Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 4

Protected
Hi guys. It's a pity to have this page locked again. At least, i hope that it would serve to build a concensus between yourselves for once. Please be positive. -- Szvest 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

You can't dictate our history.
This is the accepted Assyrian accounting of our history. Why should we compromise our account of history that we've held for centuries and replace them with pro-Western ones that have been developed in contemporary times according to so-called scholarly opinion (highly refutable)? There are many scholars that point to this being the correct interpretation and just because you label them "ultra-nationalist" their view is unnacceptable? It may be unacceptable to you or others but it is the concensus of the Assyrian people and of Assyrian scholars. According to Western views (racist "Indo-Europeans"/"Aryans") Jews, Muslims, and Middle Easterners are responsible for all the wrong in this world as were any race of non-European lineage. You cannot dictate or rewrite history just to satisfy a few enemies of our people.סרגון יוחנא 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus of Assyrian people??? So what???!! Do you think it is the Aramaeans/(or as you wish) modern Assyrians who say the last word? We can include their views as their viewpoint, but we cannot distort, pervert and rewrite history bydicating their nationalist claims. Remember it is Wikipedia not Assyrianismpedia. ::: BTW, in front of all it is the majority of Aramaeans (Syrianis) themselves who are against this distortion of their history by nationalist Assyrianists. IranZaminBozorg 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's enough Dab... log in with your real name. Your views have been expressed before, read the previous archived talk pages before trying to revert the progress made on this article.סרגון יוחנא 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Khon, You just accused me of being another person, (Dab),such a acusations actually are not unexpected from ultra nationalists. I'm waiting to see you acusing me of being agent of Mossad or CIA too.!!! IranZaminBozorg 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mossad or CIA has better things to do than waste time on this talk page... maybe fedayeen sadam. Sharukinu


 * LOL, I dont like Tariq Aziz so much, so I can't be a fedayi of Saddam.


 * Anyway it is very clear that all these funny accusations indicate to one thing: your weakness. Your assyrianiasm claims have long been refuted by eminent scholars, but your only desperate tactic is to attack anybody who does not agree with these baseless claims. Calling other people of being puppet of others, being related to CIA, Mukhabarat, Mossad, etc is actually very offensive. Maybe by this tactic you think you can hijcak the disputes. But sure you can't do it forever. IranZaminBozorg 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being serious only ridiculing your outrageous claims. This article is about modern Assyrians. This is the accepted concensus of Assyrians. If you wish to speak of Arameans go do so on the Arameans page. The only thing weak is your argument. You're not doing anything but repeating the claims of others from previous archives. Sharukinu


 * "IranZaminBozorg" - your an Iranian persian that knowns Sureth? Very intersting indeed. You bring "interesting" comments to the table, but the question still remains; do you want a cookie? :) Chaldean 04:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

it is appalling that this article seems to be held hostage by nationalists who call themselves things like "Chaldean", feel it is not necessary to "even read" comments, and obviously feel uninhibited by Wikipedia policy. It is undeisputed that Sargon of Akkad was the grandfather of Naram-sin, or that "Babylonia, formerly Sumer & Akkad, [became] a colony of Assyria." or that "The title of 'King of Babylon' was 'King of Sumer & Akkad' as transliterated from the Akkadian Šār Mat Šūmerī ū Akkadī". It is however perfecly enigmatic what these factoids are doing in the Lead section of this article. I did some perfectly straightforward cleanup edits to this article, removing clutter, not pushing any sort of point of view (I don't have one on this topic), and was immediately attacked with a hostility betraying the misguided puerile patriotism that is so often  found on Wikipedia. I can only state that I remain completely unimpressed by such shows of chauvinism, and that I deplore that articles get protected in the face of such behaviour. I will, of course, remove the offtopic material in the lead again once the aritcle is unprotected. dab (&#5839;) 09:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You switched s/n? You have proven yourself to be completly non-credable regarding this issue and have demonstrated to be nothing but a anti-assyrian among others users like User:Benne. Any edits of yours will be looked at and mostly likey r'vd. Good day. Chaldean 14:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't factoids. Those are the building blocks of this article. Those are little details that need to be in to get a better understanding of this article. Sharukinu

This page needs to ridirect to Kurdish Christians. Biji Kurdistan.

Then the Kurdish page needs to be redirected to Assyrian Moslems. Heil Assyria / The Beth Nahrain


 * This is getting rediculous. Every non-Assyrian ethnic group in this case needs to be under non-Assyrians. This includes merging every race and ethnic group into the non-Assyrian ethnic group. See us Assyrians are uniting the whole world. : ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs).

Can all you patriots spare a minute and look at WP:5P? This article isn't part of some Wikipedia from a parallel universe, and you don't own it. It is in dire need of cleanup according to policy and MoS. You can either accept these in good faith, or write your own article on geocities. Unless you are ready to debate politely based on mutual acceptance of policy ("Sargonius" could begin by signing his posts), we cannot even begin to address issues. Sargon of Akkad is a "building block of this article"? Pray elaborate. If you can drop your hostile and unreasonable attitude, we can fix things. If you just continue with the nationalist trolling, I will suggest it will be the disruptive editors that should be blocked, not the article that should be protected. dab (&#5839;) 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You won't get your way by simply threatening us by trying to have us blocked. That is desperation speaking simply because you can't have it your way. This article in its currents stage took months to form and we had to all agree on it and finally come to a conlcusion that it was the best it has ever been and you simply want to come in overnight and change it. I don't think so. Everything is referenced that you refute and you still complain that the links are biased. Who are you? Where are your credentials on this subject? You and Benne seem to even refute Harvard studies that show the origin of the name of Syria being derived from Assyria. This will go on forever if you keep pushing this anti-Assyrian stance. No Assyrian will ever accept your interpretation.סרגון יוחנא 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab
It's you against the whole group of people that have worked on this article for some time. Let's have a vote on changes. You seem to thin you're Saddam or something coming in and trying to reshape this article in your perception of Assyrians. That simply won't cut it. We'll be Democratic about this. No Ba'ath party rules here buddy.סרגון יוחנא 23:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I've worked on this article, and I still have huge problems with its content. It's not based on scientific, but rather on nationalist sources. As far as I've seen, I support Dab's edits to the article.
 * The fact that the so-called Assyrians believe they descended from the ancient Assyrians, should of course never be a reason for disregarding scholarly works that prove otherwise. This is (supposed to be) an encyclopaedia, not a patriotic forum.
 * One more thing, voting on scientific matters is nonsense. Fools outnumber the wise. Besides, |Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dab recommended reading WP:5P earlier; it may be a good idea to follow that up by looking at WP:OWN. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not acting as if I own the article. I'm reverting these nonsense claims by Aramaean supremacists.סרגון יוחנא 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't you start the talk page section entitled "You can't dictate our history"? That looks like a claim of ownership to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. He wants to come in and change history overnight as if he authored it. Sargon


 * When you claim that the article needs to be based on the beliefs of the Assyrian community (of which you seem to be a member), and that people who disagree with you are anti-Assyrian, racists, Aramean supremacists, and Baathist sympathizers, it sounds to me like you're claiming authority over the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You people have lost it. Now you want to argue with me over the talk pages. You can't counter my claims. All I hear is nonsense. Just read the article in its entirety and the previous archives to see that most of what you're claiming has already been refuted and countered with alternate theories that have rendered your thoughts in vein. Satana

Ephrem the Syrian
Ephrem the Syrian was a Syrian, not an Assyrian. Therefore, the picture should be removed. Syriacs might be an appropriate article for his picture. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He was from Nisbis an Assyrian city so I refute that claim. In the Suryaya context the term is synonymous with Assyrian. Just like Ashurbanipal being rendered Sourdinapalis by the Greeks. Sargon

Ashurbanipal = Sourdinapalis in Greek
Assyria = Syria in Greek. Read the Harvard study: Assyria and Syria...סרגון יוחנא 18:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v11n2/frye.pdf
 * Professor John Joseph refutes Frye's theory by stating Syrians is synonymous with Aramaeans: . --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care how prestigious The University of Edinburgh may be Harvard holds supremacy over it.סרגון יוחנא

Democratic Process
Like I said before: We can go about this democratically. We will vote if any of your so called radical comments (Anti-Assyrian) shall be approved for editing the article. Maybe something like the Azerbaijani people article can be worked out where it lists three possible theories such as the Iranian theory, Turkic theory, and the Caucasian origin theory. I don't really feel it is necessary because the article already proposes such a thing by mentioning Arameans, Chaldeans, and Assyrians as well as others as possible ancestors of the people but you people seem to completely ignore those facts and just focus on the Assyrian topic because of your biased and completely anti-Assyrian views. Maybe if you read the entire article and all the main article links your heads would come out of your asses and you wouldn't be so damn blind to judge this article as "Assyrianist." Many so-called Assyrian nationalists have actually bashed this article for not being Assyrian enough. Benne wants this article to be removed of any Assyrian references and changed to Aramaean as you can see in older edits he has done so. Please read the whole thing out thoroughly and read all of the previous archives before trying to rewrite this in your own view of what our people are. There are more studies on Assyrians that proclaim what this article states than what you believe. You simply refute them by claiming they're Assyrianist. That is biased and racist.סרגון יוחנא 18:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, WP is not a democracy. Apparently, you can't find the arguments to support your views, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted to voting, a method which can never resolve a matter like this.
 * Again, you spread nonsense about me. I've stated it over and over again that I don't care what you call yourself. It just that I believe it should be made clear that claims that the modern Assyrians descend from the ancient Assyrians are heavily disputed.
 * One more problem I have with the way this subject is dealt with on Wikipedia, is that the people calling themselves Syriacs and/or Aramaeans are also referred to as Assyrians. This should be solved once and for all. This article should be about the so-called Assyrians only. Consequently, Assyrian genocide should either be renamed, or be changed in such a way that does not deal with the Sayfo in Tur Abdin, for example. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you people just don't get it.
Assyria was a territory enncompassing the lands of the former empire now only a historical region. That historical region holds many ethnic groups. Anyone descending from those indegenous groups are considered Assyrian. It's more of a "nationality" than simply an ethnic group. It is a national/ethno-religious group. Think of Assyria as modern day USA. Many people from all over the world come to the center of Western/Contemporary civilization and a lot are assimilated into the dominant culture. The ancient world not much different. Babylon was the center of Ancient Civilization in the "Known World." Yes there were Arameans (Chaldeans included), Akkadians, Sumerians, Kassites, Amorites, etc. The genetic make of most of the middle east is composed of some sort of combination including any of the afformentioned peoples. This is explained in the article. What can't you see? The Prophet
 * I see, just like Kurds from Turkey are considered Turks? And Tibetans are considered Chinese? In that case, Syriacs from Turkey should also be called Turks, and those from Iraq, Iraqis. Right?
 * You can't dictate history, you said previously. I'm afraid you're doing exactly that, by assuming that the Aramaeans had assimilated into Assyrian culture. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an Assumption, the mother of Esharhadon was Aramean. I didn't just mention that Assyrian kings took Aramean wives as a factoid as Dab would claim. Royalty marying a different "race" was a symbolic merger of cultures on the macro level. If it occured on the macro level which it did it definately occured on the micro level. Perhaps you can't grasp that concept...סרגון יוחנא 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * the so-called Assyrians - THEIR YOU HAVE IT FOKES. Evidence that this aramean extremist Benne has no credability to edit anything Assyrian related since he things we as a people are a joke. Heck, he doesn't even believe the US Congress is credable enough! []. Its not a coincidence that all these aramean extremist are coming from Germany. Heck, I'm sure User:Benne and User:Dab were part of the rally in Germany burning Assyrian symbols. []. You cry and cry   It's not based on scientific, but rather on nationalist sources - I ask WHAT SCIENTIFIC STUDY HAVE EVER BEEN DONE ON OUR PEOPLE? Look at all the books that have been written on Assyrians, nothing has been said except being called either Christian or Nestorian (even thou not all of us belonged to the nestorian church, an example is with Agha Petros being called a nestorian by British entillegence during WWI even thou he was a Chaldean Catholic.) What scientific evidence is their to connect the Kurds with the Hurrian and Medes?! Please show me! How come your not attacking that page either? And the Kurds is not the only page, all ethnic pages are like that. I am going to say this for the last time; this is page is a representation of the Assyrian community around the world; their culture, their views, and most importantly their beliefs. I will not stand here and watch European missionaries and Aramean extremist terrorize this page. Chaldean 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chaldeans
First of all I am Chaldean Catholic. Most Chaldeans in the diaspora understand what Chaldean and Assyrian are yet have a heavily distored vision thanks to Sarhad Jammo, A Bishop from Troy, MI now in CA. I am in no way biased or an Assyrianist. I was raised into this Chaldean propoganda and only later in life did I understand the differences between different "Chaldean groups" or "Aramaean groups" and that we are all actually Assyrian because that was our nation not Chaldea nor Aramea. Those became domains of the Assyrian nation and the nation stuck with the name even in the times of the Roman Empire and beyond. And for our language we say Sureth not Arameth not Kasdu (Kasdim) or Kaldu and our people are named after Assyrian Emperors not Chaldean nor Babylonian hence Sargon, Shamiram, Nineveh, Nahrain, (na)Ramsin, Ashur, Sinkho(arib), (A)Sarhad(on) etc. and not Hamurabi, Nebuchadnasir, Lugal Zagi Zi, etc.סרגון יוחנא 19:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you chaldos are assyrian, I am a aturiya or whatever its called, and if the chaldos helped to destroy the assyrian empire then how are they assyrian? So that says that they are NOT assyrians,but there own group of people who are diffrent from assyrians. Plus the chaldos church doesn't listen to HH Mar Dinkha IV the patriarch of our real and the first church of christians.

Well first of all you might want to say who you are and second of all the Church isn't what makes you Assyrian and another thing read the history of the Chaldean church for it started as part of our original church. Si qtol ganukh spisa. Well, in history it says that the chaldeanens and the medes teamed up to destroy the assyrians so if chaldos destroyed the assyrians then they really should not be considered assyrian right? and the chaldeanen church was made AFTER the original church with an agreement to the roman catholic church, that they would obey every order and that the pope is their most powerful person of their church. Yeah, I thought so. Coolio903 Sargon Gabriel's Hakkari is a classic contemporary Assyrian song that depicts the passion between land and its inhabitants.סרגון יוחנא 05:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sargonious
Is Sargionius to be banned from editing this article only by way of ArbCom's decision? If there is no other way to salvage the article from his tendentious editing, I think I would support the motion. -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you should go ahead and ban User:Benne, and User:Khoikhoi as well. If anyone has reverted countless times and put back what HE believed was right it's Benne.סרגון יוחנא 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Assyrians are a bunch of confused people. Please decide between either Kurdish Christians or Arab Christians.


 * As my anscestors did: I would rather choose death instead. But if I had to pick between Arab or Kurd, I would pick Messianic Jew because they're more closely related and have a more civilized country than Arabs or Kurds (Israel vs The entire Arab League). I would definately not pick Turks, that's for sure. Nothing against Turks, I just don't like agglutinative languages. Persian sounds nice but I don't like the Arabic words added in. We're Assyrians for Ashur's sake. We serve the all-enompassing "sky god" also known as Iah to the Egyptians and Yah(weh) to the Jews/Canaanites. : )סרגון יוחנא 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no stake whatsoever in the battle that appears to be raging here. In fact I know next to nothing about the facts in dispute. However, I do know something about argumentation, & it may be worthwhile saying something about the character of the argument found in this talk page.

The arguments put forward by the likes of סרגון יוחנא bear every hallmark of faith-based belief. His or her last post, immediately above, trumpets it aloud, as if to put at rest any remaining doubts concerning his or her visceral allegiance to at least two creeds, one religious & one nationalistic. Bear in mind the Latin etymology of the word: creed derives from credo, which means 'I believe'. This could easily devolve into a 'debate' over the merits of faith as opposed to reason, but it would be rather beside the point to get into that. What must be understood as a first principle is that Wikipedia intends to be an academically legitimate encyclopedia; that is apparent everyhere from public expressions in the news to the entire body of Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore a lucid conception of what an encyclopedia consists in is entirely of the essence.

Ever since the first modern encyclopedia, Diderot's 'Encyclopedie ou Dictionnaire raisonne des Sciences, des Arts, et des Metieres' (plus the appropriate diacritical marks), an encyclopedia has been synonymous with a literary work that contains as exhaustive a collection of the gathered knowledge of scholarship & science as it is possible to put together. If Wikipdia is to be part of that definition & endeavour, & there is every indication that most wish it to be, it will have to exclude the types of argument put forth by סרגון יוחנא, which are, after all, just the sort of 'reasoning' the encyclopedia--science & scholarship--seek to stamp out. If there are other arguments for whatever is being proposed, ones that issue from legitimate scholarship--that is, the type of scholarship that passes muster in the traditional encyclopediae (since this is the English Wikipedia, those would be best represented by the Encyclopaedia Britannica)--then it ought to be included in the article.

However, applying tar-&-pitch disparagements & ethnic slurs in the talk page of a Wikipedia article is insufficient to support one's own understanding of its topic based on tradition & faith. Both that understanding & the chosen means of injecting it into the discourse are foreign to the purposes, methods, & spirit of the literary encyclopedia that Wikipedia is in a constant state of striving to become. The likes of סרגון יוחנא run counter to everything Wikipedia stands for. RubyQ 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah... I understand but I'm actually an agnostic. I'm going by what I've read in published books and articles. Science damn it! May natural selection take its course. I just speak metaphorically. I think abstractly. I guess I'll have to speak in human from now on. Lousy fancy monkeys.סרגון יוחנא 05:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a word search. The only instance of "I believe" was by Benne. I never state I believe. People believe all sorts of nonsense like litteral interpretation of the Bible or Kuran for example.סרגון יוחנא 16:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought 'We're Assyrians for Ashur's sake. We serve the all-enompassing "sky god" also known as Iah to the Egyptians and Yah(weh) to the Jews/Canaanites.', from your post above, was intended in earnestness.


 * Also, Chaldean states above (in boldface): 'this is page is a representation of the Assyrian community around the world; their culture, their views, and most importantly their beliefs. perhaps it was Chaldean I should have mentioned in my comments.

RubyQ 06:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * RubyQ, Please dont make סרגון יוחנא the posterboy for our arguement. Chaldean 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't represent the Assyrian or Aramaean consensus. I represent my thought and my thought is developed through school and independent studies. Unfortunately for others who wish to base their edits on what they've read on the internet by means of propogandist web sites, shame on you. I don't represent your stereotypical Assyrian or Middle Easterner for that matter. I've been in America since Kindergarten. I am enrolled in College right now. Ultimately I would like to earn my Assyriology degree from the University of Michigan. Currently I am working on a Bachelors of Business Administration in Multimedia. I don't represent conventional thought. If it were up to me the world would be stateless and people would be governed by a microchip implanted in their brains to prevent themselves from harming themselves or others. Down with the establishment and National/Ethnic/Religious division. 'TIL ALL ARE ONE! סרגון יוחנא 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sargonius (a.k.a. סרגון יוחנא): As I'm sure you've been warned before, Wikipedia follows a principle of NPOV. If you (or anyone else) wish to insult and pursue an agenda ("Down with the establishment..." etc), and not follow NPOV on this page, then do not edit here. --Singkong2005 &middot; talk 13:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I made no such insult. Don't you dare threaten me because you misinterpret what I say. How the hell is Down with the establishment an insult? Don't answer that question either. I meant that in a rhetorical way. Think of something having to do with this talk page or article rather than just bash me because you can't counter what I say with anything that holds ground.סרגון יוחנא 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East
My name is Romil, I am Assyrian. I attempted to edit this page before, but gave up trying. Here is some scientific evidence that Assyrians are infact a distinct group of people. The genetic study was done by a population genetics luminary, Cavalli Sforza. However, do not get the misconception that Assyrians are genetically connected to there Assyrian Ancestors, NO, this study shows only that they are distinct compared to everyone else. Meaning they are not Arabs nor Kurds. The only way to connect Assyrians with there ancestors is by sequencing DNA from ancient Assyrian remains and that is not available. Romil

What's synonymous with Aram(aean)?
This sentence isn't clear to me:


 * Some believe that the term "Syria(n)" was derived from "Assyria(n)" and others believe that it is synonymous with Aram(aean).

Reading literally, it sounds like "Syria(n)"...is synonymous with Aram(aean) but considering the article's subject, I suspect it's supposed to say that "Assyria(n)"... is synonymous with Aram(aean). --Singkong2005 · talk 14:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Syrian is believed by some to be synonymous with Aramaean though other sources point to Syrian being synonymous with Assyrian. סרגון יוחנא 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1.6 million people who speak their own language have simular religion and one history wich includes an empire and many attempts to create an modern state.And some people can say those people are not a nation and dont deserve an indipentent state. I think that there only 3 reasons to say something like that:you dont know anythink about history or your interest come in conflict with an indipentent christian state in middle-east wich will have oil in his region or an non arabic state in that region may have conflicts with his neighbors so more problems to the western states who dont care about historical justice but about justice of their intrests

excuse any mistakes in my english

Dab
I think shes right to sat that the assyrian history has been very distorted by historical scholars. We are assyrians because we are born into and that people who distort our history our not, Armeanen supermacists, but are white people who our mad at us for not being absorbed in their westernization process and muslims because we have not become absorbed in their arabization process. There is no evidence that we are not assyrians but people still act like our langauge, our culture, theese things that people want us to give up our what we have that trace us back to our ancestors who lived between the rivers. Coolio903 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Coolio903

Khoikhoi's unwarranted edits
There was a referrence to what you removed claiming it as unsourced and none of your edits were discussed on the talk page.


 * I found your replacement a load of nonsense. It may have been sourced, but the use of those sources made a nonsense of them. — Gareth Hughes 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alqosh, the center of Assyrian Culture?
Come on now. That is highly disputable. It needs to be reworded to say the located in the midst of the Assyrian Heartland. That sounds more neutral. What about Araden or Tel Keppe?


 * Maybe I worded wrong, but what I meant is that it is the largest Assyrian town today, in terms of population. Its like a self-proclaimed capital of Atoor. And you can see that if you ever visit these Iraqi villages. Chaldean 05:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaldeans are not assyrians
Chaldeans are not assyrians because they do not speak assyrian they speak chaldean. They should be called chaldeans and not assyrians.


 * Chaldeans don't speak Assyrian, they speak Aramaic. Assyrians also speak Aramaic. Chaldean and Assyrian are dialects of Neo-Aramaic. Chaldeans are Assyrians that belong to the Chaldean Catholic Church. You people amongst me in the diaspora are oblivious to your history.סרגון יוחנא 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you guys should check out this website, because so many of our people, as Sargonious stated, are oblivious to our history. http://www.assyriandoc.com/ --Šarukinu 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon?
This may be covered somewhere in the six archives that I don't have time to read, but this is the only page that relates Assyrians to Lebanon. I don't know anything about this subject and came here trying to look it up -- all of the other pages related to Assyria talk about Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. If Lebanon is in there too should it be explained here or fixed elsewhere? 75.56.54.56 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you asking? Lebanese people possibly being some descent of Assyrians? Chaldean 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I know of the Lebanese and Syrian communities around the world has a small Assyrian minority represented among them. I figure there are Assyrians, but in small numbers found in Australia, South America, East Asia and in parts of Sub-saharan Africa. Assyrians live wherever global Arab communities existed for over a century, so let's check out any more Assyrians in this wide world gets smaller and more connected. + 63.3.14.2 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Maronites in Lebanon are of Assyrian origin.


 * well their are about 5,000 - 10,000 Assyrians in Lebanon today, split with ACOE, Chaldean, and Jacobite. The make up of Lebanese Christian people is not clear, but recent DNA studies does show phoenican connection. [] Chaldean 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

High Relevant to this Article
Despite Garzo's opinion, this is further clarification of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac naming crisis. I also have this under that Chaldean disambig page as well for it is relevant to that as well for not all may venture to this article.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac name crisis
First and formost none of the "Assyrian" or "Chaldean" Emperors referred to themselves as such. They all referred to themselves as Kings of "Sumer and Akkad." Assyrian (Babylonian as well) was coined by the Greeks centuries after (in a historical context) to refer to those whom held Ashur as the supreme diety in the land of Sumer and Akkad for example as the Jews referred to southern Mesopotamia as "Shinar" which meant "land of the moon [god]." "Babylonia" was also coined by the Greeks to refer to southern Mesopotamia which had its "capital" in Bab-ilu aka Kadingirra aka "Babylon." Just as people in ancient Sumer and Akkad referred to themselves by the city-state they inhabbited and religion they followed so do the modern people, they refer to their ethno-religious group by village and/or "national" origin. "Chaldean" was also coined by the Greeks to refer to the last indegenous conquerors of "Babylonia." In reality in the Syriac language we ALL refer to ourselves as Sourayeh or Souryoyeh which is simply translated as Syrian in English which itself is Greek-derived from the designation of the former colonial territories of Assyria for they referred to Sumer and Akkad as Assyria and its colonies (Aram and Canaan) as Syria. That is it in a nutshell. We are Sourayeh/Souryoyeh and ultimately we are Assyrian, Babylonian, and the "Sons and Daughters of the Fusion of Sumer and Akkad." We are Chaldean as well and we are Aramaean as well. However if you want to get into semantics, some hold the God Ashur as one with the Christian God Yah(weh) aka "God the Father" which himself started out as the Canaanite storm god which was roughly equivelent to Ashur and interpreted by the "Hebrews" as the one God; the so-called "sky axle" or "Holder of Heaven" therefore we are THE true "Assyrians" in an ethno-religious sense. Also compare Yah to Ea and you will see the origins of the Abrahamic religions lie in the land that is now called Iraq.

Chaldean is Greek-derived from the Akkadian_language form of "Kaldu" which in Hebrew is "Kasdu" which may actually be in refference to the Kassites whom once ruled Babylon well before the "Chaldean Dynasty." It was also used interchangebly with "Astrologer" in which Astrology was key in the Mesopotamian religion so even in that sense we are true "Chaldeans" as well for Judaism is a monotheistic religion that evoloved from it and gradually evolved into Christianity and even Islam.


 * You cannot simply say that Chaldean and Assyrian are names derived from Greeks, or Islam or what have you. Unless you have strong concrete evidence, you cannot prove that the Assyrian is a derived name any more than it is a true one. Tourskin 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply make an argument so weak and expect someone to simply doubt my statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.34.207 (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Assyrian Americans' favorite meal...
Assyrian Americans love Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles and their favorite desert to chase it after chowing down on some Fried Chicken and Waffles is Watermellon. And if ya don't know now ya know sand ni... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.15.7.70 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Ephrem the Syrian
Ephrem the Syrian's picture should be removed from this article. The word "Assyrian" is not mentioned in the article Ephrem the Syrian, not even once! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion before and its in the archive 6. He was a Suraya, enough said. Chaldean 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion was never brought to a conclusion, no convincing evidence was ever presented. You might believe Sur(y)aya to be synonymous with Assyrian, but that is disputed. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is not disputed among Assyrians. And like we've said this again and again; this page is a representation of the Assyrian community. Their beliefs, their views, etc. Chaldean 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not. If that's what you want Wikipedia to be, I suggest you start your own website. The Islam article does not reflect the beliefs of the Islamic community, it contains encyclopaedic information about that subject. Likewise should this article reflect what is known about the people who consider themselves Assyrians. The fact that you consider Ephrem the Syrian an Assyrian, does not make him one. I believe him to be of Aramaean descent (as do many Syriac Orthodox), but I don't put his picture on the Aramaeans page, unless I can provide ample evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benne (talk • contribs).
 * You can't put the word Aramean with the same level as Assyrian. One is recognized by the international body as the direct desents of the ancient Assyrians, while the other was created in Northern Europe couple decades ago. This page is about the Assyrian community, in case you haven't noticed it by now. Chaldean 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As Assyrians claim Ephrem as one of their great historical figures I think it's fine to include him here as a part of modern Assyrian culture. However, it would be another matter to call Ephrem an Assyrian, that would be anachronistic. No contemporary or near-contemporary literature calls him Assyrian. He is called ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, which is translated 'the Syrian' in English, and would be inappropriate to translate as 'Assyrian' (that is ܐܬܘܪܝܐ). He was a native of Nisibis, which was only ever annexed to Adiabene. He can be called Nisibene (or Edessan, refering to where he later settled) or Mesopotamian, because that is where he lived. He can be called Syriac because that was the language in which he wrote. He is called Syrian in English mostly by convention, but as a translation of his usual epithet ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, as above. Any other descriptions would be inaccurate. So, all in all, yes Ephrem is an important figure in Assyrian culture, but no it would be technically inappropriate to say he was Assyrian. If anyone wants to find decent references that state Ephrem is Assyrian, present them, and we'll discuss them, but, if the claim cannot be sourced, it should not be made. — Gareth Hughes 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gareth, Nisibis was in fact an Assyrian city in times predating the kingdom of Adiabene (or Osroene). It was the seat of a provincial governor named Šamaš-abua at least since 851 BC . So it's safe to say that Nisibis was quite (if not heavily) Assyrianized, especially at the time of Tiglath-Pileser III.Šarukinu 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Benne, I know where you stand on this whole identity issue, but please be mindful to the possibility that Ashuraya and Suryaya are synonymous terms. I can direct you to several scholarly sources if you wish. Here's a report by AINA (Assyrian International News Agency) - which I DON'T trust completely because AINA is often biased - but they make reference to a very important archeological find in Turkey, published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. http://www.aina.org/ata/20070218144107.htm


 * Again, do not pay so much attention to the opinions in the article, because I'm sure you will not agree with them right away (I myself found it to be a little bit biased, but with a good cause). I think I have a copy of the journal article lying around somewhere, so if you like I can send you a copy. Basically, they found a bilingual inscription (in Luwian, an ancient Anatolian language, and Phoenician) in which an Anatolian king makes reference to the Assyrians as "Sur" in the Luwian language, and "Assur" in Phoenician. Check it out and let me know what you think, ahono. Šarukinu 14:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians in UK
I have come across a building connected to the "Assyrian Society United Kingdom" - but there are no references on the internet. Anyone care to develop? Jackiespeel 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Republican Army
When the hell will we be armed and allowed to do to the entire Arab League what Israel has done to Palestine only tenfold?The Tsar is Gone but I am King 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider rephrasing - some people might take offence. Jackiespeel 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ASSYRIANS
I have researched the world fact book at the UNEP centre and it states that today's Assyrians have the name because of the geographic location and there is no connection between the Modern day Assyrians and those Semitic people who once lived in Mesopotamia.

Most Assyrians are Tel Keifis and they are Indo europeans who moved in from Asia they are an Asiatic people and BABYLONIANS ARE NOT ASSYRIANS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mriraq (talk • contribs) 13:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

The same argument could be made of quite a few "geographical locator based regional population names." The British today are not the same as the Britons of the Roman period etc. Jackiespeel 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, Indo Europeans. Wow, it's amazing what people come up with these days. It's very possible that we Assyrians have Indo-European blood in our ancestry, but the extent to which that is true is disputable, and thus it is not certain. For the most part, our lineage is of Assyrian ancestry, and to say that modern Assyrians are strictly Indo-European is quite ignorant, because you have not considered the Assyrian people's history after the fall of the empire in 610BC, and the fact we Assyrians are a Semitic people who have spoken a Semitic language for thousands of years. There is no evidence that the ancient Assyrians were completely whiped out or mass-deported - in stead, they continuously inhabited the region of Assyria-proper, fleeing to the surrounding mountainous areas whenever certain situations necessitated it. Another major aspect of our identity is that we identify more with the Assyrian culture than any other, which has a certain history of roughly 4000 years (~7000 if you go with the traditional date).

Modern Aramaic dialects of Syriac?
I added a Fact tag to the sentence where modern Aramaic languages are called dialects of Syriac, which, as far as I know, is not true. Turoyo, for example, comes from a different branch of Aramaic than Syriac. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What new invention are you trying to make now Benne? Hmm...from Syriac language;
 * Modern Syriac (a Modern Eastern Aramaic language), which remains divided:
 * Modern Western Syriac (Turoyo and Mlahsô)
 * Modern Eastern Syriac (Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic etc.). Chaldean 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Population
you are listing Assyrian political organizations which make their own claims, Chaldeans are not Assyrians and I dont have two use names, I am one of two people, and we are both laughing at the Assyrian inferiority complex since such a semitic group is extinct, and as modern day Jews claim being 'Jewish' as a nationality whilst the name of the ethnic semitic group is 'Hebrew's', the Chaldeo-Assyrian groups use the name based on a relationship with a christian Church and geographic location and there is no scientific proof of the connection with the once semitic people who settled on Mesopotamia,and you cant make claims such as 'their adopted countries' because the semites who once lived there have been arabized and the only existing ancient people of Iraq are Sabeans and Jews, because many of them have not converted and remained within their communities. If Chaldeans and Assyrians adopted the language of their new homelands as you say like Syria, Iraq etc then this means they are immigrants who have settled a region migrating from another like Armenian's,Turkomans who have come from the former Soviet States etc. Nimrod1976 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone change the population of Assyrians? Those numbers are completely off.

This site can help: http://aina.org/faq.html

~AssyrianKing     4/30/2007


 * Those numbers are way baised. These numbers listed above are the most accurate since most of them come from offical census. Chaldean 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion - Ashurism?
I don't understand why Ashurism is listed as a "religion" for the Assyrian people, even if it is their ancient religion. It is a religion dated by thousands of years. I don't see why it should be listed for Assyrians, while there is no pagan religion listed for Italians, Greeks, or Germans.

Census data
According to the US Census Bureau website, there are 82,355 people listed as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". I believe this should be reflected in the article, now people might think that all of them consider themselves Assyrians, which is apparently not true. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look talk page after talk page your rant on and on with your anti-Assyrianess. Please give it a rest.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the members?
In the Religion section, I changed "Most (although not all) the members" to "Many members". There are no statistics available on this matter, and I sincerely doubt whether a majority of the Syriac Orthodox consider themselves Assyrians. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good edit, but and I sincerely doubt whether a majority of the Syriac Orthodox consider themselves Assyrians that is your opinion. Chaldean 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my impression, actually, based on my own experiences, and on surveys conducted among Syriacs in Turkey, which show that a vast majority of them consider themselves Süryani, while a minority appears to call themselves Asuri or Arami. One of these surveys has been published in Turkish, but was based on a relatively small group of people, most of them living in Istanbul (if I remember correctly), the other is not yet published, but held among more than 200 Syriacs in the Southeast of Turkey, both in cities and towns like Diyarbakır, Mardin, and Midyat, and in a variety of villages in Tur Abdin. As soon as the latter is published (in the form of a Ph.D. thesis), I will include this information in the article. For now, I'll content myself with "many", because it is true that many Syriacs, especially in the diaspora, consider themselves Assyrians (and many other Aramaeans, for that matter). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, this talk page is the appropriate place to share opinions ... ;-) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * and on surveys conducted among Syriacs in Turkey - Benne, I dont know if you are aware of this or not but the Syriac Orthodox in Turkey make only a fraction of the total Syriac Orthodox population in the middle east. Honestly, I wouldn't be suprised if a slight majority of Syriacs Ortho/Cath did consider themselves Assyrian as I wouldn't be suprised of the majority did not. Nobody knowns the answer as it is impossible to find out. I will however leave you with Syriac Catholics] celebrating Akitu last week in Baghdida. Chaldean 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it ever occur to anybody that all these terms we have ("Ashuraya", "Ashuri", "Assuraya", "Assuri", "Atouraya", "Atouri", "Othuroyo", "Suraya", "Suryoyo", "Suryaya") are all synonymous?? Has anybody even checked out the link I posted above? Šarukinu 17:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups
I have been very persistently sought out to address concerns on a page that is far afield from anything I consider to be an area of expertise. In fact, although this is an interesting article that I personally would nominate as a WP:GAC without much thought it is an area that is not an interest of mine in the sense that I could adequately assess what direction to push the article for improvement. I have received numerous emails and talk page messages from two users who are troubled by the state of the article. I personally would like to see the article get the attention of an ethnic group expert who is neither pro-Assyrian nor anti-Assyrian to ensure the page as a WP:NPOV. I do not want to impair the research that has been assembled at this page by tagging it with fact or dubious tags although I see a few places where it might be appropriate. I would just request that someone more qualified than myself address concerns such as those found at my talk page.

Personally, I believe that the concerns two users who have been blocked for procedural improprieties merit attention. Despite the fact that they pursue deletions and blankings, they present valid arguments for their points of contestation with respect to those I am qualified to investigate. As an admirer of beautiful women, I am qualified to assess arguments about beauty pageants and have helped to move pages in proper direction with respect to their wishes and the betterment of the encyclopedia. However, despite what one might infer from looking at my user page and drawing inferences on the types of articles I have presented for featured and good status, I am just a pseudo intellectual. I am not qualified to address serious concerns about contentious sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and ethnic issues such as these. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The person, "Nimrod1976" that is bringing you "concerns" is the same person as the one that is being out of control named "MrIraq" on the Cladia Hanna page. I stop reading after the second sentence when stated "Chaldeans and Assyrians being one is false". Chaldean 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Babylonia in the opening paragraph.
"Babylonia (formerly Sumer and Akkad) was a colony of Assyria."

This sentence doesn't make any sense, nor is it factual, and so I think we should remove it. Any objections? --Šarukinu 02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It was colonized by Assyrians. Agro


 * Agro, Babylonia was never colonized by Assyrians. Several Assyrian kings were able to ascend the throne of Babylonia, but their kingship was always deposed by a native Babylonian within a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, Babylonian culture was maintained throughout Assyrian hegemony, and even heavily influenced Assyrian culture (for instance, scribal culture, mythology, literature, etc).Šarukinu 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Çineköy Inscription - the terms "Syria" and "Assyria"
Hey everyone. Check out the Identity section - I added a new bit of information about a bilingual inscription attesting to the synonymy between the terms "Syria" and "Assyria".. don't worry, it's well sourced and legitimate, from the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Let me know what you think! --Šarukinu 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Identity section
''In order to assimilate them, the ancient Assyrian empire relocated conquered populations to urban areas all over the empire. Today, Assyrians and other ethnic groups feel pressure to identify as "Arabs".''

I also came across these 2 lines at the end of the Identity section. It seems like they were just stuck i there at the end, and didn't relate to the previous paragraphs, nor do they relate to each other. How can we clean this up?--Šarukinu 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Smorgasbord of Assyrian-American Culture
Check out the videos. One is of an Assyrian-American movie in Aramaic and English. http://www.myspace.com/sargonious

Genetic link with ancient Assyrians
The following text is POV and unsourced:
 * Modern Assyrians descend from the inhabitants of the ancient Assyrian Empire that began under Sargon I and encompassed the area that is now Iraq (Mesopotamia), Syria, southeastern Turkey, western Iran, Palestine and the Armenian highlands. The evidence of genetic and cultural continuity is strong. Although more ancient graves need to be found and their contents exhumed, examined, carbon-dated and DNA remains compared with contemporary samples, the DNA analysis that has been conducted "shows that [Assyrians] have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population."[28]

If we read the citation thoroughly, we notice that the people who currently refer to themselves as Assyrians, are indeed a population quite distinct from the people surrounding them. However, the article provides no evidence that modern Assyrians descend from the ancient Assyrians! Hence, it's simply incorrect that "the evidence of genetic and cultural continuity" is strong, at least if this statement is based on this single source. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well "The evidence of genetic and cultural continuity is strong." should simply be changed to "The evidence of linguastic and cultural continuity is strong." Chaldean 11:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Continuity with what? It is suggested that there is continuity from the ancient Assyrians, which is simply not verified.
 * I believe the whole sentence Modern Assyrians descend from the inhabitants of the ancient Assyrian Empire that began under Sargon I and encompassed the area that is now Iraq (Mesopotamia), Syria, southeastern Turkey, western Iran, Palestine and the Armenian highlands. should be deleted. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your just being ignorant now. Your goals are pretty obvious, I dont even know why I got into a convo with you. Chaldean 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence shouldn't be deleted, Benne, but it should be restructured - Palestine isn't anywhere near Assyria-proper, and we are descendants of the Assyrians themselves, not simply the inhabitants of the Assyrian empire, which could include people of vastly different ethnicities. As for the piece about the genetic studies, I think it's highly valid. First of all, there is genetic similarity within the Assyrian population, and genetic dissimilarity with other ethnic groups. That suggests we are genetically distinct from Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds, and Armenians, etc. Second, we are the only surviving people who still speak a variation of Aramaic which is highly infused with Akkadian. Third, our people have continuously inhabited the regions of Assyria proper since the fall of the empire. Again, let me restate the fact that we have genetic similarity within the Assyrian population, and genetic dissimilarity with other ethnic groups. What more objective information do you need, Benne? Shall I get a time machine for you ahono? ;) --Šarukinu 23:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is genetic similarity within the modern Assyrian/Chaldaean people, I have not doubted that. However, there is no evidence that the modern Assyrians are the same people as the ancient Assyrians. You still have not provided any source that proves that similarity. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he won't be satisfied enough until you call yourself Aramaya - no joke. Chaldean
 * I think you're right, Chaldean. So Benne, what are you suggesting? --Šarukinu 20:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is providing information based on reliable sources. That was not the case. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a very reliable source, Benne. What it comes down to is how you interpret it. Your bias steers you to interpret it as something insignificant, whereas a nationalistic Assyrian's bias will steer them to interpret it as something in support of their argument, and perhaps even more. There will probably never be any "reliable sources" on this issue, because nobody can dig up thousands of ancient Assyrian skeletons and compare their DNA with the DNA of Assyrians from today - but then again many remains have been found, so it's not impossible. Likewise with Aramaeans - in that sense, we should discount the Aramaean identity because we can't compare the DNA of people who today claim to be Aramaean with the DNA of ancient Aramaeans. Where do you draw the line, ahono?--Šarukinu 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

History section
Some Wiki editors have suggested that we move the history section from this article to the newly created History of the Assyrians article, and leave just a stub on this page. This will help keep this page concise, and allow us to make edits more efficiently. Any objections? --Šarukinu 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this would be smart so that we will have more room to write in other sections of this article such as religion and culture. Chaldean 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Check it out, and let me know what we can do from there. --Šarukinu 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suryanistani
You aren't Assryian. You guys are Syrian Christians. You are called Suryanistanis.
 * Good job, buddy. Go read a few books, then come back :) --Šarukinu 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * La-why not Iraqistani? Era p-deenukh. lolSharru Kinnu III 05:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Very small numbers
This article seems to group Assyrians with Chaldeans. Being Half Chaldean and Half Assyrian myself, I couldn't care less but some Chaldeansmight take offense. Anyways My point here is that the number of Chaldeans alone in the US is way more than 85,000, that doesn't count the "Assyrian" Assyrians (also known as Ah-too-ra-yeah). Heres my proof:

Today there are close to 150,000 Chaldeans in the United States, 100,000 in the Detroit area, 20 to 30 thousand in California, and others scattered throughout the United States.

from this website:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030417-39192c0f.htm

So someone please include this, I don't know how. Tourskin 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that to our attention, khoun. The population figures used in this article are based on a national census, whereas the figures from the website you offered are based on one person's quote - they're less reliable, therefore. We'll have to wait for the results from the upcoming national census. I've also heard of estimates of up to 400,000 Assyrians in the United States (including members of the Chaldean Catholic Church and Syriac Orthodox Church), but again, they are unsourced and unreliable. But with all due respect, whether or not some Chaldean Catholics get offended is irrelevant - one main purpose of this article is to outline the shared heritage between all Assyrian religious denominations, whether Chaldean Catholic or Syriac Orthodox. If people get offended, that's not our problem as editors - we are offering sourced information, with which people can choose to agree or disagree. --Šarukinu 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that in case someone does get offended. Well, keep up the good work. By the way, does Khoun mean brother, coz I say "khouny" for brother I think and "bruny" for son, right? Tourskin 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Assyria Rule!
 * Yea, "khouny" and "khoun" are the same :) and yes, bruny means son. I understand that people may get offended, but if that's the case, they can consult anyone of us here on this page. But the issue here isn't being politically correct, or trying to appeal to a few individuals. Anyhow, thanks for your support, khouny! :) --Šarukinu 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Y-DNA and Mitochondrial DNA
I am interested in DNA testing of Assyrians. Has any been done to date? I find it interesting that Thomas Jeffereson is K2 Y-DNA haplogroup, and that is sometimes attributed to some iraqi's and possibly phoenicians. Of course Jefferson is from England. Is it possible that Assyrians are K2 and that there were diaspora's similar to the one that is happening today in Iraq?

Sargon (again)
The ethnogenesis of the present Assyrians took place from about the 7th century BC. Which, of course, gives them a history more "ancient" than found in most other peoples, no quarrel there. Why is this not enough for the chauvinists? Sargon of Akkad lived full 1500 years earlier, and it is patently silly to discuss him here, let alone mention him in the intro. What we have here is a wiki: you can place "links" to other articles, like so: Assyrian Empire will give you Assyrian Empire, and people can click on the blue text if they are interested in the earlier history of that state. Discussing Sargon, who lived 800 years before the Aramaeans ever entered Assyria, and 1500 years before anybody thought of making Aramaic an "imperial language" is very clearly utterly offtopic to any discussion of the Assyrian people, except in a section titled "romantic nationalism". dab (𒁳) 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the world is irretating you now? The Assyrians were the children of the Akkadian empire, as proven with the language they spoke. Whats the problem now? Chaldean 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * they also were the children of Mitochondrial Eve. Does that inspire you to give a detailed discussion of the Lower Paleolithic in the intro? Sorry, mentioning the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the intro is just about arguable, but the discussing the Akkadian Empire is ludicrous. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann, please tell me, how is it "off topic"? The Akkadians spoke Akkadian. The ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian as well, they even used the same names as the Akkadians. How is it off topic to mention that the ancient Assyrians are most likely (we can't be sure after all) the descendants of the Akkadians? EliasAlucard|Talk 22:05 28 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

this is the article on the modern Assyrians. Old Assyrian is a completely different topic. Look, can we be reasonable about this? You can mention Sargon in the History of the Assyrian people, or even link him from the "History" section, but he is really completely out of place in the intro. The Assyrians are descendants of the Akkadians, sure, but why stop there? They are also the descendants of the Sumerians, and of Homo erectus, and whatever else. How is that at all relevant? If you like, we can say under "Identity" that "many modern Assyrians for some reason have a bee in their bonnet about Sargon of Akkad and generally keep harping on the Old Assyrain Empire, which may lead to grotesque revert-wars on Wikipedia. This sort of thing has been described as antiquity frenzy and is observed particularly often in threatened communities with a fraying identity". At least we would then say what this is about: not about Sargon of Akkad at all, but about some childish reflex of nationalism. Oh wait, we already have this, "Many modern Assyrians believe to descend from the inhabitants of the ancient Assyrian Empire that began under Sargon I". Fair enough: you can believe what you like if you makes you happy, really, I am fine with it. If you disagree with what I consider the perfectly obvious scope of this article, I suggest you leave a note at WP:RFC and wait for third opinions. dab User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]] 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the Assyrians were not descendants of the Sumerians, they were a completely different people, both linguistically and ethnically. But the Assyrians did inherit much of their culture, and of course, their writing system. Second, the ethnogenesis of the Assyrians started much earlier than 700 BC, it goes back to the pre-Sharrukin times when we have the first evidence of an "Assyrian" dialect of Akkadian, which the ancient Assyrians themselves called "Ashuri". Other people will say the ethnogenesis of the Assyrians started 6757 years ago, but that's more with respects to the dawn of ("Mesopotamian") civilization, and there's no evidence of an Assyrian identity at that time. Regardless, these modern people are the last remaining true "Mesopotamians" who maintain much of that culture to this day. Furthermore, Dbachmann, your cynical tone voids any credibility you may have had, if any. So please refrain from making any further unsourced edits if you're going to continue to dish out uneducated insults as you have in your recent posts. --Šarukinu 17:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can poke fun at us and ridicule us as much as you like. Though we Assyrians today are not the ancient and powerful empire we used to be, and it's true that we are a dying community today, that's irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. This article is not only about the ancient Assyrians. Not at all. It's about modern Assyrians, yes, but it should also mention some parts of our history. Minor parts. Otherwise people may get the impression that we came out of nowhere. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:05 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard, Dbachmann has given you a perfectly understandable rationale for his edits, but you seem determined to see this as some kind of anti-Assyrian bias. As you acknowledge, this article is about modern Assyrians; therefore, the intro should not be giving so much space to Sargon and the Assyrian empire. If I'm trying to find out about modern Assyrians I don't want to wade through a bunch of stuff about Sargon first--especially since the connection doesn't seem to be indisputable ("are believed to have descended"). This seems like perfect material to start the "History" section, from where I can then link to Akkad, Sargon, or whatever. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Throughout Assyrian history, we've seen the Akkadian influence on the Assyrians, first with Royal names like Naram-Sin and Sharrukin, and then with their military and empirical pursuits, art, culture, etc. You can't bring up the argument of an antiquity frenzy, because then we can bring up the same argument for German people, English people, etc. The fact that Assyrians identify with the Akkadians is, and has always been, a significant element of their identity. Furthermore, there is a maximum of 2 sentences devoted towards Sargon of Akkad and the Akkadians, which does not stray from the purpose of the article at all - it merely provides a backdrop of the Assyrian identity.--Šarukinu 03:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus, I don't think Dbachmann's edits are in any way "anti-Assyrian". In fact, Dbachmann and I, agree on the facts (more or less anyway). His comparison however, with antiquity frenzy, is a huge insult. He's trying to compare us with the Germans of Nazi Germany, and use it as some valid excuse just to justify his rationale for removing content from this article. I'm not an easily offended guy, but that's an insult. Not to mention, it's an article he recently created. I'm just waiting until he starts adding something about Assyrians in that article. Ridiculous. Anyway, I agree that this article on the Assyrian people should be focused on the modern Assyrians. But how is that possible, by avoiding to mention everything related to our forefathers, the ancient Assyrians? Why even call us Assyrians if we are supposed to ignore everything related to our ancestors? Now, we can rephrase the intro content a little bit, but this article should put some focus (doesn't have to be much) on the old Assyrians. And removing the Akkadian language by using this reason: No need of listing Acient langueges i dont see on the article Arab, the Nabatean language?" . What? Who cares about some Arab article? Who said the Arab article is a standard setting article for all historical people here on Wikipedia? EliasAlucard|Talk 13:40 30 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'd really avoid the Nazi analogies. Godwin's law and all that. I don't think anyone wants to "ignore everything related to [your] ancestors"--I just don't think Sargon should be in the lead. It should be the first item in the "History" section. Imagine you're a reader who knows very little about the history of the Near East, ancient or modern--how does a sentence like "The title of "King of Babylon" was "King of Sumer and Akkad" as translated from the Akkadian Šār Mat Šūmerī ū Akkadī" help you understand anything? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I'd really avoid the Nazi analogies. Godwin's law and all that. &mdash; Tell that to Dbachmann, he's the one comparing Assyrians with Nazis. We could replace Sargon of Akkad with the deified Assyrian progenitor Ashur, no? I think that would be more fitting. Also, mentioning Aram somewhere would be nice too. Still, the Akkadian lineage shouldn't be ignored completely. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:31 30 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen here, the way I see it is that there is no evidence that exists to say that the modern day assyrians and those of Sargon's kingdom are different. Therefore, without sounding too personal or too insulting, WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM, GOT A POINT, PROVE IT OR LEAVE IT ALONE!!!Tourskin 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tourskin, you said it man. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:50 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. Please also realize that no one is saying that Sargon, Ashur, etc. should be removed from the article--this is a dispute about what should be in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, ownership is a huge issue with this article. Dbachmann thinks he owns this article, and that it should be modelled after his point of view. He even calls it: If you disagree with what I consider the perfectly obvious scope of this article. Come on? Perfect scope? Obviously, this guy thinks he own this article. I am of the opinion that he's ruining it. He's removing sources and facts, like for instance that the ancient language of the Assyrians was Akkadian, et cetera, just to fit his perspective. When other editors disagree with his edits, he resorts to ad hominem attacks; calling us Assyrian nationalists, comparing us with Nazis, ridicules us, and so on. What's up with that? Obviously, Dbachmann is completely out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 17:06 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, stop it with the Nazi stuff: Dbachmann never said what you're saying, and to keep repeating it is uncivil and not conducive to a good discussion. The scope of this article is indeed perfectly obvious, and everyone agrees what it is: the modern Assyrians. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of this article is not about the modern Assyrians, but stuff about Sargon and the ancient meaning of Assyria. What should be going on here is documentation of the recent history of the Assyrians, and their modern culture. For whatever reason, though, ancient history is receiving more attention, and there's not even anything about the period between the 4th century BC and the 19th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not being uncivil here. Dbachann's being uncivil. Please have a look at Dbachmann's recently created article antiquity frenzy, which he compared us with. It's full with references to Nazis discovering some ancient "Aryan" civilisation, claiming to be their ancestors. He is trying to use this poor article, as an argument, to remove everything related to our [Assyrians] forefathers. Like I said, it's an insult, a poor one at that. If you're too slow to recognize this insult, well, I was extremely clear in describing it. Now, back to the subject here. You say this article focuses too much on Akkadians and Sargon. How exactly? It mentions him briefly in the intro, along with the Akkadians and Aramaeans, which are, the backbone in the modern Assyrian people. I think that's of a very important note. Why should this be removed? It's a short note in the intro. It's not like it takes up half the article's content. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:55 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * You are being uncivil. To read Dbachmann's reference to antiquity frenzy as calling you, personally, a Nazi is ridiculous, and your harping upon it absurd.
 * To concentrate on this article, the problem with having Sargon/Akkadians/Aramaeans in the lead is that this is really Assyrian prehistory--as the article itself says, we don't get Assyrians until circa 7th century BCE. (This conflicts with the account given in Assyria, though, which one do you think is right?) The lead of this article should very briefly say something like "The Assyrian people are descended from the ancient Assyrians of Mesopotamia, who, in the 7th century BC, controlled the vast Neo-Assyrian Empire which stretched from Egypt and Anatolia, across Mesopotamia, to western Iran." That's copied straight out of History of the Assyrian people, which is kind of a mess right now, and maybe should be merged with this article. Then, in the lead, we have a few more sentences about the history of the Assyrians after the Neo-Assyrian empire. Then, in the "History" section (you know, the section right after the lead), you have a brief treatment of prehistoric/bronze age Assyria, with links to the fuller treatment at Assyria. The point here is that the lead should be a brief summary of the material covered in the article (see WP:LEAD), and, as we all agree, this article is about the modern Assyrians. We haven't really defined "modern", of course, but I imagine we mean that the article focuses on the last couple of centuries, esp. 20th century. Another question is whether there's supposed to be a split between culture and history, with history going in History of the Assyrian people and culture here, but my opinion is that there's so much overlap between the two it makes more sense to have a single article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think you're making a big deal out of this. I think the article is fine as it is right now. Some more facts could be added. The article could expand a little, but I don't see a point in removing content from it and putting it in other articles. History of the Assyrian people article is fine (if you ignore Dbachmann's recent edits on it, removing content as usual, which is what he does best). But really, if you want to write on the modern Assyrians, the only material you'll have, is that we're stateless, we're being treated like shit in the middle-east by muslims, and more or less, wiped out because we're Christians. That is all. Oh yeah, there's an Assyrian diaspora as a result of this too. Really, there's not much else to write about us at the moment. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus, I guess you haven't been following what's been going on with the History of the Assyrians page. I created that page because this article was too long and disorganized. I'm planning on further expanding the history page, but it's going to take some time because I'm gathering my sources - that article is going to be done right, and done very well. Now, as for this matter with Dbachmann and the whole issue with Sharrukin of Akkad. EliasAlucard raised a very valid point, in that Dbachmann was in fact comparing Assyrians to the nationalistic Nazis - why else would he post a link to his antiquity frenzy page and refer to authors of this page as nationalistic "chauvinists"? He has lost all credibility with his insults, and his edits will no longer be taken seriously, unless he can provide valid sources. Now back to the real issue: I guess nobody read my previous post, so I'm going to state this again: Sharrukin of Akkad was a key figure throughout Assyrian history, and he has become embedded in their culture, as seen by his legacy which lasted until the Persian conquests of "Mesopotamia". To deny him as an important component of the Assyrian identity is a huge mistake. Simply mentioning in the intro that the Assyrians of today trace their lineage back to Sharrukin and the Akkadians is quite a valid claim, and is definitely worth mentioning - it gives the average person a better idea of who the Assyrians are. That being said, Sharrukin and Akkad will stay in the article and in the intro, whether a couple of you like it or not. It's been up in the article for a very long time now, and only yourself and Dbachmann have complained about it thus far. So let's drop the matter, and let's focus on the real issues with the article, for example the point you mentioned about there not being enough information about the period between 400 BC and 19th century AD - Let's expand on that. Meanwhile, I'm going to expand the history page. --Šarukinu 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're expanding History of the Assyrian people. I haven't followed the history of this page, no. I'm more interested in how the article can be improved in the future. In my opinion, merging the history article back into this one would be an improvement. I haven't changed my mind about mentioning Sargon in the intro, though. Your comments about Dbachmann are certainly uncivil, and you should take all Wikipedia editors seriously. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you've made your choice to defend Dbhacmann, but I will not take him seriously so long as he ridicules and dishes out insults towards the Assyrian people. He's against all nationalists, and thus he has a critical bias which voids his credibility in this matter. Take a look at his page and you'll see what I mean. I have said nothing "uncivil" about Dbachmann, I simply stated the obvious: he insulted Assyrians, and other nationalists as well. --Šarukinu 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism, yeah, obviously, this guy hates nationalists and religious people. He's most likely, (a wild guess) a Communist. That's fine, because I hate Communism with an ardent fire. I agree with Šarukinu that Dbachmann's edits shouldn't be taken seriously on this article, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously on other nationalist/people related articles as well. Obviously, this dude has an anti-nationalist agenda. That's the reason why he wants to remove everything related to the old Assyrians. He doesn't want us to discover our past, in fear of rising nationalism within the Assyrian community, or something. I don't know. But his edits follow a certain anti-nationalist pattern and he's extremely POV. By the way, for the record, you could say I'm an Assyrian nationalist. It's really because you have to be in our situation. We've been through a lot of shit in our history, and we need some nationalism because we are so few today as a result of all the persecution and genocides, not to mention the Assyrian diaspora, which poses a serious threat to our very existence as Assyrians, being stateless and all. Still, I don't like comparisons with Nazis; doesn't matter if they're nationalists too. We Assyrians are Semites. Though we are not Jews, we are indeed Semites, and the Nazis hate Semites. Any comparison with Nazis, is an insult. Especially since the Nazis are anti-Christianity; they consider it a Jewish religion. Oh and Akhilleus, before you start complaining about me being uncivil, you should take into consideration, Dbachmann's Nazi-insult, and of course, Freedom of Speech; use it or lose it. You do believe in freedom of speech, do you? I do. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:08 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that's a heaping mass of incivility there--accusations of being a communist heaped on top of a tendentious misreading of Dbachmann's comments. You also keep on saying that we're talking about "removing" material when I have been saying that some material belongs not in the lead, but in the "history" section. Fortunately Šarukinu has flagged two of the most problematic sentences in his posts below, so I can see that he is interested in substantive improvements, rather than breast-beating. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only interested in the proper representation of the Assyrian people, and our history. You raise some valid concerns, but for the record, let me say that we cannot ignore the Akkadian heritage of the Assyrian people, and subsequently the lineage going back to Sharrukin of Akkad. I agree, Akhilleus, with your edit removing the "King of Sumer and Akkad" bit from the intro - that actually doesn't even belong in the entire article, in my opinion. Many people (especially many of my fellow Assyrians) believe that the ancient Sumero-Akkadians (or "Babylonians") were ethnically Assyrian, but this is not true. They had their own dialect of Akkadian, and their ethnic makeup included Sumerian, Kassite, Amorite, and Aramaean (to name but a few). Therefore, any discussion of the ancient "Babylonians" does not belong in an article about the Assyrian people, unless of course we consider the fact that modern Assyrians claim heritage from the ancient "Mesopotamians" in general. --Šarukinu 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Šarukinu, Sargon has simply no place in this WP:LEAD. That would like beginning the Swiss people article by discussing Vercingetorix. This article needs serious scrutiny for "antiquity frenzy" inserted by Assyrian patriots. WP:ENC. Wild-eyed nationalists like Elias above should take a step back before editing here. Wikipedia has a policy. If that makes Wikipedia a "communist" project, so be it. Consider alternatives with less restrictive rules. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashurism
Would be nice if anyone interested could help out with expanding this article. Seems like an interesting topic. There's not much information available on Ashurism on the web, but I believe, this old pagan religion is a precursor to Greek mythology. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:50 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * This old religion predates Greek mythology by at least 1,000 years. The religion of the Assyrians was very similar (almost identical) to that of the Sumerians and Akkadians, although the cheif deity of the Assyrians was of course Ashur. I'll add what I can to the article you started, because I have access to some neat academic resources. :) --Šarukinu 12:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll do what I can. Though to be honest, I know exactly nothing on the subject, other than that Ashur (god) was some kind of forerunner to Zeus. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:01 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome! There's much more to it than that, but it's a good start. Greek mythology was heavily influenced by Mesopotamian religion. There's a lot of theories about how the worship of Ashur came about - one of which is that Ashur was originally symbolized by a mound in the city of Ashur (or Assur) long before the temple to the god Ashur was built. So that's one thing we could mention, but I need to find you a reference for that. Also, we could mention the etymology of his name: A-shur = the beggining/start. Again, I need a reference for that because it's an Akkadian name, although it has a similar meaning in modern Assyrian ("Syriac"). --Šarukinu 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Ashur some kind of Assyrian ancestor, and they later on deified him and began worshipping him? From him, the Assyrian people started. He was also (according to the bible) the son of Shem. Aram was also the son of Shem. From those two, we have our roots. On the other hand, it could all be bullshit. Who knows. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:32 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but that's if you believe that the Old Testament has 100% factual information about the history of the Assyrians, which it does not :) The authors of the Old Testament were knowledgeable about the Assyrians, of course, but that was limited and they gave a very biased view of the Assyrians. That's why I don't believe the Old Testament is a reliable source on the history of the Near East. If we are to write an article about the god Ashur, we have to separate the biblical figure Ashur from the god Ashur. The biblical Ashur is definitely worth mentioning, and we should definitely place a link to the article about him, but most of the article should deal with other historical information we have on the god Ashur. --Šarukinu 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that the term 'Ashurism' is not used in academia, and that all references come from websites of the Modern Assyrian Community. Because of this, I would doubt the value of the term. — Gareth Hughes 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Gareth, Ashurism isn't really an academic term, but then again, what makes "Bhuddism" such a valuable term? All it is is simply -ism added to Bhudda. Similarly, we are adding -ism to Ashur, as Ashur was the chief god of the Assyrian pantheon. Valuable or not, it's the only real term one could use to describe that religion, for the Assyrians themselves did not have a word for religion in the Akkadian language. --Šarukinu 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, I can find references to Buddhism in academic sources, but no 'Ashurism'. I have a bad feeling that a lot of Modern Assyrian websites are using pseudo-science to make their point. Now, I know that by saying that I'm going to be lambasted again by the usual suspects, but I have a real problem with the claims used by these sites. I think AINA stuff should not be considered a solid reference unless AINA itself offers good references. The question is: can we really trust the bulk of Assyrian websites. The answer is: their trustworthiness is unclear. I think we should go through this article and question its statements and references. In academia, many of the statements of this article are considered to be doubtful. Now, I know Assyrians won't like it, but we need to get serious with the sources used here. Doesn't that sound fair? — Gareth Hughes 01:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, I rarely trust websites like AINA, with respects to their historical information. I'm all about consulting real academic sources such as Journal of Near Eastern Studies, JSTOR, etc. All sources I use for my edits are backed by real academic sources, and I hope that everyone else will make an effort to do the same. However, back to the topic of the term "Ashurism". As I said before, in ancient times there was never a case where the Assyrians had a word in their language for "religion". However, we know for a fact that they had religion, based on their various texts and reliefs, from which we deduced their culture and set of religious views, organized pantheon, etc. Therefore, how do we refer to this religion? We can call it "Assyrian religion", but technically Christianity can also qualify as an Assyrian religion, which was adopted shortly after the death of Jesus Christ. The thing about the term "Ashurism" is that it is in fact widely used, perhaps not much (if at all) in academia, but by the general Assyrian community, and by others who wish to refer to the ancient Assyrian religion (after all, it is much easier to say). Think about it: Ashurism and Buddhism are equal terms, they both share the same purpose. The major difference is that knowledge of the Assyrians is not in the mainstream culture, whereas the average person is familiar with Buddhism. However, I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so the content must be academic. So what are possible solutions? Is there an academic alternative? I just did a search on the University of Toronto Library journal database, and it brought up nothing.--Šarukinu 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not call it Assyrian religion or ancient Assyrian religion? Similar articles are Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, Germanic paganism. So Religion in Assyria is another possibility. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we continue this discussion on its associated talk page? EliasAlucard|Talk 08:29 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

"King of Sumer and Akkad"
The following sentence needs to be worked into the article a little bit better (or otherwise removed): The title of "King of Babylon" was "King of Sumer and Akkad" as translated from the Akkadian Šār Mat Šūmerī ū Akkadī.[14]  Right now, this line is just tossed in at the end of a paragraph which isn't really related. --Šarukinu 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This line has been removed. See the history page. --Šarukinu 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultures merged to form ancient Assyrian culture?
Sorry, another line which needs to be reworked (something I'm most likely going to have to do): Eventually Aramaean tribes assimilated into the Assyrian empire and their language became dominant, while the different cultures merged to form the ancient Assyrian culture around the 7th century BC  This isn't entirely true. The inhabitants of Assyria were assimilated into Assyrian culture, such that they were largely "Assyrianized". Starting with Tiglath-Pileser III, the various people which were conquered by the Assyrians were treated as citizens of mat Ashur, a new concept which arguably aided in Assyria's stability as the world's first true empire. We have evidence of countless cases where foreigners adopted Assyrian names, Assyrian kings established Assyrian domains in foreign conquered lands (such as Til Barsip), and even examples of Assyrian art influencing art in Greece in the early 1st millenium BC. What I'm trying to say is that Assyrian culture wasn't so much a synthesis of the various different ethnic groups that comprised the Assyrian empire, as this line in the intro seems to suggest. Rather, it was Assyrian culture that spread throughout the greater Near East until Assyria's decline & demise. Does anybody have any suggestions on how we can fix this? --Šarukinu 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it? I mean, isn't that exactly what happened? Did the Assyrians not defeat and conquer the Aramaean tribes, and then deported them into the Assyrian Empire and made them Assyrians? EliasAlucard|Talk 16:52 07 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no. They definitely "made them Assyrians" by heavily Assyrianizing them, but to say that the cultures merged suggests that the original Assyrian culture was replaced, which of course was not the case. Yes, the Akkadian language was suppressed by Aramaic, but Akkadian names were still much more prominent, and all other aspects of Assyrian culture flourished alongside the demise of the Akkadian language, as I have briefly outlined.--Šarukinu 05:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that the language of the Aramaeans merged with the culture of the Assyrians, I'd say "merged" is the right word. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:45 09 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Language and culture are two different things, Elias. However, a lot of culture is transmitted through language, that's a proven fact. Still, to say that the different cultures merged to form the ancient Assyrian culture around the 7th century BC gives the reader the mistaken impression that 1) ancient Assyrian culture was based or dependent on the merging of different neighbouring cultures, and 2) ancient Assyrian culture is only as old as the 7th century BC. Based on the evidence that Assyriologists have gathered over the past 150 years, it is clear that the Aramaic language suppressed the Akkadian language, but there is little to no evidence of Aramaic culture suppressing Assyrian culture (refer to what I commented on the art, personal names, etc, that spread throughout Assyria's domination of the Near East). Furthermore, this sentence, if it is to be kept in the article, must differentiate which period of Assyrian culture was the product of this "merging". --Šarukinu 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points. It would also be nice, if we could find some sources about the "Aramaization" of ancient Assyria. By the way, how many were the Aramaeans anyway? I mean, it must've been quite a few to change the entire language of a vast empire like that. Though, I doubt they were as many as the Assyrians. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:11 09 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a common misconception about the ancient "Aramaeans". Many people believed that all the Semitic kingdoms to the west of Assyria were ethnically Aramaean, which of course is not true - it was mainly the language and, to a lesser extent, the culture that spread across the Levantine coast & other regions West of Assyria. As a result, the various states in these regions adopted Aramaic as their official and vernacular language, and they came to be known and identified as "Aramaeans". Nobody knows for sure how many there were, but you're definitely right, there were hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Aramaic-speaking people that were displaced and deported within the Assyrian empire, and this is why Aramaic spread so fast and over such a vast geographical area. When kings like Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II deported the inhabitants of cities and states that they conquered, they unintentionally fostered the swift spread of the Aramaic language. Aziza, the Assyrian empire wasn't "Aramaicized". All that changed (as far as we know) was the language. Like I said before, Assyrian art, religion, personal names (all key elements of culture) remained relatively unchanged in the face of the spread of the Aramaic language. --Šarukinu 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what do you suggest, for a rewrite? By the way, I am considering rewriting the Swedish Wikipedia article on Assyrians: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrier It is in a terrible shape. Got any decent sources? EliasAlucard|Talk 16:14 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's say for instance the United States loosens it's immigration laws and allows Mexicans and Cubans to flood the South East and South West. Then over a few generations Spanish and Spanish-English Creoles start becoming dominant in those regions ultimately displacing English. Let us also assume that the same government remains in power albeit with changes in demographics. Are the people that are now Spanish speaking and lets even assume Catholic all of a sudden Spanish or Mexican or Cuban? No. They're not. They are American. Melting pots form ethnic identies over generations of assimilation. It's not only the foreign elements that are assimilated but also the dominant culture also picks up from the group being assimilated thereby somewhat becoming intertwined in the whole process. Basically what I'm trying to say is that names of ethnic groups and attributes of ethnic groups are dynamic. They constantly evolve. These disputes are pointless.Sharru Kinnu III
 * It's ironic. I just had a dispute with a Syriac friend of mine, over this. He, like most Syriacs, seriously believes he's an Aramaean. I asked him to explain to me, why the Neo-Assyrian Empire had a change in language from Akkadian to Aramaic. He had no idea about this. Now, how the hell are you going to explain to these confused Syriacs that they are in fact, ethnic Assyrians, when they don't even know basic shit like this and refuse to listen out of some silly pride? Unbelievable. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:39 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

What I suggest for a re-write is that we remove "750 BC" from the sentence - as I suggested before, this can misinform the reader that Assyrian culture dates only as far back as 750 BC. Sharru Kinnu raised a good point, and it's highly possible that the Assyrian culture picked up elements from the Aramaeans that subsequently became assimilated into Assyrian society. Some sort of "merger" is highly possible, but to say that the different cultures merged to form the ancient Assyrian culture around the 7th century BC, and not source it, is a bit ambiguous (which cultures merged, if at all, and which didn't?), and sounds unprofessional. Here's what I suggest: '''Eventually Aramaean tribes assimilated into Assyrian society, and their language, Aramaic, supplanted the native Akkadian language, due in part to the mass relocations enforced by Assyrian kings of the Neo-Assyrian period. The modern Assyrian identity is therefore believed to be a synthesis of the the major ethnic groups which inhabited Assyria-proper, which were, for the most part, Assyrian and Aramaean.''' That's all I have for now. I'm just looking for some sources so I can reference that bit. --Šarukinu 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that rephrasing sounds pretty good, and most likely, historically accurate. As for the relocations and mass deportations, how about this source (it's from Washington State University) and Richard N. Frye (he's a scholar of Harvard) explaining it here? Though to be fair, neither of these sources mention Aramean tribes being assimilated, but they both explain the process and they are scholarly sources. I don't think it can be that impossible to find about the Aramaean people part. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 20:04 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great for now! I'll see if I can find more sources in the meantime. :) --Šarukinu 05:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian cuisine
Cuisine is a very important part of culture. I'm ashamed that so much effort goes into arguing over trivial details about our identity yet no one likes to actually write about our culture such as our music, food, customs, etc. Help with some of the other articles. There are too many people waring over this article. Concentrate on all the finer details and let us improve all the articles relating to Assyrians and Assyria. With that said: I would like you all to take a look at the updated cuisine page. I have been working on that all day. I could use a little help. Sharru Kinnu III 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and contributions, Sharru Kinnu. But the issues we're debating with respects to our identity are in no way trivial. It's a matter of people (including the Assyrians themselves) being properly educated about the origins of Assyrians - that's arguably more important than cuisine. Still, you're right, the other pages need to be improved. I'll continue to work on information related to identity, that's more important to me at this point. It's crucial that people know who we are and where we came from. When I'm finished correcting all the misconceptions, I'll focus on the smaller articles. Posh bshena. --Šarukinu 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its important for all of us to contribute anyway we can, be it if our expertise is cuisine or identity, etc. That is why I created the Assyrian WikiProject. We Assyrians have an obligation to do so since our people are one of the least educated people in terms of their own history/culture. Chaldean 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I spent all day yesterday on the article. Let me know what you guys think.Sharru Kinnu III 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no question as to our identity. We are Sourayeh and have been for more than 6000 years. There is no disputing that. Before that I could care less if the Akkadians merged with the Sumerians (or anyone else Sargon's empire conquered forming the basis for Babylonian society). There are people who don't know where they come from after a few generations especially here in America. Souraya is synonymous with Aturaya/Ashuraya as far as I'm concerned being that it was derived from it (the Greek title simply referred to anyone inhabiting Syria at least while they were governing it [including the Greek-speaking citizens]). My name isn't Sargon for nothing and half my relatives aren't named Ashur, Shamiram, Nineveh, Nahrain, or Ninos for nothing. Souraya became synonymous with Aramaya many generations ago and Kaldaya implies someone who is a cleric (magician as the Romans and Greeks misconcieved it) of the ancient astrological "religion" (belief system) or in modern days an adherant of the church of the same name. Why can't we all agree that all these names lead to the same people. Ethnicity is as superficial as religion. It can evolve into something completely different over time. I would like someone to claim that modern Judaism is exactly the same as the religion of Abraham or that the Noah story of the ark isn't derived from Mesopotamian mythology as was the story of Moses being very similar to that of Sargon of Akkad. I mean just remember the listening game. Tell someone something and tell him to pass it on to the next guy then to the next and so on and after twenty people have the last recipient of the message document it and poof there is your bible or history book.Sharru Kinnu III 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Syria in another context referred to the territory of Assyria outside of Assyria propper meaning Canaan and Aram aka the Highlands and Lowlands off the coast of the East Mediteranean. In any case Aramaic had become lingua franca througout the Fertile crescent forming a somewhat homogenous society. Even before Christianity there were similarties in mythological beliefs similar to those of ancient Rome and Greece where they shared much in common in belief but weren't exactly identical in every aspect. In our case- The Assyrian Case, where do we inhabit? Tell me not Assyria propper and I'll tell you you're wrong. Where exactly are the mountains of Iraq, Turkey, and Iran and even in the case of Syria between the two rivers. Sharru Kinnu III 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC):::::Ar-Ram aka Ara Ramanta = Aram. Aramaya simply means Highlander. That's is like us calling Egyptians Misraya which is not their actual name in Coptic or ancient Egyptian. Just another example of ethnonyms being rather erroneous and superficial. Sharru Kinnu III 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Language and religion
I really dont think its helpful or appropriate to have Ashurism and Akkadian in the template info. I don't see ancient Greek language and religion being written in the infobox of Greek people and I believe strongly in Wikipedia being consistent. What do you guys think. Chaldean 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree. It is pointless to state in the info box. It should be somewhere in the history of our people. Sharru Kinnu III 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfect where it is (in the template info). It's easily readable from there. I think it should stay. I don't see the problem. I think it looks very neat like that. Also, how other articles are on Wikipedia, doesn't necessarily have to be the case, that all articles are modelled after some specific article. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:57 18 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * No big deal. You guys decide. Sharru Kinnu III 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I would like to point out that is VERY IMPORTANT...
I think this article needs to be re-written for those who have no understanding of who Assyrians are. It needs to be written well so as not to confuse people. I understand our people are confused but that is no reason to confuse everyone else and get them caught up in our identity-crisis. This needs to be written journalistically as if it were in a newspaper or a magazine. I can honestly say that this is not written well for the most part. Sharru Kinnu III 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the article is too simple? Chaldean 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've already fixed the Swedish article with tons of sources. I'll fix this one too, just give me a few days. I'll set the record straight. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:09 19 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

REMOVING
please make sure that we remove ashurism and akkadian. this is non sence and confuse people who have not clue about the Assyrian nation.Nochi 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree about this. Chaldean 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to be removed? It's not confusing at all. Like I said, I will expand the article later, explaining it more thoroughly. I'm gathering my sources, and I will fix it later. No need to remove anything. The Aramaic we speak today is full of Akkadian words anyway. It is NOT nonsense. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 18:20 25 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * to be polite you do not controll the Assyrian people page alone neitehr do I. i am just follwong the standarzation of the ethnic group infobox by only adding the current language and the current religion, please also incluse islam since there are smaller minorities in Iraq and Turkey wich practice Islam. we all to activly wwatches and edit this pae shud make a vote what we shud have or not thanks. Nochi 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will include the muslim Assyrians (I believe they are Mhalmoye or however it's spelled). As for the image, look, it's not an attack on any specific Assyrian churches. We simply need more up to date images, and the last two (Agha Petros and Ammo Baba) were of lousy quality. Don't take it too personal. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 20:03 25 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Should Kurdish Jews actually be Assyrian Jews since they spoke Aramaic and were expelled there by the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians. How are they Kurds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.230.82 (talk • contribs)
 * What does that have to do with anything? We haven't stated for a fact, that the Mhalmoye Arabs are Assyrians. It's very clear in the article that they may have been Assyrians, based on their Aramaic name. Also, the Kurdish Jews aren't ethnic Jews. They're not Semites. They're just Jewish by religion. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:31 29 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, I think you have misunderstood what he said, I think he was asking if Kurdish Jews were acually Assyrian jews since they were expelled to thier inhabitant region by Assyrians and Babylonians and speak Aramaic. Nochi 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys seemed to have strayed from reality. Assyrians are an ethno-religious group and applying a name to them as a unified group is modern history. Historically we are Sourayeh which is synonymous with Christian. In line with me stating that ethnicity is superficial as I've stated previously many times over I would like to add that in order to qualify as being "Assyrian" you must declare yourself as an Assyrian first and formost and be descended from Assyrian Christians from the Assyrian homeland. Is that clear? Sharru Kinnu III 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunnis?
Some Assyrians are Sunnis? Is that a reference to the Muslim Aramaic speakers in Syria? Do we know if they really identify as Assyrians? Funkynusayri 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Their are very few Aramaic speaking Muslims in Syria but I am sure they dont consider themselves Assyrian. What Nochi wrote was way too misleading thats why I moved it. Chaldean 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Aramaic-speaking Muslims in Syria does not consider themselfs Assyrians. The Muslim Assyrians are Koy Sanjaq and Senya. Nochi 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any sources on this? Any rate, I doubt they consider themselves Assyrian. Chaldean 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would highly doubt as well they refer to themselves as such though it may be very likely that they descended from "our people." I mean a lot of our own people don't refer to themselves as Assyrian so for Muslims born into an Arabized, Islamicized, Kurdified or Turkified society and to claim to be the enemy would be highly illogical. Sharru Kinnu III 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, they might not even have been Assyrians in the first place, the entire region spoke Aramaic, not just the Assyrian descendants. Funkynusayri 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, there may have been many Assyrians in the past, who left our people and our Churches, and did some miscegenation with Arabs and Turks and Kurds or whatever. To me, they're no longer Assyrians, even though they may have descended from ancient Assyrians. We have to be strictly ethnic on this. Also, disowning Syriac Christianity, and becoming an Arab, makes you un-Assyrian in my point of view, and should be disowned by the Assyrian nation. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 20:29 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * This is such a rasist view elisas!. Assyrians wich change thier faith from Christianity to Islam are still Assyrians if they contuine to speak neo-Aramaic and its culture, but!! if an Assyrian person wich became a muslim leaves his language and culture and be total Arabizied, he may consider themselfs as Arab but not for me, for me its a Arabized Assyrians Nochi 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not racism if it's my own people. We Assyrians should not accept Islam amongst us. Islam isn't a race. You can't call it racism. We are Christians, and we shall forever be Christians. Any Assyrian who leaves the Lord, Jesus Christ, is no longer an Assyrian. That's how strong part of the Assyrian identity, Christianity has become. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:00 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * To me the whole ethnicity debate is pointless because ethnicity along with religion may be changed. Someone who chooses to assimilate and forget their past is no longer a part of an ethnic group though genetically they may be still related but genetics and ethnicity are two different subjects. Sharru Kinnu III 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:04 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter whether they're Christians or Muslims? Neither is the original Assyrian religion. Funkynusayri 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the old Assyrian religion. Christianity is the only right way to go. We should not be lenient on this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:29 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * No!, you are wrong. Assyrians was not born Christians. Ashurpanipal wasnt a christian. We are now talking about Assyrian as etnicity not religion, in Iraq there are large group of Muslim Assyrians wich also uses Arabic ttradional clothes but speaks Chaldean and consider themselfs as Assyrians. there are also secular Assyrians wich many are, are they not Assyrians?`, when u say things that they dont accept the lord therefore they are not assyirans is totaly wrong and radical. Nochi 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It matters, because the Assyrian nation, has suffered a lot due to Muslim persecution of Assyrians, and our people, are still being killed in the name of Islam in Iraq. With this in mind, it would be highly immoral as an Assyrian, to convert to Islam, despite the fact that the entire Assyrian Genocide was motivated by Islam as its main trigger. Also, we have been Christians since the days of Jesus Christ himself, and we were the first nation to accept Christianity. No argument here. You leave Jesus, you should be excluded, disowned, and excommunicated as an Assyrian by all Assyrians. I don't care about any Muslim Assyrians. In my eyes, they are traitors guilty of treason, for spitting on their family heritage, that of which has suffered endless persecution by Muslims. Muslim Assyrians? Thanks, but no thanks. We are Christians. Period. This isn't arguable. Of course it's radical. We have to be. We are being slaughtered every day in Iraq, simply for believing in the Lord, Jesus Christ. We are being killed because of his name. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's obvious POV, isn't it? Funkynusayri 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't care if it is. I stated facts, you make what you want out of it. Also, name me one Muslim who says he's an Assyrian. You won't find any. By the way, are you aware of how much we have been persecuted throughout history for being Christians? The Romans and the Persians (pre-Islam and before the Romans became Christians) killed a lot of our people as well, just for being Christians. Seriously, I don't think you understand, how vital Christianity is for us, as a people. It's the only thing that has kept us together (and divided us into separate Churches). It's a miracle that we still exist today, when you take into consideration, all the persecution. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:39 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it can't be verified that some Muslims do identify as Assyrians, then it's of course irrelevant. But if some do, it should be mentioned in the article for the sake of neutrality. If Assyrians were persecuted because of their religion, not their ethnicity, then these theoretical Muslim Assyrians wouldn't have been persecuted. Funkynusayri 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. But look, even as Christians, we are still not that sure of our Assyrian heritage. Do you seriously believe that Muslim Assyrians (if there are any), will claim to be Assyrians, despite all the Arabization they've gone through? Don't keep your hopes up. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:47 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but Nochi claims so, and if he can find a reliable source for that statement, I don't think there's an alternative to including it. Er du fra Sverige, Elias?Funkynusayri 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise that their assertion needs to be verified through DNA testing and compared with other Assyrians, right? Claiming you're a duck, doesn't make you a duck ;) &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:54 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if they've recently been Islamised and speak the same language as other Assyrians around them, what other explanation could there be? Assyrianised Arabs? Funkynusayri 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be some Assyrians in Iraq who have converted to Islam recently. But the numbers are so few, they most likely don't count, statistically speaking. Most Assyrians in Iraq, rather choose death than become Muslims. That's why we have an ongoing Assyrian genocide as we speak, in Iraq, largely ignored by the entire world. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:11 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I think that convervation did sound more political than encyclopedic, Assyrians have lived in Iraq for centuries, and for centeriud they have not been killed for bieng Christians, its more for political reasons if they get thier churches bombed but also for bieng christians too, im not sure about it and i dont like to talk about political. but like I said Assyrian who pratice Islam are still Assyrian. people are free to chosoe thier beleifs and its rasist for us to unclude them because of a religion. Nochi 20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion is not the same thing as race. This is erroneous of you to believe. Please, do not confuse the two different words. They are not synonyms. Assyrians who leave their religion, most likely end up with Arabs, and other non-Assyrians. Sure, they are Assyrians despite being Muslims. But you have to realise, they very rarely end up marrying other Christian Assyrians, which of course, is the 99% majority of our people. The Muslim Assyrians marry other people. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:28 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it's true. Marrige is a matter of choose, since i am an christian i wud not be so happy if my sister did marry an Assyrian Muslim but i wud not shun him or calling him arab because he are a Muslim, same with them i dont think that many Muslim assyrians woman wud marry me either because of my fatih but like i said its a matter of choose and offcaourse if muslim assyrians marry arabs they likly wil be arabized in short time. Nochi 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making it sound as if Muslim Assyrian is something common. Maybe once in a while, it happens that one of us converts to Islam. They rarely do it for any other reason, than the fact that they have fallen in love with a Muslim. They marry, get kids, and their kids, seldom marry anything other than Muslims. No, for sure, there are no Assyrian Muslims out there. There are Muslims of Assyrian descent, but it's not like they qualify as 'pure Assyrians', because we're not exactly talking about Assyrians in such rare cases. What, if your grandfather's father was an Assyrian, does that make you an Assyrian? No, not really. Also, mind you, it is very rare that one of us converts to Islam. I'm sure that we've had our converts to Islam throughout history, but we're talking about rare cases. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:33 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, you just contradicted yourself aziza. If religion and ethnicity are not synonymous concepts, then in accordance with that statement (which is definitely true), one can still be Assyrian regardless of which religion he or she chooses to follow. I admire your passion for the plight of our people, but it is not for us to choose who is Assyrian or not. Assyrian blood makes you Assyrian, no argument there. Also, our fellow Christians have not always been the victims of genocide. At one point, Christians persecuted pagans (many of which were Assyrians who followed the religion of Ashur) and then Muslims during the Crusades. But in stead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, let's get to the nitty-gritty. It is of course logical and appropriate to include that some Assyrians practice Islam, but to include that in the info box about Assyrians or lead paragraphs would not accurately represent the Assyrian people, of which Muslims comprise a minute fraction (if at all, for I, myself, have only ever come across 2 in my lifetime, and they were both on internet forums). In that event, we would need a reliable source, and should only dedicate 1-2 sentences at most. We want to educate people about Assyrians in general, not a handful of them. For the record, if an Assyrian willingly decides to identify with a different culture and ethnicity in light of their true heritage, then they are not Assyrian, for they themselves have denounced their heritage by doing so. If, however, an Assyrian has converted to another religion (be it Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc), and still refers to his/herself as Assyrian and acknowledges their ancestry, then that is deserving of merit, when you look at it from a nationalistic point of view. However, we should also acknowledge that modern Assyrian culture is heavily intertwined with Christianity (in particular, the three main sects which share a common origin). Culturally speaking, the modern Assyrian identity is somewhat rooted in Christianity. I say, if we were to include one or two sentences about some Assyrians having converted to Islam, it should ONLY be done if it is reliably sourced and if we have an official and indisputable number of how many Muslim Assyrians there are. All of these aforementioned conditions are currently not met, so I suggest somebody finds a reliable source soon or else this item will be justifiably removed from the article. --Šarukinu 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you can be a Muslim Assyrian. That doesn't mean the rest of us Assyrians have to accept Muslims amongst our people. Look, I've told you, we are Christians, and this isn't going to change. There's a very strong consensus amongst all Assyrians, that Christianity, is our religion. Doesn't matter if it's Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Orthodox/Catholic, or Nestorianism. We are Christians. We shall not bow down to Islam and its false claims that Jesus is not the son of God. We are not interested in a religion of war and all that Jihad crap. I would rather die than become a Muslim, and I would righteously disown all my children if they become Muslims. As should all Assyrians. For our glory will be with Jesus Christ, the Lord. Amen. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:47 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said we have to "bow down to Islam". I also never said that the religion of the Assyrians is going to change. I'm saying that it is highly possible that there are Muslim Assyrians, as you now acknowledge. By the way khon, "Nestorianism" is not, and was never, accepted among the community of the Assyrian Church of the East. It's tempting to use because it's short and saves you from having to type 4 extra words, but it is inaccurate (see Assyrian Church of the East: "The Assyrian Church was split from the Catholic/Orthodox Church (the undivided Church of the East and West prior to the Great Schism of 1054) as a result of the Nestorian schism in 431, but the theology of the Assyrian church cannot be defined as Nestorianism). Your page on Nestorian Assyrians is in dire need of review or deletion, because the Assyrians have been known to resent the term "Nestorian" which was forced upon them by foreigners. --Šarukinu 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the hell are they called Nestorians then, and why has it been called Nestorian Church? I just cited sources. And what is Nestorianism anyway? Look, can we take this up on the associated talk page of the Nestorian Assyrians? Thanks. No, the Nestorian Assyrians article shouldn't be deleted. Oh and, there are Muslim Assyrians out there. They are very few, and they don't count. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:04 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it has only been called "Nestorian Church" by non-adherents of the Church of the East, largely Westerners who had little knowledge of the history of the Church of the East.--Šarukinu 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should go by the most common name: Nestorian Assyrians. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't like the Chaldean prefix either, but I don't whine over it the way you do ;) Don't worry, once the articles expand and improve, no one will call them Nestorians again. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 06:28 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, let's settle one thing, which I've noticed from you in the past: you lose credibility when you say things like "I don't whine over it the way you do ;)". So reconsider your choice of words the next time you wish to get your point across, because people will never take you seriously otherwise. Now, back to business: When you do a Google Scholar search on "Church of the East" you get 430 hits, whereas "Nestorian Church" brings up 391 hits. Similarly, when I performed a search on E journals @ Scholarsportal.info (which requires access through a specific university), "Church of the East" brings up 94 hits whereas "Nestorian Church" brings up only 19 hits. You won't be able to see these last 2 links, but I would be glad to provide anybody with screenshots of the search results, if need be. Elias, the term "Nestorian" is not formal, it's actually quite derogatory. It was a name that was forced upon the adherents of the Church of the East, as one of their most prominent historical figures, Nestorius, was ruled a heretic. Mar Nestorius is in fact venerated in our church, as seen in the liturgy, but to ignorantly name the church as you are suggesting is a little degrading, and has always been regarded so throughout history. I see that you have mentioned on the Nestorian Assyrians page that the Assyrians of the Church of the East never call themselves "Nestorian", and that this name was enforced upon them, which is an accurate statement. But even in light of this fact, you still create a page named "Nestorian Assyrians",which I am having a hard time understanding - it's quite contradictory. I propose that article should in stead be a stub which briefly states the erroneous nature of the term, and then can redirect to a new page called "Assyrians of the Church of the East". --Šarukinu 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look man, don't pester me with this. All right? You think I like the Chaldean prefix? I don't. But that's what people call us. We are being called Chaldeans or Nestorians. I have created these pages, for the simple fact, to explain that we are neither Nestorians or Chaldeans, and that we are Assyrians. But these names, are what some of us Assyrians are known as. Don't take it too personal. I've told you, I don't like the Chaldean prefix, e.g. you can check the talk page and see what I have to say about those Assyrians who seriously believe they are Chaldeans and not Assyrians. But, the name of the articles, are simply Wiki standard. Don't make a big deal out of this. They are made to inform the public about the history of these names, and the specific part of the Assyrian peoples who go under these names. I can understand you don't like being called Nestorian. But try helping out expanding the stub in order to make it an Encyclopaedic article instead of wanting the stub deleted already. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:08 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not all right. This is not a matter of what I like or do not like - personally, the name "Nestorian" means nothing offensive to me, as it was the name of one of the my church's fathers. Now let me point out two major flaws with your argument: first of all, you keep trying to equate the terms "Chaldean" and "Nestorian". The name "Chaldean" was accepted by the former Church of the East members who branched off to join the Catholic Church, and thus the Chaldean Catholic Church was founded - that became the official name of the church, as per the declaration of the Pope at the time. Whether you like it or not, it is official. In the case of the Church of the East, the official name is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Nowhere in the title do you see the name Nestorian. Second, the term "Nestorian" was used to refer to the Church of the East adherents up until the 20th Century, whereby the nationalistic movement took hold, largely as a result of Western interest. As a result, the Westerners (Europeans and N. Americans) began to refer to these people as "Assyrians", and completely dropped the appellation "Nestorian" . As for the church, it maintained the name "Church of the East", as it always had, until the mid 20th century when it began to be officially called the "Assyrian Church of the East" (somebody verify that for me). In modern times, the official name for the members of the Church of the East is Assyrians. There is no need to categorize our Assyrians by various names, especially those which have no modern value. --Šarukinu 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is it that you don't understand? Nestorians, are used interchangeably with Assyrians, from the Assyrian Church of the East. This is not about official or unofficial names. Wikipedia articles are created with the most frequent name used. For instance: What people do you think that article is talking about? It couldn't be Assyrians, no? What about this one:  Get the fuck out of here, does it actually spell it flat out, Nestorian Assyrians? Unbelievable. It couldn't be, could it? Look, Nestorian is a very common name for Assyrians. There are historical and religious reasons for this. It's the same reason as to why Maronites are called Maronites, you are called Nestorians. You both decided to follow some guy, and you, or the world, took after his name.
 * Judging by your profanity, I can see you know you're wrong on this issue. You have no clue what you're talking about, Elias. And your websites have no value - if it's not a .edu site or something of the sort, then it isn't reliable. Of course, if you do a search on google.com, you'll run into some Japanese website that isn't at all reliable. Aziza, the most common name for the Church of the East IS the Assyrian Church of the East, NOT Nestorian. The term Nestorian, as used to refer to Assyrians, has not been in widespread use since the early 20th century. Try and get a grasp of that, it's a fact, and comes from a reliable source which is itself reliably sourced, unlike your mediocre websites. I'm going to give you a little treat - a quote from a book entitled The Assyrian Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity by Christoph Baumer (published 2006): The expression 'Nestorian' is, in fact, incorrect on three levels. First, Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, neither founded the Church nor, second, ever worked in it. Third, its dogma is based not on the writings of Nestorius but rather on the works of Diodore of Tarsus and, above all, Theodore of Mopsuestia... The Church of the East has always defended itself against the name 'Nestorian', although it honours Nestorius as one of its Church Fathers...[the term] 'Nestorian Church' is dogmatically inaccurate. (pp.8)  I don't know why I ever took you seriously in the first place. Grow up nasha. --Šarukinu 07:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been known as Nestorians, for how long? 1500 years? I believe that settles it.&mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 17:58 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and our church has been known as the Church of the East for almost 2,000 years. We have been known as Assyrians for over 6,000 years. I think that settles it. :) --Šarukinu 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make you known as Nestorians. I'm just trying to explain the misnomer. I'm actually on your side. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:25 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I know you're on my side, khon, but you have to understand that to even refer to Assyrians as "Nestorian" Assyrians somewhat supports them being called "Nestorian". I don't find it offensive, not at all. For even Mar Aprem Mooken stated that "the term 'Nestorian' is not without honour in history". The problem is that people who have little knowledge of the Assyrians and their history will be confused with all these other names like "Chaldean", "Nestorian", "Syriac", "Aramaean", etc etc. I just feel that to create a new page and name it "Nestorian" will confuse people (same goes for "Chaldean Assyrians" and "Syriac Assyrians"). What I suggest is to create one single page, be it as large as the Assyrian people article (or larger), which includes the different denominations as headers of different sections, and deals with the identity debate, whereby you can have a section on the term "Nestorian". Another final note on the term "Nestorian": nowadays when it's used in scholarly works, it is always placed in quotation marks, as has become the standard. Posh bshena. --Šarukinu 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making it sound like you've never been called Nestorians. You have, unfortunately, been called Nestorians. This is a fact, and it must be dealt with, and sorted out, and making it a taboo won't help in any way. The problem is that people who have little knowledge of the Assyrians and their history will be confused with all these other names like "Chaldean", "Nestorian", "Syriac", "Aramaean", etc etc. I just feel that to create a new page and name it "Nestorian" will confuse people (same goes for "Chaldean Assyrians" and "Syriac Assyrians"). &mdash; No, it won't be confusing at all. These pages, are meant to explain our history, in intricate details, and why it came to be, that different names were introduced and applied on the Assyrian people. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:55 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't get my point. I know they have been called "Nestorians" in the past. They were once commonly called "Nestorians" by foreigners, namely the Western missionaries. The term "Nestorian" today has lost prominence, and in stead the members of the Church of the East are commonly called Assyrians. You mentioned yourself that it's "all about using the most common terms". Well, my friend, the most common term for the members of the Church of the East is Assyrians. The most common name for the church itself is the Assyrian Church of the East. I have laid out all the facts, and sourced them. I can see you have your heart set on making this "Nestorian" page, so go ahead and do as you wish. Let's see what other people think. --Šarukinu 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "Nestorian" today has lost prominence, and in stead the members of the Church of the East are commonly called Assyrians. &mdash; That is beside the point. "Nestorians", in actuality, Assyrians, are a historic people, who spread Christianity all the way to China. An article explaining this, is relevant, so that uneducated people can get an idea of who the "Nestorians" were. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:00 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's not beside the point, as you made it one of your strongest points that it's all about the most commonly used term. But looking back on this discussion, I think you're right, it's a good idea to have a page about "Nestorian" Assyrians, so long as you be sure to have the term in quotation marks, as is the standard in scholarly discourse. If you need any help with that page, let me know khoun. I have a huge hardcover book about the Church of the East from 2006 which will definitely be of value. --Šarukinu 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean/Syriac/Nestorian Assyrians
Why are you removing them? And why did you change the image? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:12 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I changed the image because it implies that Ashour Asho is as well-known as Mar Ephrem and Ashurbanipal, when he is a small-time boxer who recently made pro in the junior division. How does he represent the Assyrian people and their history? Also, may I ask, why did you change the image in the first place, especially without bringing it up in the discussion page first. If you're going to make edits, please take them up with the other editors first. Second, the terms "Chaldean", "Syriac", "Nestorian" are not ethnic terms, they bear religious connotations. The Assyrian people are not divided along ethnic lines, so do not misinform people by including a section called "Ethnic divisions". I see that you changed it to "Religious Divisions", that is much better! As for the term Nestorian, I'll continue the discussion here so that everybody can see without having to redirect to newly created pages. If you do not know what "Nestorianism" means, you should definitely not be creating a page with that term as the title, let alone calling adherents of the Church of the East "Nestorians". The term "Nestorian" was incorrectly used to label an adherent of the Church of the East (by non-Assyrians and non-adherents of this church), and was derived from Nestorius. Read the article, and the article on the Assyrian Church of the East, and you'll know what I'm talking about. "Nestorianism" is simply a set of theological views, many of which remained in the theology of the Assyrian Church of the East, such as the concept of Mary being the mother of Christ (as opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox concept of Mary being the mother of God).--Šarukinu 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the image, not due to Ashour Asho's recent fame, but because we need a more recent, contemporary example of Assyrians in the image. Ashour Asho, just like Ammo Baba, is an Assyrian sportsguy. The two previous images, were of low quality. Freydun Atturaya, deserves to be in the that image just as much as Agha Petros. Also, Freydun's image, looks a lot cooler; he's in a more philosophical position, and it's of better quality (I resized it with great filters, Lanczos3 and everything). Really, this image is a lot better than the old one, because it reflects Assyrians from ancient times, to modern day civilisations. As for your other point, I changed it into religious divisions. What's the problem? They are known as Nestorians. Get over it. Are you an Assyrian Church of the East member? I created these articles: Chaldean Assyrians, Nestorian Assyrians and Syriac Assyrians, not because there's a huge difference between them, but because I wanted to sort out all the mess that these Assyrian denominations are fighting about. Don't worry, once we have expanded these articles and added lots of serious sources, no one will erroneously label them Chaldean or Nestorian again. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:53 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need three different articles to clear up the misconceptions, Elias. You can do that all in one concise article, or in the Assyrian people article itself, under the "identity section", which has already been started. And there are already pages on the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church. Back to the image: Ashour Asho and Ammo Baba are on two completely different levels. The latter was a national figure, not only among the Assyrians, but among all Iraqis - he was once the coach of the Iraqi national soccer team, where as Asho is a fresh face with no real recognition, except in the local area of Chicago. I understand that the pictures are in black-and-white, but replacing somebody who was venerated as a Iraqi and Assyrian national hero with a kid who nobody has heard of is an immature decision. If you want to include more up-to-date pictures of truly famous Assyrians, you can include politicians, religious figures, or prominent singers. --Šarukinu 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those articles are not about the Churches, they will deal with the Assyrian people belonging to those Churches; not their actual Churches. For instance, the Chaldean Assyrians article, is already huge, and it won't fit in the main Assyrian article. The Nestorian Assyrians article, will expand and cover other topics not related to the Assyrian people article. And I'm sure we'll get enough material to the Syriac Assyrians article as well. Fitting them all into the Assyrian people article, would make this one huge. As for Ammo Baba, look, find me a more high quality picture of him, and we can include it as well. There's not exactly a 4 images limit. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:04 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just merge the "church" pages of the respective sects with the "people" pages of the same? We did the same with the "Maronite people" and "Maronite church" pages a few days ago. It makes it a lot more accessible than having to wade through different links. Funkynusayri 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mar Muhammad Sleema
Do you guys ever contemplate weather if things would be different if the church forefathers weren't so stubborn. If the early church would have just cannonized Muhammad and never allowed for the story to have evolved into what it is today Islam would be just another sect of Christianity albeit a heretical one in the eyes of Rome it nevertheless would have been similar to "Gnostic" branches of the Abrahamic religions note I didn't say Christianity for the reason that many so-called gnostics didn't accept Jesus as Christ such as the Mandeans. Sharru Kinnu III 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never knew that... do you have a link to an article or anywhere we can read up on that? --Šarukinu 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's pray such a corruption of the Christian faith never happens. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:14 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Picture for Assyrian People infobox
I've noticed a few problems with the current picture in the Assyrian people infobox. First of all, the picture used for Ashurbanipal is actually a picture of a statue of Ashurnasirpal II. Second, the pictures of Agha Petros and Ammo Baba (two venerated Assyrian heroes) were removed and in stead replaced with two lesser known figures, including Ashour Asho, a fresh face who is not well known, except to a limited extend within the Chicago Assyrian community. I propose the following image: Notice that I have included an actual representation of Ashurbanipal, a clearer picture of Agha Petros, and a contemporary picture of an internationally known singer, Linda George. Furthermore, the link to Christianity in the "Religions" section will redirect to Syriac Christianity, as opposed to the general page Christianity. Here's what the infobox will look like with the picture updated:

Let me know what you guys think.
 * I don't like it. The Ashurbanipal picture is descent, but it's better to see him pictured from his face rather than his profile. Also, the previous image of Ashurbanipal, has a dark, mysterious, eerie face attached to it. Looks a lot more badass. As for Linda George, that picture is certainly not PD, and though she is extremely hot, this isn't a fame contest. Your rationale of including her because of her fame, is doubtful. We might as well include Andre Agassi then, because he's more famous than her. Look, this is not about who's more famous. We have a descent looking image right now, of Freydun Atturaya and Ashour Asho. If you want to, we can add a few more images to the one we have now, without removing any. You just try and get permission for that image of Linda so we can use it as GFDL, and we're all set. Also, I want to resize the pictures, because I know how to do it properly. Either way, it's a better license as GFDL and have it uploaded on Commons. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:52 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous picture wasn't Ashurbanipal, as I already stated. It was Ashurnasirpal, a different king. And we're not trying to be artistic by adding "mystery" and "eeriness" to the pictures. We just want to properly represent the Assyrian people, which, by the way, is not accomplished by adding pictures of unknown Assyrians such as Ashour Asho. I find it funny that you think we shouldn't be removing any pictures when you removed Agha Petros and Ammo Baba. Did you consult with anybody before doing so? I sure didn't hear anything from you before changing it. Here's how we're going to settle this. We will have a vote on who to include in the infobox. I'll post messages in Wikiproject Assyria and on various users' discussion pages, and we will get a consensus on this - the only right way to do this.  For now, let's get some more comments on this picture. What does everybody else think? --Šarukinu 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The lady is definetly attractive and adds alot of style to a page that focuses alot on death and diaspora, even if that is the unfortunate fate of Assyrians. Try to find a Public Domain image. Tourskin 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So she gives you a boner. That's not a reason to include her picture. We're not trying to embellish our terrible situation through good-looking Assyrian women. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:52 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen here you disgusting fool. Women are not sex objects. Secondly, watch your tongue. You have heard my opinion; I believe that she adds some spark. Considering that shes the only female in the image it makes sense to have her. If its all men how lame would that be? I have cast my vote in the Assyria Wikiproject page. < sorry for overreacting iwas in a... bad mood, yeh... Tourskin 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * lol &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:02 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough. Please both of you calm down and speak with professionalism. Chaldean 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, check out this page to vote for who you want in the picture, and possibly add new nominees. As for your derogatory suggestion as to why I included Linda George, I'm sorry but you're mistaken. I added Linda George for numerous reasons: first of all, there were previously no women in the picture. Second, she is internationally renowned, not only among Assyrians (check out her website). --Šarukinu 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest as an Assyrian who feels fairly knowledgeable on Assyrian subject matter I would have to say that the current banner needs to change because I have no clue as to who Ashour Atto or who the Atturaya guy are. I know Linda George and I know about Agha Petrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.3.182 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ashurbanipal • Saint Ephrem • Agha Petros • Linda George" -- I do hope you can see this sequence is hilarious? Are we "the Encyclopedia written by and for pubescent patriots" now? dab (𒁳) 09:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very logical sequence: somebody from the peak of Assyrian culture (Ashurbanipal), early Christian period (St. Ephrem), Genocide (Agha Petros), Diaspora (Linda George) - 4 significant periods in Assyrian history. Oh, I forgot, you're anti-nationalist... that's too bad. -- Šarukinu 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * dab, what's bothering you now? How is this different from Persian people? Shouldn't you go annoy the people of the Aryan race, also known as Persians? :) &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:55 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)