Speak up!  18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Chaldeans page
Shaitan Al Mahdi recently re-created this page without any prior discussion. I'd like to hear other people's opinion's on this. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion on the sideline regarding this matter. The apparent fact that there are Chaldean Catholic Church members who do not consider themselves Assyrians, but Chaldeans, might be enough justification to have a separate Chaldeans article. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the question whether they consitute a separate ethnic group is not so easy to be answered, for there are various ways of defining ethnicity. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ephrem the Syrian
I believe the picture of Ephrem the Syrian should be removed, unless reliable sources can be provided stating that he considered himself to be an Assyrian, or was considered as such by his contemporaries. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * His a Suraya, which is good enough. Chaldean 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good enough for the Syriacs page, yes. Not for this page. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting out of hand. Assyrians consider him an Assyrian. Suraya to an Assyrian means Assyrian. The Devil Messiah


 * http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ephraem_Syrus --Pjacobi 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Supposedly Saint Jacob of Sarug (†512) wrote about Saint Ephrem (†373) that "This (Efrem) who became a crown of glory for all the Aramaeans, and through him they became near the spiritual splendors. He who became a great orator among the Syrians." --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ephrem was Assyrian. http://www.bethnahrin.de/040515AssyrianMorEphremChoirCD.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.93.145 (talk • contribs).

Let's give a hand for all of us
While the article still needs alot of work, I must say the opening paragraph cannot get any better. Its perfect and I think we should step back and realise how nice of an article we can all create when we stop our vendetta against each other and learn to work with each other. We can make this article a feature article if we continue to learn how to work with each other. I want to thank Gareth, Sargonious, Khoikhoi, and yes even Benne. Chaldean 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro is POV
You can't have an article that starts by saying "indegenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and inheritors of the ancient culture of Assyria" and then later discuss that we're unable to prove for 100% that the modern Assyrians are direct descendents of the ancient ones. I'm changing it back. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, it sounds really lame to say "they are different than Arabs, Persians, and Turks". That's like starting the intro of pizza as, "it is different than spagetti, television, and New York City". &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been agreed upon previously. It will not be changed and it is not POV. Assyrians descend from Assyrians. The article states that you can't prove ANY ethnic group.סרגון יוחנא 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm, no it hasn't. What happened was that you made a draft and replaced it into this article. People kept reverting you but you refused to listen to anybody. Hardly a "consensus". We don't see the Greeks page starting as "the modern Greeks are descendants of the ancient ones". It has a section called Greeks. If we can't prove it, then we shouldn't present it as fact. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um actually yes it has. This page was accepted as the REPLACEMENT IN IT'S form. You only change the opening phrase. Chaldean even reverted it. And it sais INHERITORS of the CULTURE which is factual. The culture is very similar to the ancient.סרגון יוחנא 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Assyrians ARE indigenous to Mesopotamia. Find me their origins.סרגון יוחנא 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You may assert your connections to the ancient Assyrian empire, but you can't necessarily prove it. See Identity of the Assyrian People. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have refferences to the contrary.סרגון יוחנא 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So because you have references that say that, it means you can present them as absolute fact in the intro? Without anything saying otherwise? &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way. There is NO such thing as absolute facts or absolute truths. That is nonsense.סרגון יוחנא 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's certainly how you're presenting things... &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true again... Inheritors does not mean direct descendants. As far as indegenous groups, they are indegenous to Mesopotamia in any way that you look at it. Even Aramaeans that want nothing to do with Assyrians claim Mesopotamia as the homeland of Aramaeans. King Legit


 * Ok, so since your article says "many of the ancestors of the modern-day Arabs, Kurds, Mongols, Persians, and Turks were originally Christian or converts". I can say many Arabs are indegenous to Mesopotamia too, right? Since after all, no one is "pure". &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SOME, yes. However their anscestors were Arabized. That was a pointless referrence to that article. What does having been Christian have to do with being indegenous? Most of our anscestors worshipped the ancient gods. Some still equate that the Christian God is Ashur.

Embarrassing
It is embarrassing for me as an Aram-Assyrians to tolerate what you are doing on this site. It says "we consider ourselves to be the inheritors of Mesopotamia", the whole world knows we are and we dont need any proof. The kurds who arent an ancient people and have never been, theyre like 800 years old and came from the zagros mountain and are iranians have a better page then us and they claim they are descended from like 15 different people, what idiot would ever belive on this? all arabs,assyrians,iranians and turks know this is nothing more than bullshit! i hope one day we will rise and make you people like you who make this page so embarrassing will fall.


 * Thank Chaldean for that. He reverted WE ARE THE INHERTIORS to WE CONSIDER OURSELVES TO BE... So thank him for that.


 * I am a proud Assyrian, but I realize this is a wikipedia and not a pro-Assyrian website, thus we have to always make sure we are NPOVing here at all times. Chaldean 02:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sargon: please provide reliable sources. You can't just say you have them, prove it to me. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've listed the majority of these referrences on this page. READ REF 18.סרגון יוחנא

"Nineveh.com"?
Do you really consider this a reliable source? What other sources do you have? Tell me which ones specifically, please. &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My 2¢
Hello guys. I am really sorry to see this page protected. Well, i've not been part of the discussions and most probably i won't. However, i'll just be trying to help you reach a concensus in order to move forward.

After reading this talk page and some relevant parts of the archives i could say that Benne is totally right when it comes to references (that doesn't mean i endorse his comments apart from those related to the lack of references). Most (if not all of them) of the references listed on the article are unworthy to be mentioned. There's no bibliography section, no further reading section.

Could you please suggest any other bibliography. Once we have that in place, contributors can focus on discussing them instead of wasting their time arguing about POVs. That would definitely help the issue. Cheers -- Szvest 11:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * John Joseph (2000), The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East (a revised edition of the same author's "The Nestorians and Their Muslim Neighbors (Princeton University Press, 1961)) ISBN: 9004116419.
 * Mark Healy (1992), The Ancient Assyrians ISBN: 1855321637.
 * William A Wigram (2002), The Assyrians and Their Neighbours ISBN: 1931956111.
 * F. N. Heazell (2004), Kurds and Christians ISBN: 1593331061
 * Gordon M Patterson (1996), Essentials of Ancient History 4,500 Bc-500 Ad ISBN: 0878917047
 * As soon as this page is unprotected it will return to its usual status of Neo-Assyrian propaganda site. Unless you are willing to invest time in constant watching, this article will be dominated by cranks forever. So whom are you talking bibliography to? They don't need books written by Europeans. For similar attitude see Talk:Indology. Stop wasting your time, they'll win in any case. At least this page has always been fun to read as morons fought idiots in heavy ideological battles. 212.199.22.100 19:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You sound defeated. Sargon

Anyways, I'm still waiting for Sargon to provide reliable sources for his claim (Nineveh.com is not one of them). &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * William A Wigram (2002), The Assyrians and Their Neighbours ISBN: 1931956111.  - Fayssal, thanks for joining us. I have this book right here in my hands and I have just uploaded page 184 - [] Chaldean 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it says "may be fairly said..." :-/ &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what sargon was trying to do is not right and I think the way its put right now - who consider themselves to be indigenous  - is pretty fair, dont you think? Chaldean 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. :) The problem is, he doesn't... &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in that case I have a problem with the Kurdish page. They claim to be indegenous to Kurdistan. Kurdistan is a province in Iran and only recognized as that. There is no recognized KURDISTAN in the Kurdish sense. So that should be cleared up. Servant of Anshar


 * Don't worry man, I'll keep an eye on that page for you. What I want to know is...are we cool with things over here? &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think it would be smart of you to be 'cool' with him after these comments. [[[]]] - "khoikhoi I am going to f your sister in the buttocks, you bastard". I think another suspension is needed.  Chaldean 05:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said I was cool with him, I was basically saying, "do we have a compromise"? &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think another suspension is needed. Chaldean 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that thinking should be left to the great minds.סרגון יוחנא 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove the lock please.
Thank you. סרגון יוחנא 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you agree to the current version of the page? &mdash; Khoikhoi 14:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine just as long as the Kurdish page is worded the same. Lit Dynamite Looks Nice on You, WET THE FUSE MORON!!!

Missing in Action
Since the Assyrian Picture of the Remergence of the Empire has been removed. I would like to add this back in after the lock is removed.

Many Assyrians hold apocalyptic beliefs in the future of their nation based on the following Bible passage:

''In that day there shall be a way from Egypt to the Assyrians, and the Assyrian shall enter into Egypt, and the Egyptian to the Assyrians, and the Egyptians shall serve the Assyrian. In that day shall Israel be the third to the Egyptian and the Assyrian: a blessing in the midst of the land, Which the Lord of hosts hath blessed, saying: "Blessed be my people of Egypt, and the work of my hands to the Assyrian: but Israel is my inheritance." (Isaiah'' 19:23-25).

סרגון יוחנא 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove italian interwiki
Could you please remove the lock? Or at least could you remove the italian interwiki, that redirects to the story of ancient Assyria. Pegua 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The more and more I know my people...
The more I understand why people like Syriacs call themselves Arameans to distance themselves from some. I'm calling myself Babylonian from now on. I follow the old religion (metaphorically) and will learn Akkadian. Sharukinu

This current page on Assyrian People is a DISGRACE
Whoever wrote this page is obviously not an Assyrian nationalist, and is totally condecending the Assyrian race. The genetic study done by Cavalli Sforza is totally misunderstood and misrepresented in the "Modern and Ancient Assyrians." Also we do not speak Aramaic, we speak ASSYRIAN. This page needs to get deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.107.241 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 September 2006.


 * Was this page supposed to be written by a nationalist? What if a Greek nationalist wrote all of the Greeks article? Would we have reliable information? Also, mind the personal attacks... &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What did you even waste your time to reply. Chaldean 03:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes... You are right it doesn't need to be written by a nationalist, I apologize. However, it should be written with much more care and accuracy. Do more research... The study on the genetics is misunderstood and misrepresented, and why cant we unify and call all our people Assyrian and our Language Assyrian... Not only will it strengthen us but it will also allow other people to have an easier understanding of who we are... That is why this page is a disgrace to me as an Assyrian. I want to be able to tell people to read about ASSYRIANS on wikipedia but I cant. We could be stubborn and change things back and forth but I dont have patience for that, I just hope you guys understand that this page needs alot more work. When written, it should be written for an audience who knows nothing about assyrians. Read it from that perspective and you will understand what I mean. God bless you brothers. Romil Benyamino

Work on this page has slowed...
Where are all the contributers?


 * we have so much other work to do on other pages Chaldean 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Propoganda on the Assyrian Cuisine page
Khoikhoi once again is stepping in when he shouldn't. Him and Mackeral or whatever his handle is are placing pro-Turk propoganda claiming that Baklava is of Turkic origins when I clearly linked 5 different links all stating Assyrians invented it in the 8th century. Even after I stated that others make the claim as well. They used an insulting and condescending remark stating that they weren't "scholarly." This biased crap has no place on this encyclopedia.סרגון יוחנא

some rather fanciful claims
In what way are they "descendants of the ancient Akkadians"? Or maybe rather of the "Chaldeans", who "were originally an Aramaic-speaking nomadic tribe from the Arabian peninsula that ultimately conquered Babylon"? This article seems to be very strong on urban myths of ancient Mesopotamia, while it should focus on the contemporary people. The origin of the name of Ashur should be discussed at Ashur. Alleged origins of the Chaldean dynasty should be discussed at Chaldean dynasty. And sweeping claims about the ancient history or origins of the modern Assyrian people should be better referenced than the odd link to some online article. dab (&#5839;) 11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Chaldean, if you want to restore the offtopic material or unsourced claims I removed, you would do well to use the talkpage first. As for fanciful inclusion of Ashurbanipal and ancient Assyrian or Akkadian figures like Sargon, this would be just as silly as including Vortigern in English (people) and Image:English-people.JPG (shrug), sheer national mysticism. Per the very first sentence, this article is about contemporary Syriac Christians. Ashurbanipal is not contemporary, not a Christian, and not a speaker of Syriac (Aramaic), and thus falls outside the scope here by not one but three (of three) counts. dab (&#5839;) 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If YOU want to change the topic of this article COMPLETLY by disconnecting our roots, then I suggest you VOTE on it first before you dictate the page. This page is not about CHRISTIANS only, so Ashurbanipal does not have to be a Christian in order for him to be Assyrian. And YES Ashurbanipal did speak Aramaic, as during his rule the offical language of the empire was Aramaic. You need to check yourself before you make such dramatic changes. Chaldean 13:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

hm, what? There is a link to Assyrian Empire in the very first sentence, so I have no idea what you mean. This isn't the article about the Assyrian Empire. We can leave in Ashurbanipal if you absolutely insist. According to Aramaic, Aramaic became widespread in Assyria from 700 BC. So while I don't see why this is relevant at all here, I'll agree that the last century of the Neo-Assyrian Empire may be included under Aramaic history. Just because Aramaic became widespread in the Empire, I don't think this proves that the king, personally, spoke the langauge. A lingua franca isn't an "official language", and as a matter of course, official documents at the time were still written in Assyrian, not in Aramaic. I won't object to Ashurbanipal if he is so dear to you, but I would be interested in a source stating that he spoke Aramaic. I agree that the Assyrians are the "bona fide" descendants of the people of the 7th century, pre-Achaemenid, Assyrian empire. Thus, the name "Assyrians" is certainly justified. It just so happens that they did not inherit the Assyrian language, which makes them the linguistic bona fide descendants of the Aramaeans. dab (&#5839;) 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen, you can look at the archives and past discussion about this topic, we have fought over and over and have worked VERY hard to finally all of us to agree on the article. You can't just come in and start having it your way. If you so dearly are so passionate about this subject, then you should have joined us in the past year. For your information Assyrians started to speak Aramaic as early as 13th century BC, you have lost totaly credabilit, if you really want to get involved in this page then talk to the 2 mods (User: Garzo, User:Khoikhoi) that have been working with us on this page for so long for ANY kind of edits to this page. Chaldean 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * you are the passionate one here, dear. I merely removed a few bogus claims, that's all. The factual substance remains the same. But, fine, I'll justify my edits one at a time. Which ones do you object to in particular? I already admitted that Ashurbanipal can stay around for your edification, even if it's patently quaint to keep him. I am not sure why I am supposed to have lost your credibility. This is merely another article needing cleanup to me, while you seem to derive your very identity from some mystical Chaldean essence. Not a good premise for writing encyclopedia articles, to say the least. dab (&#5839;) 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didnt even read what you wrote above. Please do try to get this into your head; this is a contreversial topic that has been fought over and have finally been agreed on a page finally. If you want to make dramatic changes, then your going to have to present them first and have a vote on it. Chaldean 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the only thing bogus is your editing of this article. We've come to a comprimise on this article. KhoiKhoi, Chaldean, Garzo, and several others agreed on this before we finally settled on the way it is now. Look up the Assyrian Kings list yourself and you'll see that Assyrian tablets referred to him as Sargon the Assyrian and Aramean scribes as stated in the article were depicted alongside their Akkadian brethern. Akkadian was merely the language of Government as Elamite was for the Achaemenid Dynasty even though the Eastern part of the empire was predominantly Persian and the Western portion was Aramaic.סרגון יוחנא


 * And another thing... since you claim we're "Aramean" and not Assyrian. Are you English because you speak English. Are all Americans English? That's basically what you're implying. What about Mexicans, are they Spanish? What you're claiming is quite juvenile in thought and very amature in analyzation.סרגון יוחנא


 * Some of what Dbachmann is saying is the current academic consensus — note that this is not the line put forward by the Assyrians. — Gareth Hughes 17:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show me any acedemic or historic institute declaring anything about modern Assyrian identity. Westerners never cared and still don't care to search about modern Assyrian identity, but rather would like think the only thing their is about us is that were Christian (Isn't that the truth Gareth? Isn't that why you even got interested about this topic Gareth?) Even this new fellow 'Deb' has stated this; Ashurbanipal was not a Syriac Christian. We have the page Syriac Christianity for a reason. Good day. Chaldean 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it is seriously flawed, the general consensus is shown by Joseph's book (reviewed here and Joseph's reply here). I'm just looking at Christoph Baumer's new book The Church of the East, and comparing it to the older standard work by Baum. I don't want to get into arguments about this, but it is true that the general academic community does not accept a lot of the claims of the Assyrians. I'm not arguing either way: I'm just stating that this is the situation. Of course, you could always shoot me! — Gareth Hughes 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No Gareth, I'm not going to shoot you but keep on asking you to PROVE 'the general academic community claims'. What are we going to tell an entire nation? That their wrong? Why don't you tell the Kurds their wrong Gareth? Why are you so upset with this specific subject when you very well know all other ethnics have 'claimage' problems as well. Very disresceptive of you gareth thinking anybody from Iraq is automatically a terrorist ready to 'shoot you'. Have some respect. Chaldean 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you read more into that than was there — I for one have no such prejudices about Iraqis. I'm just saying that this stuff is out there, and it's the work of academics. You are right to note that the issues of ethnicity in the Middle East are frought with tricky judgment calls. Therefore, it is in the interest of neutrality that an editor who wishes to express that many resonable people have serious problems with the concept of a contemporary, defined Assyrian ethnicity. The article is not to judge either way, but present the facts. One fact is that the majority of academics who have stated an opinion reckon that modern Assyrians are not the continuation of ancient Assyrians. Whether you like it or not, that's what's out there — I've mentioned a few books and web-based reviews that demonstrate this. — Gareth Hughes 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I don't believe your opinion on the veiws of acedemics, even if its true, what are you going to tell an entire nation? That their wrong and try to stick to them? This page is a representation of the Assyrians. Chaldean 23:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Prove that Anglo-Saxons or Germanic peoples are not descended from the snake in the Garden of Eden. First of all disprove the story existed then try to prove that through some genetic mutation or evil miracle the snake didn't spawn evil humans. Sound rediculous I know but I could compose a whole book of nonsense and come up with all sorts of "credible" refrences and pass that off as scholarly work.סרגון יוחנא 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only do I believe in the credibility of this article but I also claim: Ashur is the true God in a pantheistic sense ("the sum of all the gods [gods being a metaphor for the inexplicable]"), and the basis of Monotheistic religion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were based on, I believe that The Bible, Kuran, and Zoroastrian thought to be derived from the Assyrian Religion. The symbol of Zoroastrianism is almost identical to that of the God Ashur. I also believe that Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahman and any other so-called "divine" entity to be "divine incarnations" [very wise people] of the one God [existance]. I believe he may have revealed himself differently to other peoples. I don't hold the concept of God to be that of a living one such as an old man living on a cloud ready to strike sinners with lightning. I believe religion was put on Earth by "God" [natual human thought] purposely. Reasons being: to test people's understanding, test their loyalty to God [humanity], and to keep things dynamic [conflict]. So far everyone's failed to an extent and succeeded to an extent. People killing each other in the name of God is the greatest failure and the greatest success is that we're still here and haven't anniahalated each other [survival]. I am a direct continuation of the royal line of Sargon of Akkad [structured civilization]. סרגון יוחנא 16:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you find the above statement to be a looping self-referrencing paradox that is exactly the point.סרגון יוחנא 16:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not just through yet. What about Arabized Muslims? Most of them are not ethnically Arab yet may claim to be Arabs especially the Egyptians. Same goes for the Turks. Most of them may not even have a shread of Arab or Turk blood yet may claim descent from the groups? Why not dispute their claim to ethnicity or continuation of bloodline? The same goes for any assimilated ethnic group. Just because a race was conquered doesn't mean it was completely eliminated off the face of the Earth. What about Native Americans? They still exist after their Genocide. What about the Brittons that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered? What about countless other groups in history? When it comes to history no matter how well-documented it was it isn't absolute fact so basically what you "non-believers" are doing is racist and ethnocentric in trying to dictate our history through your means. סרגון יוחנא 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If Coptic Christians are arabs then why aren't Assyrian Christians considered arab too? This page should redicect to Christian Arabs 141.217.128.177 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very funny, Copts don't consider themselves Arab. Ask Father Zachariah. He'll laugh at you. There's a fatwa on his head because he teaches the dark side of the Quran... the real side.

Hello friends; This article sounds terrible, filled with ultra nationalist claims with no academic or scientific base. I'm happy that before me Dab and Gareth Hughes have criticized its factual accuracy. By a quick searching on internet I found these; I hope it helps.

http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/assyrians1.htm Thank you.

IranZaminBozorg 12:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your claim is false. This article has many credible sources unlike the two above you listed. Those are completely biased especially aramnahraim.org... That's a group in the diaspora trying to distance itself from Assyrian nationalism.סרגון יוחנא 13:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the Aramnahrin's article (with the expection of its intro) is the uncensoredversion of the first source, the Friesian.com, before they were insulted by Assyrianist ultra nationalist. Anyway I did not see any academic evidence for the current version of the article (Assyrian people). For your information websites like Aina.org, Christians of Iraq, Zindamagazine etc.. are all totally biased with an extreme assyrianist ultra nationalist point of view. These follow a self-referenced pseudo-scientific policy, and label all the Aramaic speaking groups of middle east as Assyrian; a claim which heavily distorts history. I don't think that anything which does not agree with Assyrianism or Assyrian ultra nationalism is necessarily wrong. We can have both the view of mainstream academia and of Assyrian nationalists themselves, in the article, in two separate sections.
 * Thank you.
 * IranZaminBozorg 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I refute your claim. Most of the articles on AINA and other links on this are not just any links. They are written by scholarly authors. Sargonious


 * Yeah, and probably especially the articles written by Fred Aprim and William Warda and their nationalist buddies?!!!! IranZaminBozorg 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they're interested in Assyrian matters they're nationalists? Or are you refuting them solely on the grounds that they have Assyrian names? Iran Zamin Bozorg (great)... Are you a meat puppet of Dab? You seem to have sprung up overnight refuting the Assyrian article of all articles in responce and almost in defense of Dab's claims. סרגון יוחנא 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)