Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 5

DNA tests
''Regardless, DNA analysis that has been conducted "shows that [Assyrians] have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population." Genetic analysis of the Assyrians of Persia demonstrated that they were "closed" with little "intermixture" with the Muslim Persian population. '' &mdash; is there any more information available on this? On which group of Assyrians, were these tests conducted? Chaldeans/Nestorians/Syriacs? Were the results exactly identical? The source doesn't reveal much detail. I'd like to get down to the bottom of this. So far, this is all I can find. Doesn't reveal much. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:48 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't got more info on that exact study, but take a look at this: http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6808/ar20iranian20genetic20cog4.gif Funkynusayri 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen this picture before. It tells me nothing. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:06 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in an article that Dr. Joel Elias wrote for Nineveh Magazine (Issue 1st and 2nd quarter, 2000) titled The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East &mdash; Emil@soleyman.com 01:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen this article before. Doesn't say if it was Assyrians from the Assyrian Church of the East, or Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches, or Chaldean Catholic Churc. That's what I want to know: on which group of Assyrians were these tests conducted? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 09:28 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture should tell you that Assyrians are closely related with other peoples in the Fertile Crescent, yet not with South Arabs. From the article which is also quoted here: "Analysis of the Assyrians shows that they have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population. "It is important to understand that this applies to the population as a whole, not to any one individual."

One reason for the similarities in Assyrian genetic makeup, Elias says, is "the relatively closed nature of the community as a whole." A conclusion reached by Cavalli-Sforza is that the "genetic origin of groups that have been surrounded for a long time by populations of a different genetic type can be recognized as different only if they have maintained a fairly rigid endogamy for most or all of the period in which they have been in contact with other groups."

The closest genetic relationships to the Assyrians are with the native populations of Jordan and Iraq. There is also a close relationship with seven populations of the region, even though these populations contain members of three major language families: Indo-European (Iranian, Kurdish), Turkic (Turkish), and Semitic (Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese -- Arabic; Assyrian -- Aramaic). Elias argues that "an underlying genetic homogeneity has been 'masked' by great cultural, religious, and linguistic heterogeneity." http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2000/41-081200.html Funkynusayri 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashurism updates
I made some updates to the Ashurism article. Who is Ashor Asho? For Christ's sake he's no Agha Petros and who's the guy before him??? I liked the original banner much better.Sharru Kinnu III 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sharru Kinnu, vote here for who you want to be in the banner. --Šarukinu 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkadians, Aramaeans and Assyrians
Is this ever going to stop, with reverting? I mean, what's the problem? Some Aramaean wannabe, Benne, has a difficult time accepting historical facts, that the Assyrians assimilated Aramaeans into the Assyrian empire. Stop reverting this. Several sources are provided from scholars and academics. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 18:50 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Juding by his edit history he likes dispute anything in favor of the Assyrian view and likes to [without discussion] change anything mentioning Assyrian into Aramaean. Go back to some of his edits they're actually kind of funny. Sharru Kinnu III 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they call me "biased". &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 20:05 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * Elias, if you don't wisen up soon, you are headed straight for an WP:RFAR. If you are interested in Ancient Assyria, feel free to edit Assyrian Empire. This article is about the Aramaic speaking ethnic group. Listing Ashurism and Akkadian would be like listing Celtic polytheism or Gaulish language at French people. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know following the logic of Benne and Others since we now speak mainly English specifically in the diaspora we must be English now. Right? I'm English. Excellent logic guys! Aramaean means highlander in Aramaic. We also refer to mountain dwellers in Aramaic as Mountain People or Nasha d-toureh... maybe you want to call us Tourians now? Sharru Kinnu III 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * well, yes, once you lose the language, you may be "of Assyrian ancestry", but culturally, you obviously cease to be Assyrian. That's a gradual process of course, but once the language is lost, it's pretty much irreversible. This happens to members of every "diaspora" of course, that's nothing particular to the Assyrian one. It is also typical for second or third generation diaspora to feel particularly strongly about national identity and generally be more nationalistic than those who are still immersed in the parent culture. Those are common ailings of people in this situation, and the psychological factors may well be discussed at diaspora, but obviously should not affect our treatment of historical topics. In my experience, most nationalist trolling on Wikipedia originates with diasporas, notably Hindu, Armenian, "Black" and Assyrian. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well just for your information in SYRIAC we call our language SOURETH not ARAMETH nor KELDANI nor anything else. We also refer to ourselves as Sourayeh not Aramayeh. 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing for me to not assume your a racist could back up your statement that most trolling occurs by Hindus, Blacks, and Assyrians, please provide a source otherwise I'm going to assume that's a racist/anti-ethnic statement and report it to an Admin. Sharru Kinnu III 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore I dispise the fact that non-Assyrians like to point out that we're not actually Assyrian when in fact we have been referring to ourselves as Aturayeh and Sourayeh for millenia. Even the Hebrew alphabet which is derived from "Phoenician" or "Aramaic" script in HEBREW is referred to as Assyrian Script "Ktav Ashuri" for the very fact that it was picked up from the Assyrians durring the time of their adminstration of Mesopotamia. Western History account of ancient History is through the Greeks and Romans whom were not so keen on facts about the middle east. Even today ask your average American History major information about the middle east and you'll hear more fiction than fact. Sharru Kinnu III 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I, seriously being offended by your racist comment that most trolling occurs by certain minorities you mentioned feel that you have no place in editing in Wikipdedia for the very openly racist comment you made and by your obvious bias views on various subject matter. Sharru Kinnu III 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another fact I'd like to base on your skewed logic is by your statement that once a language is lost someone ceases to be "Assyrian" therefore Jews ceased to be "Hebrew" millenia ago since it's irreversable once the language is lost. Modern Hebrew is a reconstructed language therefore not a continuation of the ancient language therefore the ancient community dissapeared and "real" Jews therefore don't really exist. That's not my belief but that's an analsys based on your logic. Sharru Kinnu III 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One more point I'd like to make in regards to your illogical philosophy is that a language doesn't define a culture nor does it give them their name. Americans aren't English though some may have ancestory that is. Religion doesn't define identity either though it may be elements of ones identity. Geography doesn't even do so. Being Assyrian is what defines being Assyrian. How does one that discovers Jewish ancestory all of a sudden convert to Judaism and is all of a sudden a Jew. You stating that once a language is lost they are no longer that race is completely wrong and Jews identify as an ethno-religious group though they stopped speaking hebrew millenia ago and adopted languages of others yet retained hebrew for liturgical purposes similar to how Maronites still use Syriac in their liturgy though speak Arabic on a daily basis. You are biased not Alucard buddy. That is my point. Sharru Kinnu III 16:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthering my anger is the fact that WE AS ASSYRIANS STILL USE AKKADIAN VOCABULARY TO THIS DAY. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Sharru Kinnu III 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Times like this has me feeling like that we may have to one day resort to the ways of old and show everyone that we really are Assyrian by mercilessly conquering the whole world and subjecting everyone to the wrath of God like when he used the Assyrians to destroy Israel and forcing its inhabitants to Assyria as indentured servants. Sharru Kinnu III 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that litteraly but what I'm trying to say is that Zionism, Pan-Arabism/Arabization, Pan-Turkism, and Kurdification will never destroy our Identity even if they have traitors on the inside. NEVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing for the mental migets that exist in this world; the Assyrians and Babylonians spoke Akkadian. I mean WTF?!?! Are we next going to here that they didn't exist that infact they were North and South Akkadians? Assyrian was never a name for a language in English, it refered to that dialect of Akkadian just as now Assyrians refer to Assyrian as their dialect of Aramaic. You have to realize that coining modern terms for ancient ones is going to pose more questions than answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)
 * Elias, if you don't wisen up soon, you are headed straight for an WP:RFAR. &mdash; For what? I am citing sources from several academic scholars. Some self-offended Syriac Aramaean-wannabe revisionist, is removing them without discussion. It is not my problem, that he doesn't like scholars. I'm not doing anything wrong. This article is about the Aramaic speaking ethnic group. &mdash; Yeah? The ancient Assyrians spoke Aramaic too. well, yes, once you lose the language, you may be "of Assyrian ancestry", but culturally, you obviously cease to be Assyrian. That's a gradual process of course, but once the language is lost, it's pretty much irreversible. &mdash; More anti-nationalist Communist logic. Afro-Americans in the United States, are not Britons because they speak English and don't know any African language. They are still of African ancestry. You don't define a human ethnic race after culture; culture is irrelevant. Indians are not Britons because they speak English today. We Assyrians are of an Assyrian Mesopotamian race, no matter where we live on Earth, and what language we speak. But hey, I guess you subscribe to the logical fallacy that there are no human races, right? We have never called ourselves "Aramaeans", until some anti-Assyrian Assyrians recently began with revisionism (see http://www.aramnahrin.org/ ). This is because of religious fanaticism, not historical accuracy. They want to feel holier-than-thou by pretending that they are Aramaeans. In my experience, most nationalist trolling on Wikipedia originates with diasporas, notably Hindu, Armenian, "Black" and Assyrian. &mdash; User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism <--- Perhaps you should get a different hobby? I mean, stalking us like this, is obviously not healthy. You care too much about this topic. You are obsessed. Let people be a little bit proud of who they are, instead of trying to deny them their God-given right to acknowledge their ancestors. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:00 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing for the mental migets that exist in this world; the Assyrians and Babylonians spoke Akkadian. I mean WTF?!?! Are we next going to here that they didn't exist that infact they were North and South Akkadians? &mdash; Well actually, that is exactly what they were. They evolved from the Akkadians, Sumerians, and perhaps some other ethnic groups, which inhabited Mesopotamia before them. Most likely, the Akkadians, since the Assyrians and the Babylonians were Semitic Akkadian speaking people. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:06 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Ashurism sourcing: great article - http://www.juedische.at/TCgi/_v2/TCgi.cgi?target=home&Param_Kat=3&Param_RB=27&Param_Red=8261 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:15 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * The Talmud itself was written differently in Babylon (Babylonian Talmud) and in Jerusalem (Jerusalem Talmud). Polytheistic influences returned to become part of the religion - the Shechinah (God's emanation), and Lilit, the evil spirit, are really goddesses that accompany Jehovah, quite apart from Satan, the evil god. Angels are born: Matatron, Gabriel, etc. After-life, that is Paradise and Hell, which were quite absent from the Bible, now make their appearance (in the Bible, "gehenna", "gehinom", i.e. Gei Ben-Hinom, was simply the gully below the walls of Jerusalem where people threw their sewage. In late usage, that became Hell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

Akkadian language
My dream would be a revival of the language as with modern Hebrew and renaming Iraq to Bab-ilu (Babylon) with it as the official language (called Modern Akkadian) using the modern Syriac alphabet with an official seperation of religion and state with the abolition of ethnic and religious censuses by government. It wouldn't be that hard of a transition even from Arabic and especially easy from Aramaic. Sharru Kinnu III 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How the hell did they revive Hebrew anyway? I've always wondered about that. You shouldn't focus too much on the Akkadian language though. For now, we are one step away from becoming extinct in the diaspora and back at home. This is like a bad joke. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:34 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually we are living well in the diaspora especially here in the Detroit area in Michigan, USA. Our community has grown to be quite affluent and aware of their origins. We're very popular here in Detroit and known for being business owners. Same goes for Chicago, Modesto, Turlock, Skokee, LA, and San Diego. The obsession with Iraq in the media has sparked a cultural revival within our community worldwide. I'll look at the You Tube video when I get home from work it's banned here. Sharru Kinnu III 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was talking about total assimilation in the diaspora. You have to realise, we are very few today, and we can't keep up with the rest of the world, in a diaspora. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:29 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well for some it will be an evolution or an absorption into an homogenized society and for others it will be an evolution of the old Assyrians into the new Assyrians. My ancestors specifically were farmers and villagers just a few generations ago. Nowadays I could go to the moon if I put my mind and efforts to it and establish some type of a base/bio-dome on the moon and start the first lunar colony. How about we call that New Assyria. 75.46.3.182 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Source
Dbachmann, why are you removing the sources we've cited? Is there anything you consider historically inaccurate? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:50 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand either. Most of the sources are from highly accademic research by Professors in Assyriology and similar fields. Who are you Dab? Are you offended as a Jew or Christian that in the Ashurism article it states a possibility that maybe the old Testament is based on legends in Assyria and Babylonia and you felt that supressing history may prevent others from learning the other side of the story? Sharru Kinnu III 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He is removing them because he's an anti-nationalist. He has said before that this is "antiquity frenzy" (an article he created, watch out if he adds something about Assyrians in that article). That's an obvious Nazi comparison. He fears that this will lead to some sort of Assyrian Nazism or something. I don't know, but his behaviour is ridiculous. If you disagree with these academic scholars, perhaps you should start a historical debate with them, or something? But please, don't remove these sources, just because you have a biased anti-nationalist POV agenda. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:34 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, you have taken to quoting literally kilobytes of "sources" in footnotes, never mind if they are pertinent or not. I don't dispute you have "sources", I dispute that they belong here. Your allegation of "Nazi comparison" is nonsense and blatant Godwining. You, Elias, are a nationalistic edit-warrior, while I am a perfecly neutral editor. It is telling that you immediately speculate about my ulterior motives (you cannot understand somebody would spend time on Wikipedia simply for the purpose of improving Wikipedia). I have no agenda beyond cleaning up this article as one problem spot among many. I have no particular interest in Assyrians. You should finally take a step back and ask other neutral parties for input if you are unhappy about something. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, you have taken to quoting literally kilobytes of "sources" in footnotes, never mind if they are pertinent or not. &mdash; Is that not allowed? The reason why I'm quoting some material, is because the cite template allows this sort of functionality, and it's useful, for others to read the material and get a conception of why this and that source is being cited; it clears up misconceptions that way, and it saves some time for other readers to read through endless of material, when you can just cite the relevant point. This is not a reason for removing academic sources. Why are you removing other material? You are not neutral. Neutral my ass. This isn't about neutrality, it's about that you are biased and have an anti "antiquity frenzy" agenda, or something. Any connections with the ancient Assyrians, you're removing. Why? What business is this of yours? There's a consensus amongst several Assyriologists, that we have descended from these people. Why are you trying to suppress their studies? I'm not an "edit-warrior", I'm trying to improve this article, and I'm an inclusionist, not a deletionist. Why are you so keen and adamant on deleting scholarly sources? Please explain this to me. If you have no good reason for your deletions other than your typical anti-nationalist agenda, perhaps then it's you who should back off. Again, I ask you, please give one decent reason as to why you are removing scholarly sources. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:49 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Check mate. Sharru Kinnu III 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Revert Wars
PLEASE STOP! I am calling on both sides to calm down and continue with dialogo before taking actions. Reverting back and forth doesn't achieve anything. If you want to make a significant change in the article (like deleting an entire section?) PLEASE inform us your reasons in the talk page before doing so. Chaldean 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro should not contain its origins, only the clear, and accurate one. A short summary but not a whole section, no where in Wiki you will find this since it is not correctly formatted. Instead someone is adding the section to pursue propaganda advertising that Akkadians are Assyrian. --Vonones 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point and I agree. Anybody from the opposite side would like to comment? Chaldean 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro should not contain its origins &mdash; Why not? It's an introduction, to explain a brief summary of our history. You can read the rest, in this article: History of the Assyrian people. Instead someone is adding the section to pursue propaganda advertising that Akkadians are Assyrian &mdash; It's not propagenda. The Assyrians were Akkadians, they just took their name after Ashur, a patron city god. They spoke Akkadian in the beginning. It's properly sourced. Also, you shouldn't delete properly sourced sections and call it "propaganda". Why do you think Sargon of Akkad's face depiction was found in Nineveh, and that Assyrian Kings, had names like Sargon I and Sargon II? This chart says it all. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:59 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Some examples of articles that have good headers and wiki style: Turkish people, Germans, Irish people you don't need to fill in the header with all that text, it should be short and very accurate, than elsewhere in the article we should start explaining the origins. --Vonones 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is not even a question that Assyrians where the ruling class of the Akkad dynasty, but It's an introduction, to explain a brief summary of our history. - what is brief to you? I think 3 paragraphs (like the way Vonones had it) is pretty good IMO. Chaldean 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll restructure the order of the article in a couple of hours. No reverting or deleting until then. Deal? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:24 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not create a sandbox? and edit from there. --Vonones 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes good idea. Talk:Assyrian people/Introduction edit it together until you guys agree on it and then put in the page. Chaldean 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not create a sandbox? and edit from there &mdash; What's wrong with the article as it is right now? Is there anything historically inaccurate, with the cited sources in mind? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:30 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but the intro is to be short and simple. It is currently long and complex. Chaldean 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's it, then it's not difficult to solve. No need for sandbox. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:37 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. --Šarukinu 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ܫܟܝܪܐ ܫܡܐ ܕܨܜܢܐ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.3.182 (talk • contribs)
 * Translation? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:57 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. "Shkeera shima d'sitla" = "Praise the name of the bucket" ? -- Šarukinu 15:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As in dump the sand out of the bucket the hell with the sandbox.
 * Assyrians are not Akkadians. Assyrians are Aramaens. we assimilated them into the Akkadian empire.Aramaic language supplanted the native Akkadian language. very proud assyrian [elias you know why ;)] Nochi 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians are highlanders. Highlanders are Assyrian.
 * Assyrians are Assyrian.ܦܪܩܠܐ ܩܨܬ -- ܫܪܘܟܝܢܘ
 * I'm a little confused - areAssyrians not suppose to be descended from the Akkadians? And I imagine that if they are, undoubtedly we have blood from other peopls such as aramaens. Tourskin 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We also have lots of blood from the Sumerians too, since the Akkadians, took over Sumer, and the Assyrians, evolved from the Akkadians and the Sumerians (Sargon of Akkad, created a multi-ethnic Empire, the first of its kind). We also have blood from the Babylonians, since they were basically the same people as the Assyrians. So technically, calling ourselves Chaldeans, and Aramaeans, isn't that far off, but we should stick to one identity, since we are the 'orphaned product', of the Neo-Assyrian Empire; we have been stateless since then. Yes, we do have some Aramaean ancestors. That doesn't mean we are Aramaeans. The Aramaeans, never came that far. It's just their language, that spread around the entire Fertile Crescent, and it wasn't like they tried their damnedest to spread their language; it just happened to end up like that. Really though, Assyrians were simply children of the Akkadians. The reason why they started calling themselves Assyrians, is because they took it after the god they worshipped, Assur, and the name of the first capital city. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:27 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have wonderd for a while. why shud we call the Christians Neo-Aramic peoples fir Assyrians? not Chaldean or Syriac?. Assyrians (Nestorians) have fooled as. they have united us under thier name.. i am against this article and plaese help to create a Chandean people and Syriac people article...... why are we dominated? espiaslly the Chaldeans... modern aramic uses sero-jocabite script not madhya?? why?? can someone answer me its sad,,Nochi 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:07 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a confused Assyrian. Do you call yourself Souraya" in Sourteth''? If so just stop already and accept this article. 75.46.3.182 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nochi, ethnicity transcends religious and linguistic divides (although linguistic differences between Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, Church of the East Assyrians, and Syriac Orthodox Assyrians are minimal). -- Šarukinu 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 11
Please consider rewording this sentence, which is part of footnote #11: They speak their own ancient language and their homeland is until now usurped by an Arab entity called Iraq. -- Šarukinu 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it sounds odd but how do we change what someone or a source states? Tourskin 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the truth. Why should we reword facts? You know, very well, that northern Iraq, historically, belongs to us. You shouldn't discredit what this source is stating about our ancient homeland. The Assyrian Empire, began in northern Iraq. Our homeland is occupied by Arabs. As politically incorrect as that sounds, it's the damned truth. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:12 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * As true as it is, in an encyclopedic article you have to eliminate all biased terminology, otherwise the article and its editors will lose credibility, and people will find the article to be very POV. Wikipedia has strong policies against POV, as far as I know. So perhaps we can work together to just lightly reword it so that the bias doesn't stare people in the face. I'm Assyrian, and very thankful to be one, and very proud of our people's achievements over the past dozens of centuries. However, what I strongly dislike is when we use flowery words to bolster our cause, even though what we need first and foremost is to raise awareness about the plight of the Assyrians. -- Šarukinu 01:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not POV. Our homeland is de facto occupied by an Arab state, just like the Indians' homeland is occupied by a European state. There is nothing biased, POV, or whatever, by stating this fact. We have been stateless, occupied and persecuted by different peoples for 2600 years. I fail to see what your qualm with citing this obvious fact, comes from. Also, this is not even mentioned in the article per se, but in a source I've cited. What's wrong with that? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 04:43 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * How many states have ruled over Assyrians? there is barely any left there since Kurds dominate them in the region, to Kurds it is native to them than we shall add that also. It falls under the category of Kurdistan. It is not occupied when was the last time Assyrians had there own established state the word occupied wasn't even invented yet it was so long ago. --Vonones 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kurds have also persecuted Assyrians. The area is dominated by Kurds, because of this reason. Yes, they have occupied the region that is our ancestral homeland. But of course, the Kurds are allies to the United States, which means they are a good, honourable, and flawless people, incapable of doing anything wrong. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 05:14 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a well known fact you keep removing my tags im reporting you. --Vonones 04:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about looking up the article, Akkadian language, and see for yourself, that this language, was spoken by the ancient Assyrians? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:10 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * The Arabs there are as related to ancient Assyrians as yourself, Elias, they're most likely just arabised modern Assyrians. Funkynusayri 05:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite true. Though there are some ethnic relations between me and the Arabs from Iraq, they are not Assyrians. It's true that some Assyrians, were Arabaized. But far from all. The Arabs in Iraq, don't share the same DNA profile as the rest of us Assyrians. Also, I'm not an Assyrian from Iraq. One of my grandmothers, however, is an ethnic Assyrian from Iraq. Still, we are not Arabs. The Arabs in Iraq, are mostly Arabs, Kurds, Turks, and Persians. You have to understand, in the Middle East, religion is deeply intertwined with ethnicity. Arabs never became Christians. And Assyrians, rarely became Muslims. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:10 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of Assyrians are obviously Arab, they have mixed in with Arabs, Turks and Persians it is very unlikely you maintained your blood but you do not know anyway. --Vonones 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Assyrians are Semites, just like the Arabs are Semites. That is the only reason why they look like us, to some extent (we are much older than Arabs). Not because we have "mixed" with them, but because we are of the same race. It's like saying that Chinese and Japanese people are the same people, because they are of the same race. We haven't mixed with Arabs. You should read this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:21 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * You talk like Assyrians are going to grow so much and get there own country eventually. Assyrians have not had land since Prehistoric times. They have mixed so much that they cannot relate anymore, they look like Arabs, Japanese and Chinese are not exactly the same while Assyrians look the same as Arabs. They are murdered daily in Iraq, Bush doesn't care because the Kurds will complain sadly they have assimilated Arab culture & blood. --Vonones 05:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that is your opinion, or assertion, that we have mixed with Arabs. I personally couldn't care less about your opinions. As for our future, you Muslims can go ahead and kill us all you like, simply because we are Christians. In time, you will be judged by God for your sins. You are not martyrs for blowing yourselves up amongst Assyrians in Iraq. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 08:30 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

As for modern Assyrians being genetically distinct, that doesn't have to be explained by them being of different origins than their "Arab" neighbours, it simply means that they have married within their own group for a long time, perhaps since the other Assyrians were Arabised. The time passed since then would had been enough to make their collective genes distinct, simply because they would all be interrelated. I don't understand what you mean by Arabs never being Christians. Several pre-Islamic Arab groups were Christianised. I don't get why the majority of Assyrians should be Arabs either. Funkynusayri 05:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If most Assyrians didn't become Arabised, what happened to them then? They just disappeared? And where did all the Arabs come from? It is a well known fact that most countries that were Arabised didn't have their populations replaced by Arabs from South Arabia, the populations just started speaking Arabic. Otherwise North and South Arabs would look a like and be closely genetically related, which they aren't.
 * Some Assyrians were of course Arabised. That doesn't mean that all Arabs in Iraq today, are pure Assyrians. As for Arabs in Iraq not looking exactly like Arabs in Saudi Arabia, that's because they aren't real Arabs. They are Arab nationalist, and their gene pool is derived from several peoples beside Arabic peoples, like Iranian peoples; Kurds and Persians, Turks, and to some extent, Assyrians. It doesn't mean that the rest of us Assyrians, have 50% Arab blood. We did not marry with Arabs. We fled to the mountains and isolated us from Muslim invaders. Nice try, but we are not Arabs, and the "Arabs" in Iraq, are far from being pure Assyrians. If most Assyrians didn't become Arabised, what happened to them then? They just disappeared? &mdash; I told you, read this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:34 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the Prehistoric comment is a joke. The country part was in response to your "occupy" comments, Mr. EliasAlucarda --Vonones 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah whatever. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:34 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Vonones, you need to spruce up your sense of humour, that joke was as offensive as it was lame. My friend, we have a right to preserve our culture like every other ethnic group in this world. And if you had even a basic understanding of Assyrian culture, you would know that intermarriage with other groups is highly shunned among Assyrians, as has always been the case, thus our bloodline is most likely highly Assyrian. It's quite possible many of us have some Persian/Turkish/Arab blood in us, but that's to a limited degree, and very uncertain. Anybody marrying an Assyrian would have had to convert (if not already Christian), or the other way around. For a long time, even until today, religion was intertwined with ethnicity, as Elias mentioned. Elias, the word "usurped" does not belong unless you're talking about somebody usurping a king's throne - otherwise, as in the case of the Assyrian homeland, it's very POV (even though it's true). In stead of "usurped", say "occupied" or "inhabited by force", or something along those lines (which are not perfect alternatives, but still better than "usurped" - you see what I mean?). For once aziza just step back and look at the topic objectively. The fact that biased terminology is in a footnote doesn't make it ok to include it. We have to be objective for anybody to take us seriously. -- Šarukinu 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My friend, we have a right to preserve our culture like every other ethnic group in this world. &mdash; Not according to Muslims. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 08:28 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * That article doesn't contradict, but rather confirm my claims, Elias: "assimilation and "Arabization" into majority cultures". It can't be clarified to what extend they were Arabised without proper genetic tests though. This of course doesn't mean that the people who call themselves today are Arabs, I don't see how anyone would come to this conclusion, it just means that their surrounding non-Assyrian neighbours were originally Assyrians. Funkynusayri 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Funkynusayri, this is you Nowhere in the previous article, does it say that we are Arabs. Nor does it say, that we have mixed with Arabs. Šarukinu, I don't think you understand. I just cited a source, that claims, our ancestral homeland, is usurped by an Arab entity called Iraq. It is not written in the main article, but it is being cited. Hence, it cannot be POV. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:43 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Agh, you're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I meant: Many Iraqi Arabs are of Assyrian origins, not the other way around. It was Vonones who claimed Assyrians were Arabs, not me. Funkynusayri 05:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't denied that Iraqi Arabs are of Assyrian origins. But this, is clearly being exaggerated. Yes, the Iraqi Arabs do have Assyrian ancestors, to some extent. Doesn't mean they qualify as Assyrians. At most, they are of 10% Assyrian origins, and that's a generous estimation. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:54 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, how do you know? And what do you mean by 10%? That 10% of them have Assyrian ancestry, or that individuals are 10% Assyrian on average? Funkynusayri 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, it is just not common, that we marry Arabs. Just take my word for it. It has happened once in a while, but 99% of the cases, we stick to marrying our own people, because Christianity is a very important part of our culture (I can't emphasize enough how important Christianity is for us as a people). My guess is that individual Iraqi Arabs have 10% Assyrian ancestry, at most, 20%. But I don't think it goes beyond 10%. The only reason why we resemble Arabs, is because we are Semites too. We look exactly like the Mizrahi Jews. That doesn't mean we are Mizrahi Jews. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 09:18 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about Jews.. I need help at Arab Jews talk page its talk about Assyrians Nochi 09:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about marrying Arabs, but about becoming Arabs. All you have to do is talk Arabic and maybe convert to Islam to get accepted by the other Arabs. I can imagine entire Assyrian villages having done this in the past, and this article also hints at that. These "Arabs" would then be 100% Assyrian ancestrally, but now considered as Arabs by everyone around them. Funkynusayri 10:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Funkynusayri, how can we guess or assume that entire Assyrian villages suddenly adopted the Arabic identity all at once? Something like that would require a major change implemented in the local church, as it was usually the center and main socializing institution of the community. Even to this day in the diaspora, the Church is one of the most (if not the most) important socializing institutions in Assyrian communities around the world. So for an entire village to suddenly convert is unlikely. One possibility is that the village is converted by force, whereby all those who don't convert are killed off, and the religious leaders are either exhiled or killed as well. Something so drastic would require a huge invading force, which would possibly dilute the Assyrian population to some degree. Long story short: an entire village converting or becoming "Arab" is unlikely, unless of course by force. Many Iraqi "Arabs" do look very Assyrian, or "Mesopotamian". But there's one thing you should consider: these "Arabized" Assyrians, especially those that converted to Islam, would be more likely to intermarry with the Muslim Arab population than the Christian Assyrians would. Back then, marriage was more controlled by the parents, and "arranged marriages" were much more common than today, even among Assyrians. -- Šarukinu 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha my friend, Elias, POV is everywhere, not just in the articles we create. For example, AINA.org and Nineveh.com are arguably very biased, and of course it's expected. Yes, that line is a quote from a cited source (which you can edit using square brackets), and although Iraq has been "usurped" by Arabs, so have North and South America been "usurped" by the Europeans, but still you don't see real scholars using terms such as "usurped" when referring to these modern states. Basically what I'm trying to say is that perhaps this source is not reliable - any detectable bias reduces credibility. Wouldn't you agree? -- Šarukinu 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see your problem with the word usurp. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:42 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Entire villages did not convert to Islam. They were, just like, Šarukinu explains above, either killed, or perhaps a few Assyrians converted, and later mixed and assimilated with their new Arab Muslim friends. The reason why we have so many victims and genocides, is because we have resisted Islam so much (not with violence). Do you know how Islam works? They first offer you Dawah (invitation to Islam), if you don't accept this, they offer you the Jizya and you can keep your religion under very restricted circumstances (very high tax money for non-Muslims, apartheid-Dhimmitude, etc.), if you don't accept this, it's Jihad until you either get killed, or convert to Islam (if you think I'm making this up, read this). Dawah, of course, is not and have never been an option for us. Most of us accepted Jizya, and if we couldn't afford the Jizya, it was death, because we refused to abandon Jesus and Christianity. Yes, a few of us, have converted to Islam in the past, but that's a minority. Most of us either got killed, or survived, as a decimated group of Assyrians. The reason why we are so few today, is not because most Assyrians became Iraqi Arabs, but because we have been murdered for centuries. You should perhaps read about the Assyrian Genocide and the Simele massacre. One thing you should know about us, is that we have been killed for believing in Jesus Christ. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:42 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * You've had one Genocide, not genocides. --Vonones 21:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we've had something like over 30 genocides. Perhaps you should check out what that peaceful Muslim Timur did with Nestorian Assyrians. The Assyrian genocide of 1915 was only one recent genocide in modern times. There is also an ongoing Assyrian genocide in Iraq as we speak. But it's nice to know that you at the very least, acknowledge 1 Assyrian genocide. Now you still got 30 or something left, to recognize. Thanks. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:29 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are Genocide claims, anyway I blame bush for the killing of Assyrians, he knows it the Pope told him yet he ignorantly ignores it. Just like in Africa, disgusting thank god he is leaving in a few. --Vonones 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are also Assyrian genocides' denials. You can deny it all you like; doesn't make it more innocent and it sure doesn't acquit anyone of the murder of our people. Blaming the murdering of Assyrians in Iraq all on Bush, is of course, an easy way out, and a logical fallacy. It is not Bush's fault, because Muslims are so peaceful and murdering Assyrians, decapitating the heads of Assyrian priests, and crucifying Assyrian children and raping Assyrian women, all the while, shrieking allahu akbar whilst doing this. This is all, the doing of Muslim Arabs. Though Bush is partially to blame for ignoring it, he is not guilty for anyone else's crimes. As for the Pope, he has opposed Assyrian independence, so he's not exactly better than Bush. And that's coming from a Catholic Assyrian. You only forgot to blame it on the malicious Jews while you where still at it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:29 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Assyrians are not going to get a homeland you can keep hoping for it. Kurds have more power and are more important to Bush and many Americans who have power. Bush can stop the killings, while the pope cannot he has raised awareness. --Vonones 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you constantly mentioning Kurds in all this? Are you a Kurd? And why are you opposed to Assyrian independence? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:22 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a Kurd. I am not opposing there independence, I am saying what is the truth. --Vonones 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the truth: In Iraq, there will be absolutely no Assyrians left. We will completely be eradicated from our own ancestral homeland, by extremely peaceful Muslims. In time, let's say, 100, 200, maybe 1000 years from now (if the world is still around for that long and hasn't been destroyed by nukes or God, or something), we will take back what's rightfully ours. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:31 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * this is Wikipedia guys. Take your discussion to email, a public forum, or at least to user space. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

and for pity's sake don't waste time discussing "sources" that turn out to be random web pages. WP:RS isn't some inside joke of pedantic Wikipedians. Cite academic sources, or if you don't have any, go to a library and come back once you do. dab (𒁳) 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, stop be such radicalist, u make it soud that assyrians are hungry for revange and power. its wrong we are peaful christians, i have never heard that muslims raped asssyrian womans`??. Nochi 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be so naive Nochi. I have relatives in Iraq that were killed by muslims and one was a woman that was raped to where she wanted to kill her self. Sharru Kinnu III 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My mother's family was going to be slaughtered by Turks when French missionaries arrived in the northern mountains of Iraq to stop them by diplomatic threats. Enough said? Anyways no cares about anyone's relatives or family or raping, if it happens, it happens and those who deny it look like stupid people. Isn't the point of this discussion to go over foot note 11? Another point, If Assyriasn weren't raped, killed etc, how the hell do they become a minority in a land which was once their homeland? Hmm? Did they use ultra sophisticated birth control?? Tourskin 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkadian and Ashurism

 * I am still waiting for Akkadian and Ashurism to be removed from the info box. It just doesn't belong their. Can we please vote on this?
 * Remove Chaldean 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify why you want them removed? I mean, elaborate why. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:30 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the infobox is meant for current info, not historical. Why not write the population in Iraq from 1930? 1800? Where does it stop? Look at any other ethnic info box - Irish people, Armenians, Russian people. Chaldean 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Jew article has several historical Jewish languages. Jews have however, only had one religion, so only Judaism is listed. I don't see the problem. In fact, I think it's perfect as it is right now. I think it's important that we list Ashurism and Akkadian, so that people can read more about this old school religion and language. But I am an inclusionist. Is there any other reason why you want them removed? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:44 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * For the second time, you can't compare this to the Jews. The Jewish topic is that of a different matter then this one. I think its important that we list Ashurism and Akkadian, so that people can read more about this old school religion and language. - they do that in the History of the Assyrian people page - not in the infobox. I mean its common sense, really. Chaldean 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, people interested in the Assyrian Empire can go and read our article Assyrian Empire, and editors interested in the topic can go and work on the Assyrian Empire, what on earth is controversial about this? Avoid article scope overlap whenever at all possible. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chaldean and Dbachmann on this one. The article Assyrian people is concerned with the modern people, and although it is important to briefly list their history, the ancient aspects of these people does not belong in an infobox about their ancestors. We can list Ashurism and Akkadian in the infobox on the History of the Assyrian people article. I have no problem whatsoever. My vote: Remove.-- Šarukinu 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the current version, in which teh infobox does not show the older religions but nonetheless the history section does mention briefly about our older times so its linked from there. Tourskin 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

per Garzo's talk page about Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs
I say it's time to split the articles and on each article explain the movements to unite and the different nationalistic movements. Explain the Chaldean perspective. Explain the Syriac perspective and the Aramaean movement. Explain the Assyrian perpective and Assyrian nationlism. The uniting article should be Syriac Christianity. What I'm getting at is that each perspective on why they feel they are that group should be thoroughly explained as well as the opposing groups counter to that claim and in the end explain that ultimately they are united by more similarites than differences. There are countless perspectives on this issue. Many feel that they are all of these people merged. Some feel connected to one and not the other. And some are blatant ultra-nationalists. Sharru Kinnu III 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We can explain them but we DONT need a 10 different articles. Garzo also supports the idea of not having all these different pages. I have suggested to Benne (an Aramean perspective supporter) to start on a page [] that you have described (Chaldean perspective, etc) and the page should be Syriacs. This page right here [] shall the be the draft. Work on it together and get the two Chaldeans in who are also discussing this on the Chaldean Assyrians page to come to the page and create something.  By the way, what do you think of this [] Chaldean 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, I like it. Sharru Kinnu III 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Assyrian" or Aramaen?
does anybody have enough knowlegde about "Assyrian peope"? well if Yes. i Guess u shud know that Syriacs call them selfs for Syriani as religion and ethnic and Assyrian means followers of eastern church. Chaldeans are not Assyrians. Syriacs acall us taht because we are east for syria and majority of IRaqi cheristians was Nestorians. Nochi 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have alot of proves just see the language "Assyrian neo aramaic" its for Nestorians. look its name? ASSYRIAN. why shud that name diominate. too bee honest we belive we are from acient assyrians because iof the name Assyrian? but no its for a church name and same for Chaldean people thinks we are acient babylonians. its a CHURCh name. i think correct for this are Aramaens. i think we where Aramaens. we speak the language. i think it shud be "Aramaen people". thats more logical or not?? Nochi 23:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi you are the poster boy for how confused our people are. Chaldean 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make this simple. Suraya sounds like Chaldean: FALSE, Suraya sounds like Aramean: FALSE, Suraya sounds like Syrian: DING DING DING WE have ourselves a WINNER!!! The correct answer was SYRIAN which if we go back a long time was derived from: you guessed it! ASSYRIAN!!! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)
 * That is correct. I find it amazing that Syriacs can't figure this out by themselves. Even when you tell them, they don't believe it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:40 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Im serious guys, u must know that "Assyrian people" don't consider themselfs assyrians. beacuse its a church name like chaldean. i ahve crteated an article Aramaean people please check it out and tell me whats wrong and corect thanks. Nochi 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nochi, please stop trolling, we are Assyrians. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 08:52 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Nochi is a troll
It appears that Nochi is trolling. How long is thing going to be tolerated? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:28 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * No government body in this world recognizes "Aramean" as an ethnic group. Nochi is just growing and is at that stage of his life where he is trying everything. He was Assyrian last week and he is Aramean today? What will he be next week, an Arab? Enough of this. Chaldean 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nochi is way out of line. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 17:11 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I just increased the protection of this article so that only admins may edit it for a week. There have been over fifty edits today, which mostly have been back and forth nonsense. Elias and Nochi are locked in argument that produces more heat than light, and I'm not just going to sit here and watch it. Without shouting or ranting, I would like to hear how the article should be improved. Is it a pipe-dream to think that we could achieve an consensus in a week? — Gareth Hughes 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nochi is a troll. He is not here to improve anything. You should investigate this. As for the article, we can improve it, if you decide to stick to citing Assyriologists and serious scholars. Of course, that would mean, that we have to label the Syriacs and the Chaldeans as Assyrians too, which you for some reason oppose. Remember, in your own words: Ancient Assyrian religion is the preserve of Assyriologists, anything else is amateur writing. &mdash; That applies on the Assyrian people as well. So, what do you say? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:31 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * This was exactly the thing I asked that we don't have: you call another user a 'troll' and then read my own words back to me, out of context, to piss me off. This kind of approach just makes things worse. Let's have a discussion, point by point, and realise that we all want a better article. — Gareth Hughes 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sir, I am not trying to piss you off. It's just that you are dubious. On one article, you want to refer to Assyriologist. On another related article, you don't want to cite Assyriologist, if it tends to upset misguided Assyrians in the illusion that they are Aramaeans or Neo-Babylonians. Come on? Don't you see the fallacy in that? Look, we can solve this by citing modern, contemporary research. Simo Parpola, is probably the best Assyriologist there is as far as our history as a people is concerned. As for Nochi, have you even bothered to check what he's been up to today? Never mind you and me, and our disputes. Just look at his edits. Anyone in his right mind wouldn't take him seriously. He's not here to write Encyclopaedic content. He's just here to screw around with articles. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:08 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Nochi did, and I won't call him a troll but if we're using correct sources and someone isn't, there is no argument about it - Simo parpola is a good assyriologist - although its not great to rely on one source, its infintely better to do so than to have no sources or poor / "amatuer" sources. Tourskin 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nochi just got block, with good reason. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:38 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * You reverted 8 times you deserve a block also. --Vonones 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted because he was removing NPOV tags I added. So technically, I'm not guilty. That "article", was a joke from the beginning. It started out as a trolling article. Please, 3 million Aramaeans? Give me a break. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:01 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has rules and you don't make them, you have to abide them or you get blocked. --Vonones 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So anyway, you want to discuss this article, or WP:3RR? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:51 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care anything is fine. --Vonones 21:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias, can you please desist from cluttering articles with your ridiculously lengthy footnotes? Assyrians aren't referred to as "Chaldeans", only the subgroup adhering to the Chaldean Church is, and your citing half of Parpola's essay doesn't change that fact, it just makes it more difficult to see through what you are trying to prove. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Assyrians aren't referred to as "Chaldeans" &mdash; Yes they are. only the subgroup adhering to the Chaldean Church is &mdash; This subgroup, consists of Assyrians, being called "Chaldeans". It is in actuality, a misnomer. Anyway, what is your problem with the lengthy footnotes? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 18:45 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Please add this in Admin
Add a link to the Assyrian Army under the History section like this:

This is a neutral edit not involved in teh above war. I need this link so that the assyrian army article is not an orphan anymore.Tourskin 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that that article is appropriate here, as this deals mainly with modern Assyrians. I've added the link to History of the Assyrian people and Assyria. — Gareth Hughes 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I guess if the debate involves whether or not modern and ancient are related thats a fair point. Tourskin 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this article must be deleted or re-named "Chaldo-Assyrian Syracs". since this article's name are using a Nestorian church name (Assyria). CHaldeans and Syriacs does not indifiy themselfs as Assyrians. only Nestorians so why shud this name be propogandic?` Nochi 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to be taken seriously, stop typing like an illiterate. You should knock it off with your trolling. Here you showed that you are capable of writing decent. Why are you trolling? Someone ban this troll. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
The title of this article suggests that it deals with the people who identify themselves as Assyrians, but its contents try to make readers believe that it actually encompasses all Syriacs. The very title is partial. Therefore, I suggest moving the information about those Syriacs who identify themselves as Aramaeans, Chaldaeans, and/or Syriacs from this article to separate articles. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article deals with the Assyrian people. This may be difficult for you to understand, but you call yourself Assyrian every single day when you say that you are a Suryoyo. In the Middle East, Syriacs don't call themselves "Aramaean". My mother, who's a Syriac Orthodox, has never told me that she's an Aramaean, and she doesn't care about some Assyrian identity either. This Aramaean crap, is just sectarian thinking, amongst a few thousand obscure Syriacs in Sweden and Germany. The majority of Syriacs, don't call themselves "Aramaean". No, we don't need to move anything. You just have to accept historical facts; not historical revisionism from your Church. Stop causing trouble Benne, and accept our history. If you have a problem with academic sources, that is your problem, and Wikipedia doesn't bow down to Aramaye censorship and Aramaya sensitivity. If you have top notch serious academics who say you are a racially pure Aramaean, you are very welcome to bring their notable opinions into these articles. "Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis", is not a scholar, and you should stop listening to his brainwashing of our people. If anyone isn't neutral here, then it's you. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:54 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Megalommatis is a psychopath. He claims Kurds aren't even an ethnic group. He is a Ultra-Kemalist Turk that is obsessed with Aramaean revisionism. Sharru Kinnu III 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, he has a political agenda to divide and rule us. Some Syriacs, like Benne, just don't get it, and swallow everything he says. Didn't he deny the Armenian Genocide recently too? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course he is a Turk bent on destroying the Assyrian nation just like the Young Turks. He claims it was an unfortunate consequence of the fall of the Ottoman empire and blames attrocities that were committed solely on the Kurds whom at the same time he claims don't really exist. The Kurds were under the authority of the Ottoman generals though there were also bandits involved in raiding the fleeing Christians the majority of crimes were committed by the Turks. Read more in the Armenian article on the genocide. God bless the Armenians that hunted down the criminals responsible for organizing the Satanic acts committed against our people and the Christians that once lived and prospered in the ancient lands of Assyria, Armenia, and Anatolia. Sharru Kinnu III 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have prove that "assyrians" are the decentants of acient Assyria. u are agresive editor who uses shitty sources to prove it. "assyrians" self arnt sure if they are from acient Assyrians. i have alot of proves that this term are from teh dominated Nestorians. Nochi 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bassa min khmaroothoukh. Hot mbayoneh l'Ba`thayeh ou Tourkayeh. Ana ma makhkyathela? Scholars from highly prized institutions are not "shitty" sources. Turks bent on our destruction are. Sharru Kinnu III 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm getting the feeling that Nochi is some kind of Turk or Kurd, screwing around with us and trying to further cause disruption with these lies. Who knows, he could probably be Megalommatis himself. We shouldn't underestimate them; they know a lot about us, and they are bribing some of our Churches telling them to spread lies. That sounds like a conspiracy, but unfortunately, that's what's going on. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:35 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Nochi, in all seriousness are you mentally challenged? I'm not being offensive but are you even Souraya? Do you know what Nestorian means? First of all it is derogitory. Second of all it is a name given to followers of Nestorious which the Assyrian church claims they weren't. They only granted him protection. The Assyrian church traces it's teachings to Babai the Great. Another thing is I can't see how you can be a legit editor when just last week you were ranting on about your Assyrianess. Did you read some new articles on the internet all of a sudden that challenged your belief on your identity. You know for someone to change their beliefs especially on their identity within a week is like you openly stating your confusion. Please refrain from your nonsense. Sharru Kinnu III 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He is not an Assyrian, Syriac or Chaldean. He is a troll. Look at his stub here and how he writes without any serious spelling or grammar errors. He is doing this on purpose, trolling around, and some users are taking him seriously. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:33 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * i am a turk because i refuse to let Nestorians domitae me? (: Nochi 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're so ignorant dude. I'm Chaldean Catholic though I know I'm Assyrian by ethnicity. Nestorian is a derogitory term if you have a clue as to what that means. Aqla b' assassoukh. Sharru Kinnu III 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * pLese dont do any personal attacks. if you belive im wrong then explain to me im willing to listen. rather than making perosanl attacks. Nochi 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the trolls. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:45 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * elias u want some advice too? go **** urself. do not use personal attack. Nochi 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, someone gave the troll a canadian quarter when they passed through the bridge. Sharru Kinnu III 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * fine. no one would explain what they belive i am wrong then i shall countuine editing what i see as right. Nochi 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nochi
Are you guys just going to sit there while he's on a trolling rampage? Have you even checked his edits? Why isn't he blocked indefinitely yet? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:36 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, he got blocked indefinitely. Now, where were we? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:50 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Aššūrāyu not Ashuraya
That timeline needs to be fixed if you wish to keep an alternate designation in parenthesis. Sharru Kinnu III 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The self designation is apparently disputed. We should change the infobox entry to something like
 * ܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ Āṯūrāyē (disputed)

--dab (𒁳) 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I get it. It appears that the Aturaye people insist that Aturaye and Suryaye are synonymous, right? While the Suryaye people dispute this? So why doesn't everybody call themselves Suryaye? The Aturaye people won't care, since they hold the two terms are equivalent anyway, and the Suryaye people will be happy too. There could logically only be a dispute if both sides claimed the two terms are different. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not disputed. Look, all Assyrians (Syriacs, Chaldeans and those of the Assyrian Church of the East) agree that Suraya, Suroyo, Suryoyo, Ashuraya, Assurayu, and Aturaye, are syrnonyms. It's just a few Syriacs, who for some crazy reason, are trying to make Suryoyo into Aramaye. And they only exist in Europe, numbering a few thousand Syriacs. That's hardly what I'd call disputed. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:42 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * but the Oromoyo faction are happy to also call themselves Suryoye, so why don't you just settle for that and call it a day? I mean, it's not like you had no other problems, is it? And while Āramayē isn't exactly equivalent, why shouldn't some people also name themselves after the Aramaeans, which are, after all, also the ancestors of the current Syriacs, and indeed even the direct linguistic predecessors. In any case, I suggest the infobox should read:
 * ܣܘܪܝܝܐ Sūryayē (and others)
 * dab (𒁳) 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer is probably that your claim is incorrect. You say that everybody agrees that "Suraya, Suroyo, Suryoyo, Ashuraya, Assurayu, and Aturaye, are syrnonyms". This is patently not the case, since the very people calling themselves Suryoyo emphatically object to being called "Assyrians". J. Joseph apparently puts emphasis on disproving the belief of Modern Assyrians that "Suraye" and "Aturaye" are synonymous. Evidently, disagreement over whether "Suraye" and "Aturaye" are synonymous is at the very heart of this dispute. dab (𒁳) 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * John Joseph, is hardly what I'd call unbiased. What does Suryoyo sound to you? Does it sound like Oromoyo to you, or does it sound, more like Suraya>Suroyo>Suryoyo? Of course, all these are derived from Ashuraya>Suraya>Suroyo>Suryoyo. We call each other the exact same thing on different dialects. Anyone in his right mind can see this. The Aramaya faction, call themselves Assyrian every single day. They are just in denial of this. Aturaye is derived from Ashuraye. It's just that the SH sound was changed. All Assyrians who call themselves Aturaye, identify as Assyrians. It means Ashuraye originally. As for us speaking Aramaic today, that is completely beside the point. It doesn't mean we are Aramaeans. Yes, we do have Aramaean ancestors, but they were a minority. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 20:10 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, fwiiw, you need to recognize that there is no scholarly consensus for your claim that "Syrian" and "Assyrian" are etymologically cognate. It's possible, but not certain. But this is irrelevant. If Aturaye is controversial, but Suryaye isn't, we'll obviously opt for Suryaye. Your article on "Syriac Assyrians", an alleged subgroup called Suryaye, is obviously misleading, as it refers to the exact same group. The full entry for "self-designation" should read:
 * ܣܘܪܝܝܐ Sūryayē / ܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ  Āṯūrāyē / ܐܪܡܝܐ Āramayē (disputed)

since it is, in fact disputed, as you must admit. As long as the dispute is notable, it doesn't matter who is "right", since Wikipedia cannot take a position. --dab (𒁳) 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that everyone in the Syriac Orthodox Church regard themselves as Aramaeans. That is not the case. While it is only in the Syriac Orthodox Church, you will find Assyrians saying "we are Aramaeans", not even there, are they a majority. Personally, I am of the opinion that the infobox should say: Aššūrāyu and that's it. Elias, fwiiw, you need to recognize that there is no scholarly consensus for your claim that "Syrian" and "Assyrian" are etymologically cognate. &mdash; Oh please, are you still into that Hurrians delusion? Just because some dispute that Syrians is a cognate of Assyrian, it doesn't mean there isn't a scholarly consensus. It is so obvious, that Syrians comes from Assyrians. Saying otherwise, is ridiculous. Most Assyrians agree that we are Assyrians. From the Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, and Chaldean Catholic Church, you will find Assyrians in large numbers. The entire Assyrian movement here in Sweden, is Syriac Orthodox. since it is, in fact disputed, as you must admit. As long as the dispute is notable, it doesn't matter who is "right", since Wikipedia cannot take a position. &mdash; Look, this Aramaya issue, it's not like it's 50/50, all right? You don't find Syriacs in the Middle East promoting Aramaya. They are only here in Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands. And they aren't a majority. They are obviously more common here, but they are not as many as you think they are. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:26 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Headcount
to be added at unprotection.

by denomination this seems to suggest that there are more than the 1.6 million Syriacs claimed in the infobox.
 * Syriac Assyrians ("Aramaean Syriacs") ca. 900,000 (Syriac Orthodox: 750,000; Syriac Catholic: 150,000)
 * Chaldean Assyrians ("Chaldean Syriacs") ca. 600,000-700,000
 * Nestorian Assyrians ("Assyrian Syriacs") ca. 300,000-400,000
 * Ancient Church of the East: 70,000-100,000
 * Maronite Church: ?
 * Assyrian Evangelical Church?
 * total: 1.87 to 2.1 million.

by dialect (Ethnologue)
 * Assyrian Neo-Aramaic 210,000 (1994)
 * Chaldean Neo-Aramaic 206,000 (1994)
 * Turoyo 84,000 (1994)
 * Western Neo-Aramaic 15,000 (1996)
 * Hulaulá 10,300 (1999)
 * Lishana Deni 8,000 (1999)
 * Lishán Didán 4,378 (2001)
 * Lishanid Noshan 2,500 (1994)
 * Bohtan Neo-Aramaic 1,000 (1999)
 * Hértevin 1000 (1999)
 * Mandaic 500 (2001)
 * Senaya 460 (1997)

this gives us a total of some 520,000. Apparently, three quarters of "Syriacs" do not speak Aramaic. The two dominant groups are clearly Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, followed by Turoyo. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers are the Nestorian Assyrians ("Assyrians"), Chaldean Neo-Aramaic are the Chaldean Assyrians ("Chaldeans") and Turoyo speakers are the Syriac Assyrians "Aramaeans". We find that the Syriac Assyrians, while most numerous, have the worst knowledge of Aramaic (80,000 out of 900,000?). In other words, the "Syriac Assyrians" account for about 50% of adherents of Syriac Christianty, but only for about 15% of Aramaic speakers. From this, it appears that the "pro Aramaean" position is a product of the diaspora.

What I don't understand is that there are 3.5 million Maronites. These are Syriac Christians, but apparently not counted as Syriacs, or else they would more than double the total headcount. Most Maronites speak Arabic, but it appears you don't have to speak Aramaic to be an "Assyrian", or else the total headcount would be reduced to 500,000. dab (𒁳) 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From this, it appears that the "pro Aramaean" position is a product of the diaspora. &mdash; Yes! Finally, you got it. That is what we have been trying to tell you all the time, Aramaeanism only exists in the diaspora, and limited to some countries in Europe. All Syriac Orthodox adherents don't even ascribe an Aramaean identity. It would be absurd to make it equal to the Assyrian identity, since it's only like, 10, 20 or something percent Syriacs who say they are Aramaeans. The Maronites, originally Assyrians and speakers of Aramaic, lost the language due to the Arab conquest. They managed to keep their religion but not the language. Nowadays, most of them don't regard themselves as Assyrians (though some still do, like Walid Phares, check this out: Lebanese Christian Nationalism: The Rise and Fall of an Ethnic Resistance). Today, the Maronites are more into Phoenicianism. This is based solely on the fact that they live on the land of the ancient Phoenicians. Never mind any lack of biological connection. I know, it's ridiculous. Anyway, regardless of the Maronites, whence did you get your numbers? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:32 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * well, it would have been so much easier for me to "get it" if you had focussed on putting facts in articles as opposed to pointless arguments about Assyrian antiquity. Nevertheless, the Assyrian diaspora is a fact, and you cannot imply that their opinion is by definition false. Syriac Assyrians make up for half the "Assyrian headcount", so that it doesn't seem obvious you would win a vote. We have to report the facts of the dispute, and refrain from deciding which side has got it "right". My "adherents" numbers are taken from de:. I don't know if they are valid, but they seem to be very uncertain anyway, we won't be able to reach a precision better than 20% or so I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

from all the above, I guess the popularity of self-designation is as follows: the question at this point must be, what is the opinion of the Chaldean Assyrians on the Āṯūrāyē vs. Āramayē question? Do they use either term at all, or is this just a "Syriacs vs. Nestorians" thing? --dab (𒁳) 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) ܣܘܪܝܝܐ Sūryayē 100% (?)
 * 2) ܐܪܡܝܐ Āramayē 20-40% (?)
 * 3) ܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ Āṯūrāyē 20% (?)


 * Who says Maronites were originally Assyrians? Some have Assyrian ancestry, but that's due to Assyrians moving to Lebanon after the Assyrian genocide. Using Aramaic doesn't make you Assyrian, remember, the whole region was Aramaic speaking once. Funkynusayri 19:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a reason for why it's called the Assyrian diaspora: most Syriac Christians, regardless of Churches, agree on Assyrian. The majority agree on the name Assyrian. It is just that some Syriacs, say they are Aramaeans, and to a lesser extent, Chaldeans say they are Neo-Babylonians. All Chaldean Assyrians, agree on Suraya; which means, of course, Assyrian (so says Simo Parpola, and he knows this a lot better than me). The Nestorian Assyrians, agree on Suraya as well. They use Aturaye interchangeably with Suraya. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:48 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, so Sūryayē is the consensus self-designation. Why was this so difficult to establish? We should say they call themselves Sūryayē, and there are also factions who like Āṯūrāyē or Āramayē, problem solved. dab (𒁳) 19:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Suraya/Suryoyo, MEANS Assyrian. That is why some of us, have reinserted the A again. The Aramaya fanatics, don't want the A, because they are so stupid as to believe, it becomes an entirely different name. Einstein was right, human stupidity is infinite. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:05 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * this whole dispute concerns the re-insertion of an A? That's human stupidity, indeed, but you do not seem exempt yourself. As I have told you before, it is not just the "Aramaya fanatics" who don't believe the words are the same, but likewise, for example, . But to anyone but fanatics, this would be an idle academic question of etymology. dab (𒁳) 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * dab, you haven't read about that stone, have you? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:22 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * um, of course the whole area once was Aramaic speaking. But then the whole area once was Assyrian, as well. That doesn't tell us anything. Obviously, the single most important criterion that makes you an "Assyrian" is adherence to Syriac Christianity. If you speak Aramaic but are a Jew, you're not an Assyrian. Now, I suppose up to WWI, "Assyrians" were simply the Syriac Christians who spoke Aramaic. Today, the term also includes their descendants who lost the Aramaic language abroad. As such, "Assyrian identity" is in a state of dissolution, as is also evidenced by the infighting. The 500,000 or so Aramaic speaking Syriac Christians should be considered the core of the ethnicity, while the diaspora people are in various stages of assimilation to their host countries, including the "back to the roots" fanatism this usually inspires among second or third generation expatriates. dab (𒁳) 19:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right, speaking Aramaic, doesn't make you a racially pure Aramaean. Just as the Jews weren't Aramaeans because they spoke Aramaic, the same logic applies on Syriac Christians. We Assyrians have just like the Jews, Aramaean ancestors. That doesn't mean we are Aramaeans. And what's wrong with "back to the roots"? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:05 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you replying to me, Dab? Again, who says Maronites were originally Assyrians? Funkynusayri 20:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Walid Phares says so: He is a Maronite from Lebanon. The Maronites used to speak Aramaic as well, and they follow Syriac Christianity. This "Phoenician" claim, is something new, and really, it's beside the point anyway. We aren't discussing Maronites here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:09 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who brought Maronites up, you're the one claiming they're Assyrians. What's the basis of that? Funkynusayri 20:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They used to speak Aramaic, they were part of our community, they follow the same religion, with the Syriac language in Church and everything. They are also from the same region in the world, they have Assyrian names like Haddad, etcetera. Was there any mention of Phoenicians converting to Syriac Christianity? Not that I know of. Of course, it should be mentioned, that most Maronites disregard any Assyrian identity. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:16 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Phoenicia had disappeared by the 2nd c. BC. Assyria had disappeared by the 6th c. BC. By the 1st century AD, it would have been perfectly pointless to distinguish between Phoenicians and Assyrians, since both identities had been extinct. It is infinitely more pointless, of course, to try the same in the 21st century. dab (𒁳) 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't read much history. The Assyrian state, disappeared, but not the Assyrian people. IMHO, Simo Parpola sums it up brilliantly here. As for the Phoenicians, people just stopped identifying as Phoenicians. Assyrians never stopped identifying as Assyrians. For example, Tatian and Lucian. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:24 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument has raged on and on, please, we have presented many sources that cover the alledged gap between modern and ancient assyrians. Herodotus and other Greeks continued to speak of Assyrians, as did the Persians who used Assyrian troops and the Romans.


 * Phoenoecians is an old name for the people of that region, before it was called Lebanon. Just as Elias Alucard said, people stopped using that word, and used others. No Empire or nation goes from being supremely powerful in c. 640 BC to supremely wiped out in less than 40 years. Tourskin 20:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * look, just repeating your opinion over and over again doesn't make it more true. Of course the Assyrians ultimately continue the Assyrian Empire. So what? They also ultimately continue the Paleolithic Near East. This focus on the Assyrian Empire is arbitrary. Precisely because there is no "gap", the Assyrians just as much continue Persian Assyria, Roman Assyria, Ottoman Assyria, etc. The Neo-Assyrian Empire is merely a period of 300 years in a long and varied history. Roman Syria alone lasted more than twice as long. The events that define Assyrian identity took place in the 4th century AD, not in the 8th century BC. dab (𒁳) 07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

sources for population numbers

 * Population: The total Assyrian, including the Diaspora, is estimated at 3.3 million, with the majority living in the former Mesopotamia. Outside of the Middle East, approximately 93,000 live in Europe, 300,000 in the United States and Canada, 64,000 in Armenia, Georgia and Russia, 33,000 in Australia and New Zealand and 150,000 in other countries. unpo.org (1999)
 * 1.8 million (1.4 million in Mesopotamia, 400,000 diaspora) i-cias.com (1996?)

estimates thus vary by more than 50%. homeland: 1.4–2.5 million, diaspora 0.4-0.8 million) dab (𒁳) 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Get some things straight for Dab and others
While I was gone, their were some points need to be made to assist everyone that is contributing to this page.
 * Chaldean Assyrians on the Āṯūrāyē vs. Āramayē question? Do they use either term at all, or is this just a "Syriacs vs. Nestorians" thing? - No Chaldean uses the Aramaya, while some Chaldeans do use Assyrian. How many Chaldeans identify as Assyrian? This is tied to village orgins. For example, a Chaldean from Alqosh is more like to call himself Assuraya then a Chaldean from Tel Kaif. Keep in mind that ALL Chaldeans in the middle east firstly identifly themselves as Surayas (at least the one that were not Arabized example; some Maslawi Chaldeans don't speak Syriac but only Arabic). Buttom line, virtually all Chaldeans in the Middle East identify themselves as Suraya. In fact, I dont think I have come across any Aramaic speaker from Iraq that doesn't call themselves Suraya (be it Chaldean or Syriac Orthodox.) You ask then why are we calling this people Assyrian - their is an old Syriac saying when this conversation gets heated - "Kolan ewoukh Suraye" - meaning we (Chaldean/Syriac Orthod/ACOE) all are Syrian ie the same people; hence indicating that everyone agrees we are one people.
 * ok, so Sūryayē is the consensus self-designation. Why was this so difficult to establish? We should say they call themselves Sūryayē, - because the English translation of Suraye is Syrian and in today's time a Syrian is an Arab from the Syria Arab Republic.

I will be more then happy to answer more questions. Chaldean 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * from all the above, I guess the popularity of self-designation is as follows:1. ܣܘܪܝܝܐ Sūryayē 100% (?)  2. ܐܪܡܝܐ Āramayē 20-40% (? 3. ܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ Āṯūrāyē 20% (?) - Dab you are giving Aramaye to big of a consideration. First of all very little/if anybody actually uses that term today in the homeland (Iran/Iraq/Syria/Turkey.) Second of all, Aramayes in Northern Europe are a minority within their own people - so you see how small of a number this is. As Gareth stated, the Syriac Orthodox in Europe MOSTLY identify themselves as Surayes (maybe 80%) with the rest of Syriac Orthodox split among Assyrian and Aramayes.)
 * Maronites - their is no legit ground for Elias or anybody for that matter of fact to claim Maronites are Assyrians. A - Very little Maronites use the term Suraya let alone Assuraya. B - Very little Maronites actually even speak the Syriac language. This brings me up to the Syriac Orthodox community in Lebanon - they cannot be identified as Assyrian either - they are very much Arabized and do not speak Syriac either. What I don't understand is that there are 3.5 million Maronites. These are Syriac Christians, but apparently not counted as Syriacs, or else they would more than double the total headcount. - because they dont speak Syriac.
 * The reason why I created this [] was to give people like Dab I more clearer view of the community. At the end of the timeline (ie toda y 2007) you see that the biggest bar is Suraya - hense the vast majority of Syriac Ortho/Catholic/Chaldean/ACOE identify themselves as Syraya. And hense the small Aramaya and Kaldaya within the community.
 * This next point is just for Elias; Kildani is Arabic, while Kaldaya is Syriac.
 * This next point is just for Elias; Kildani is Arabic, while Kaldaya is Syriac. &mdash; I know. After all, I do speak Arabic as well. Lebanese dialect. As for the Maronites, I was talking historically. Yes, very few Maronites today, identify as Assyrian. Yes, we agree on Suraye, and that means of course, Assyrian. Etymologically, it is derived from Assyrian. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:13 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, all those Syriacs who identify as Aramaye, use it interchangeably with Suryoyo. In fact, they always say Suryoyo, more often than Aramaya. Here in Sweden they are known as Suryoyo. It's just that they for some reason, are trying to make Suryoyo synonymous with Oromoyo. Obviously, it is not. Suryoyo is derived from Assurayu. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:16 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

ok, we are getting somewhere.
 * re because the English translation of Suraye is Syrian and in today's time a Syrian is an Arab from the Syria Arab Republic. -- not necessarily. It is Syriac just as much as Syrian, the -ac vs. -an are just two ways of forming English adjectives, and since "Syrian" is already taken, there is nothing to stop us from using "Syriac" as the English for Suryaye, and this is in fact what is done.
 * the 20th century information in your Image:Assyrianidentity.png is indeed enlightening, but you'll need to cite solid references for all of it. --dab (𒁳) 21:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Naum Faiq. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:42 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Naum Faiq. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:42 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

''not necessarily. It is Syriac just as much as Syrian, the -ac vs. -an are just two ways of forming English adjectives, and since "Syrian" is already taken, there is nothing to stop us from using "Syriac" as the English for Suryaye, and this is in fact what is done.'' - But the we as a group of Surayes are ultimately known as Assyrian in two important languages; English and Arabic (Ashuri) (FYI In Turkish its Syriani, in Persian we are Athuri.) If you look at every census sources of different countries I have provided, you will see that ALL of the countries have only now designation for our people; Assyrian - from Russian to New Zealand back to Canada. Chaldean 03:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC) the 20th century information in your Image:Assyrianidentity.png is indeed enlightening, but you'll need to cite solid references for all of it - these kinds of things cannot practically be proven. Their hasn't been a core study on self identification. But I believe people within the community can at least shed a light on the overall picture. For example Benne is a great source of the Aramean side of Europe. Chaldean 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) From this, it appears that the "pro Aramaean" position is a product of the diaspora. - Ummm you think? Let be clear when I say this: Nobody in the Homeland (Iran/Iraq/Turkey/Syria) be it a village or an institute identify themselves as Aramaean. Chaldean 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * sure. I recognize that the "Aramaean" thing is a recentism. Your bar says, since the 1970s (any evidence for that?). The Assyrian thing is also comparatively recent (since ca. 1900?). This is all very interesting, but my point is that if we want to move away from the "Assyrian vs. Aramaean" dispute, which is frankly something of a red herring (in my book, the infatuation with the Assyrian Empire is just as childish as the insistence on 'Aramaean' origins), we can use the perfectly accepted and uncontroversial Syriac. Harping on "Assyrian" or "Aramaean" means that you want to indulge in infighting, but once you grow tired of this, you can turn your back on it and discuss actual issues besides the naming thing, using the term "Syriac". --dab (𒁳) 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with quite some things mentioned above, but let me put one thing straight: The Aramaean thing a recentism?? Check out Urhoy and you'll see that the name has been extant among the Syriacs for centuries. The erroneous remark on the image must therefore be removed, in fact, the entire image is misleading. Also, the name Syrian is not a new "thing". Ephrem the Syrian has been called like that for centuries ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Suryaye has been in use since early Christianity (ca. 5th century). Chaldean has been in use since the 1553 schism. Assyrian has been in use since the discovery of Ancient Assyria in the 1840s. Aramaean has been in use since the 1970s or so, in the diasporafact. Benne appears to want to claim that Armāyē had been in use before "Suryaye" was introduced from the Greek, by Ephrem the Syrian. Can you give us a reference for that? Can you also address the fact requests at Aramaic history? This still wouldn't change that Armaye was used before AD 400, disappeared, and was revived from 1970. The reason appears to be that Armaye came to mean "pagan" from the 5th century or so. I believe it has become clear that the neutral term we should use is "Syriacs". Category:Assyrian people should be merged into Category:Syriacs, and this article should probably be moved to Syriacs. dab (𒁳) 11:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (in my book, the infatuation with the Assyrian Empire is just as childish as the insistence on 'Aramaean' origins) &mdash; I think you are very disrespectful towards our origins, in your anti-antiquity frenzy remarks. This article, should not at all be moved to Syriacs. First of all, Syriacs, is not an ethnic designation in the English language. Second of all, it is mainly used by the Syriac Orthodox Church, and it would also imply that we are the same people as the Syriacs in India (they are not of the same people as we are, they just follow Syriac Christianity). Assyrian, is used by members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. Second of all, the Assyrian nationalism since the early 20th century is not where we began calling ourselves Assyrians again, it just revitalised the Assyrian identity. Read this: Aramaye hasn't been in use at all, and is very rarely in use even today. They always call themselves Syriacs, and claim that they are Aramaeans if you go into detail about it. And haven't you understood yet that Syriac means Assyrian? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:18 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * if my remarks come across as "anti-frenzy", I suppose I must be spot on :) Concerning English usage, "Syriacs" wasn't introduced in 2000. . I recognize the existence of Assyrian nationlism. I don't know what you are trying to prove by pointing me to Assyrian nationalist websites, I acknowledge that they represent one side of the dispute. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That website, proves the Assyrian heritage in our churches way before the discovery of ancient Assyria. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:44 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

summary
As your resident Swiss, with no prior knowledge on the subject, I have looked into the matter, and these are my findings on the disputed points so far: I think this fairly represents the case. The "Aramaean" faction has to swallow that "Assyrian" is indeed a common term in English use (while "Aramaeans" only refers to the ancient people), and the "Assyrian" faction has to swallow that their infatuation with the (pre-Aramaic) Assyrian Empire is romantic nationalistm that is not objective, and not shared by everyone among their people. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Assyrians" is the common English name for this people. Per Naming conventions, it is permissible to use "Assyrian people" in English
 * "Syriacs" is also a common English term, used synonymously. It is less controversial than "Assyrians", and should be preferred for this reason.
 * consequently, Category:Assyrian people should be merged into Category:Syriacs. These categories have the same scope and cannot remain separate.
 * Sūryayē/Sūryoyē is the most widely used and uncontroversial term in Aramaic. Āramayē may have been used before AD 400, and (controversially) after 1970; Āṯūrāyē (controversially) became popular with Assyrian nationalism from ca. the 1850s.
 * the Syriacs are obviously the linguistic descendants of the ancient Aramaeans, and they obviously inherited the culture of the Assyrian Empire (as did the Persians and many others). With whom they should like to identify is a subjective question of patriotism, and a topic for Assyrian nationalism. "Neo-Assyrianism" is a nationalistic current that should be treated at Assyrian nationalism. Before the 19th century campaigns by French/British archaeologists, all that was known about the Assyrian Empire was a bunch of royal names.
 * Syriac identity derives from Imperial Aramaic being an official language of the Persian Empire (following its increased spread as a vernacular since about 700 BC). Syriac history proper begins with the Syriac church in the 3rd century AD. Ashurnasirpal conquered the Aramaeans. This makes him the remote cause for the later amalgamation. The earliest Assyrian ruler that can at all be argued to have had "Aramaic identity" may have been Sennacherib. But you might just as well (or rather) list Darius I as an Assyrian because he endorsed Imperial Aramaic. For this reason, the mugshot of Ashurnasirpal II (9th century BC!) in Image:Assyrians.jpg should be replaced with some Common Era personality (such as Naum Faiq or Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII).
 * dab, please, knock it off with marginalising the Assyrian identity into some obscure "romantic nationalism" à la Nazi Germany and its obsession with Aryans. We are Assyrians. There is a very good reason, as to why Syriacs who believe they are Aramaeans, name their children Sennacherib. Syriacs are not the direct descendants of the Aramaeans. That is just bogus, and a claim they can't back up. Assyrian being controversial has nothing to do with it. Several academic scholars designate us as Assyrians. That is enough for me. And most of us regard ourselves as Assyrians. We have way more Assyrian political parties from all members, than we have political parties named "Syriacs". &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * hello? I just said that "Assyrians" is proper terminology. The Nazis have nothing to do with this (for once). "Syriacs" is just as correct. If you disagree, you'll have to show me a source rejecting the term "Syriacs", not one endorsing the term "Assyrians", which I agree is also correct. Elias, it is possible to have an identity without harping on the Early Iron Age. Stop equating "ethnic identity" with your enthusiasm for ancient history. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it has become clear that the neutral term we should use is "Syriacs". - you can't move this page to "Syriacs" under the ground of the world knowns as as Assyrian, nothing more, nothing less. Australia census, Russian census, Armenian census, Gerogian census, Ukraine, New Zealand, and Canada. Chaldean 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not at all just as correct. Syriac is not an ethnic designation term. It includes people that are not Syriacs, and just follow Syriac Christianity. Our religion, is Syriac Christianity (or Syrian Christianity if you like). Our ethnicity, is Assyrian. What the hell, it is just an A. Moving this into Syriacs would give the impression that we are all from modern day Syria, which we are not. That is why many of us have started calling ourselves Assyrians again, because Syrian is nowadays taken by Arabs in Syria. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:40 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * can you read? I just stated that "Assyrian" is correct. The US census has "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". No, it wouldn't be confused. "Syriac" is never used for modern Syria, only for Syriac Christian. How do you define "Assyrian" if not by adherence to Syriac Christianity? Obviously not by using Aramaic, since there are only 500,000 Aramaic speakers, but more than 2 million Syriacs. dab (𒁳) 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just stated that "Assyrian" is correct. &mdash; Then that is what we should use. What's the fuss about? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:51 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, there is a dispute, alright? You are on one side of the dispute, others are on the opposite side. That you think the others are "stupid" doesn't change the fact that there is a dispute. Your continued refusal to recognize there is a dispute doesn't change the fact that there is a dispute. It only wastes more time. Wikipedia is neutral, and you have to overcome your personal conviction if you want to edit here. Any questions? Read WP:NPOV. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab, did you read what I wrote in your talk page? Do you see how the claim of "the word Assyrian wasn't present for 2000 years until 19th British missionaries came" is false? While we called ourselves Surayas, people from the East and the North of us (Armenians, Georgians, Persians) continued to call us Assyrian throughout AD. Chaldean 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Suraya means Assuraya anyway. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:00 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * The point that I was trying to make is that this whole "19th century British missionaries created Assyrian" is simply not true. Georgian leaders some 100 years before that called us Assyrian in ancient letters . And its the same with Armenians and Persians. Chaldean 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the question about English usage is separate. Stop confounding current English with medieval Aramaic or Georgian. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes! So why the hell do you object? In your opinion, the move would be from one synonym to another. But this is about English usage first and foremost. I recognize that "Aturaye" was used from the Middle Ages. I also recognize that "Assyrian" is probably more common than "Syriacs". But both are in use. Alright, perhaps we shouldn't move this article. But the other points stand. Category:Assyrian people and Category:Syriacs absolutely need to be merged, and the Ashurnasirpal portrait has to go. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this name shouldn't be moved. The Category:Syriacs should be merged into Category:Assyrian people. As for Ashurbanipal's picture (it is actually Ashurnasirpal II), what is your problem with this? Persian people also has old kings. This is common Wikipedia practice. Many articles about different peoples have it like this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:12 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * rolleyes - at least you're not insisting on Sargon of Akkad anymore... You could as well place a picture of Mitochondrial Eve and claim she was Assyrian too, since you're descended from her. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, I still don't think you get it. We consider ourselves the indigenous people of Mesopotamia, and that picture of Ashurnasirpal's is a symbol of that. Chaldean 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, I've understood that. It's ethnic nationalism, and while it may be notable, it violates WP:NPOV to present this as fact. We can present it as an opinion, no problem (Assyrianism), but not as fact. Sorry, that's the rules on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How impossible is that we are descendants of the ancient Assyrians, AND the Akkadians anyway? So can we merge the Syriacs category into Assyrian people category? All it does, is list Assyrians over again under a different category. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:22 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, try to pay attention. This is very important: Being descended from ancient Assyrians does not mean you are ancient Assyrians. The difference is in "descended from". Otherwise, you'd also be a Homo erectus, since you're also descended from those. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we are not the ancient Assyrians. We are the modern Assyrians, with all that it entails. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:32 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Syriac is actually Syrian
Syriac was a designation originally termed for the language where Syrian was designated for the people of Syria. The recently designated term as an ethnonym was very recent and due to confusion with the nation state of modern day Syria and it's people which may include Syriacs but may also imply a citizen of the country. We may have referred to ourselves as Sour(y)aye or Souryoyo but just as Deutche in German means German and not Dutch so does Sour(y)aya/Souryoyo in "Neo-Aramaic." I mean just take Neo-Aramaic for that matter. Who even says Aramaya/Aramith for the language in the actual language. These are all exonyms that other people refer to us by. We are basically arguing over something so little and petty that it's destroying us from within. This is why our people are in the situation they are in today. Fuck fighting over our name. We need to do something for our people. This is a God Damn joke that was perpetrated on us by others and now they're all laughing at us as we bicker over the stupidest fucking shit we could possibly fight over. Pardon my language but this is so fucking stupid. Sharru Kinnu III 13:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * my point entirely, thank you Sharru Kinnu. You are doing nobody a favour with this dispute, least of all the Assyrians themselves. I don't think 'others' are so much laughing at you, as completely ignoring you, because nobody can be bothered to take this dispute seriously enough to even try to understand what it is about. Dear Assyrians/Syriacs, you have other problems. Settle on a compromise, shake hands and be friends. dab (𒁳) 13:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I've been saying all the time. Stupid Suryoyos under the false belief that they are Aramaeans or Chaldeans, just don't get this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:25 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * this is so sad. You have your head stuck up so far that you don't even recognize that you are just as indoctrinated as the other side. This is like a row among four year olds :( dab (𒁳) 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please dab, stop breaking our balls. We are not the ones who are indoctrinated here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:33 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, I can see it now. It must probably be me, the Swiss guy who doesn't really care one way or another what you call yourselves, just as long as you can get your act together and agree on something so the edit-wars will stop. For all I care, you can decide to call yourselves sag-giga (as long as you don't claim to 'be' the ancient Sumerians). dab (𒁳) 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We are of course, needless to say, descendants of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Aramaeans, and the Chaldeans, more or less, anyway. This is because we are the indigenous peoples of Mesopotamia. We are Mesopotamians. It's just that we have for thousands of years, identified as Assyrians, or Syrians (which means, Assyrians). There is no need to change this now and claim that we are Sumerians all of a sudden, since we stopped identifying as Sumerians a long time ago. The same logic applies on any claims of being "Aramaeans", since the exact same group claiming this, have called themselves (As)syrians for a very long time now. If you want to help us out stop quarrelling, you should help us out to cite academic scholars about us being Assyrians, because that is what we, essentially, are. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:03 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * you are Mesopotamians, of course, but that has nothing to do with your language, or your religion. All Iraqis are Mesopotamians, including the Syriac Christians. Your ethnic identity is defined by religion+language, not genetics. Can you please also deign to recognize that it is unknown whether Syrian and Assyrian is from the same root? That you keep repeating the claim doesn't make it any less uncertain. It may be, ok, but there is room for disagreement? And your identity is completely unrelated to this question? dab (𒁳) 15:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * you are Mesopotamians, of course, but that has nothing to do with your language, or your religion. &mdash; It has everything to do with our language and religion. We have spoken Aramaic since the Neo-Assyrian Empire. We are the true Mesopotamians. Though of course, many of us today, especially in the diaspora, are forgetting Aramaic, it's not like we're an entirely different people because of that. All Iraqis are Mesopotamians &mdash; False. They are intruders in Mesopoamia, and they are not the indigenous people of Mesopotamia. They are occupying our ancestral homeland. Can you please also deign to recognize that it is unknown whether Syrian and Assyrian is from the same root? &mdash; It is not at all unknown. It is even written in the Bible, New Testament, Luke 11:32, that Jesus called us Men of Nineveh. What, you think he went all the way to northern Iraq and preached? No, of course not. There was Assyrians all around the Middle East by that time, since as a result of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, they had expanded throughout many parts of the Middle East beside Mesopotamia. And way back then, there was no silly "We are Assyrians, no, we are Aramaeans and/or Chaldeans" claims. We were one people at that time. Whether we were called Assyrians or Syrians, doesn't matter, Syrian is derived from Assyrian, as you will understand, once you read through this document about that ancient stone: &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 17:34 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I can see it is pointless arguing with you. If many Assyrians are as impermeable to reason as you are, I am not surprised you cannot even agree on what you want to call yourself. Reasonable or not, WP:NPOV  is not negotiable. dab (𒁳) 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not the problem dab. Did you even read this? Yes or no, don't dodge the question. Once you've read it, you can't really deny that Syrian is derived from Assyrian. Resorting to ad hominem when you lack arguments, is lame. Anyway, just read this document, it's written by an Assyriologist. Don't be ignorant this time. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to the AINA article you are linking to, I have used the original journal article upon which it is based, to cite the little part from the identity section. It's been up there for a couple months now, and people apparently still ignore it. It's a shame that people choose to be blind to the facts, eh Elias? :P --Šarukinu 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh, this is a 2006 paper suggesting there is strong evidence, at the same time stating that this is an etymological dispute that has been going on for ages. The only facts here are:
 * this question has been disputed since antiquity
 * this is an academic question of etymology completely irrelevant to ethnic infighting among the modern Syriacs/Assyrians/Aramaeans
 * I moved the etymological debate to Syria (etymology). The details of this debate are completely offtopic here. All we need to say is that (a) current opinion does in fact favour the assumption that Syria is ultimately derived from Assur, and that (b) this question is for some reason relevant to Syriac identity. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the details of this debate are in no way offtopic. They relate to the synonymy between the terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian", and "Suryaya/Suraya" & "Ashuraya" - note that this is within the identity section. I get the idea that you keep trying to knock off important facts about the Assyrian people to somehow fit your ideal picture of an article. Furthermore, you fail to mention two other facts:
 * Assyria, in the Luwian language, the widespread vernacular language of ancient Anatolia, was called Sur, and in Phoenician Ashur - this is a direct connection, whether or not it's disputed.
 * The Greeks and Romans had close contact with the Anatolians throughout their history, and there are many cases in which elements of language were exchanged between them
 * But please do not remove the bit I added back in until I expand the new article I created on the Çineköy Inscription, so I can link to it from this article. It's well-cited, from a peer-edited journal, might I add, and you have no right to remove it.--Šarukinu 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

British colonialism did not invent the Assyrian identity, it just revitalised it
By the way, dab, you've been listening too much to these Aramaya fanatics. Freydun Atturaya was an Assyrian nationalist from Iran, he is just one example of many Assyrians who identified as Assyrians without influence from the Britons. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 18:37 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

If Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine eventually merged...
If the countries somehow merged and used the name Syria. We would refer to ourselves as Syrian and end this stupid debate about our identity once and for all. We would thereby be indegenous Syrians. We could just call ourselves Syrian. That would the greatest thing ever for our people if the countries merged and formed a secular republic like that of Turkey where Islamists are shunned we could have a revival and if the government protected minorities we would thrive. This is more realistic than an Assyrian homeland plus we would live in a diverse nation not a Christian ghetto. Sharru Kinnu III 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. I'll have to decline that offer. The last thing I want, is an Arabic National Socialist state occupying almost the entire Fertile Crescent. It's bad enough as it is, with Socialist Arabs occupying the state Syria with OUR ethnic name, I wouldn't want an Arab Nazi state. Assyrian independence is an Assyrian state for the Assyrian people. We are not Arabs, and any attempt trying to make us Arabs, should be declined. Have some dignity, please. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:50 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, too many nationalistic minorities who don't trust each other for that to ever happen. But it would sure be better if it removed influence from the Gulf states. Funkynusayri 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

talk about loss of reality. Trust it takes a group whose language is disappearing, and whose factions are divided by endless infighting, to dream of restoring not just their homeland, but a gigantic empire. Time to emigrate to cyberspace and rebuild the Assyrian Empire there, methinks... dab (𒁳) 12:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, read the text on the map. This was suggested by the Syrian Socian Nationalist Party, of which no known members are Assyrian. You're judging the Assyrian people based on a couple of users on Wikipedia - overgeneralisation, methinks... ;) --Šarukinu 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care for a revival of any empire. I'd like for the whole world to be united under one rule: the rule of law. I believe in one world government. Dividing the world into thousands of micro-states isn't helping humanity. It's creating division, hatred, and distrust of one another. Sharru Kinnu III 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, I don't think you get it. Syrian Social Nationalist Party, wasn't even founded by Assyrians. You shouldn't ridicule us like that. Some time in the future, you Germans might be in our situation. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:56 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora in Mesopotamia
Read Sarhad Jammo's "thesis" on our identity on http://www.kaldu.org/3_chaldean_culture/ContemporaryChaldeansAssyrians.html and you'll see he states that first and formost the first Christians in "Iraq" were converts from the Jewish faith in the diaspora. Does that say anything to anyone here? Sharru Kinnu III 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is he insinuating that we are Jews? Unbelievable. You know, every day, we are some new group of people. Aramaeans, Arabs, Jews... Everything, except Assyrian. Why can't people just shut up for once and let us be Assyrians? Like, mind your own business. I'm just waiting until someone says that we are Egyptians. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:38 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * The first Christians in Bet-Nahrain were of course Jews - St. Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Christ, founded one of our churches, the Church of the East. I don't think the author of that website is trying to say that all Christians from Bet-Nahrain were originally Jews, that's ridiculous :P --Šarukinu 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of Sarhad Jammo. I know him personally. I used to go to St. Joseph Chaldean Catholic Church in Troy, MI, USA where he was once a priest. He litterally tried to re-invent the definition of Chaldean. Sharru Kinnu III 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Europeans and Americans are the true Assyrians
The Assyrian and Israelite Origin of the Northern Europeans and Americans &mdash; This is the guy that Benne takes seriously. He is quite busy, trying to eradicate the Assyrian nation and the Assyrian identity, with this ridiculous crappy revisionism of his. This is only another one of his moves, in his elaborate plan to turn us into "Aramaeans". He knows that not all Assyrians are going to accept this crap, and that's why he's doing it, because he knows it will cause further confusion. This only reminds me, not to take anyone who says he is an Aramaean, seriously. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:45 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never cited or even mentioned Prof. Megalommatis ... Don't tell lies about me. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you do post links to that aramnahrin site, which in turn, cites his bullshit. I'm not the one spreading lies. Megalommatis, and anyone else who says Assyrians are Aramaeans, is the one spreading lies. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:17 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Megalamotis is a staunch Kemalist Turk. It's in his nations best interest that Assyrians disappear off the face of the earth. Sharru Kinnu III 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yes of course. It appears that Benne is also a Turk, since he speaks Turkish. Which could explain why he's so adamant on propagating this Aramaean identity. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:20 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that?? This is getting funny. If you apply that "logic" to Aramaic-speaking Syriacs, where would that lead you ...? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that Benne is also a Turk - Benne is a Dutch, but because he lives in a community where their are Syriacs who brainwashed him about "ARAMEA" he has become a missionary of some sort. If he lived in the US, he would never the same view about the issue as he does right now. Let the cannon keep on exploding. Chaldean 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians
Why arguing? ... Chaldeans/Syriacs/Nestorians are all ethnic Assyrians by different christian sects, please point out any "Chaldean" person who are not Chaldean Catholic? ... I am not an Assyrian but I have alot of Assyrians freinds and have been invited to several Assyrian parties by Chaldeans and Syriacs and both did called themselves as Assyrians, Its nonsense to just trying to make an ethnic group by this. Balu2000 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what we Assyrians are saying. It's just that some Assyrians, minority as they are, are being indoctrinated lies and fall for it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:18 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Everthing asside including our past and what eventually led to us being the modern Assyrians matters not, we are the modern Assyrians regardless of any attempt to make us into something else. That is my point. We could have Sumerian, Akkadian, Amorite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Aramaean, Jewish and maybe even Alien from outerspace ancestry for all I care according to all the damn theories that may form in the next millenium to come and beyond. We are Assyrians because we identify as Assyrians because where we come from, because of the language we speak, because of the religion we believe in, and because most importantly where we come from. We come from the birthplace of civilization. We are then direct descendants of civilization. We are Assyria. Sharru Kinnu III 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, leave the Jews out of this. You seem to be very uncertain of your ethnic history?. You better start clicking at "Article" bar and start reading "History" headline, then come here and trying to screw things up. Balu2000 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh crap!, if I get you clear?, you are saying that you guys are Assyrians beacuse you identify yourselves as Assyrians?, regardless of your claims of "Mixture", well that could be. but you have listed some people either died out 3000 years before Assyrians or listing a strong ethnic religious coummunity. Please be more aware of your own history. Assyrians are descendants from Akkandians, they always was even if they had lived under other Identities like Arabs, Kurds or Turks Balu2000 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what I'm talking about. Please refrain from your ingorance on the issue at hand. I'm speaking in regards to all the claims of mixture. I know my ancestors. I know I'm Assyrian. Sharru Kinnu III 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yeye, sure you know, ou are an Assyrian, and thats the reason why you are not sure about your orgins? (: Balu2000 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know my origins. I am an indigenous Mesopotamian from Northern Iraq. I am Assyrian. You don't seem to understand the argument. Read Sarhad Jammo's thesis then open your mouth.
 * Let me clarify my something. Assyrians conquered many people and either destroyed them or assimilated them thereby making them Assyrian so as far as claims of mixed lineage goes that is not true in a sense being that Assyrianized people were Assyrian. Arabs attempted to do the same to us as did other cultures but here we are 6000 years later and we're still Assyrian. They failed to an extent and succeeded in that Assyrians that did become Muslim and Arabize are now Arab and not Assyrian just as whatever race our ancestors conquered and infused in our way of life are not of any other lineage but Assyrian. I'm not speaking mitochondrial DNA and other scientific data that's irrelevant to something not scientific which is ethnicity and race. Sharru Kinnu III 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) "And if you didn't understand, kill yourself; it's better for you. May God be with you though I think Satan is in you." is a poetic statement implying that your ignorance is irrelevant whereas you tell me to eat shit animal is you showing your frustration.
 * Whatever? :P You seem to make a fool of yourself. Assryrians came from Akkadians wich are semitic as like the modern day Assyrians, what the hell has that to do with Sumerians? and Jews in Iraq are known, they are the one who was brought from Judea not you guys.Balu2000 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that. Sarhad Jammo, a bishop of the Chaldean Catholic church is implying that. Understand something before you try to argue it. Sharru Kinnu III

stop it guys. ethnicity is a matter of consensus to self-identify as one. Such consensus is necessary and sufficient to form an ethnicity. This article reports on various degrees of such a consensus. Your baroque ideas about the Ancient Near East are irrelevant here. Just cite various opinions and let them stand beside one another. dab (𒁳) 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One last point concerning your rude remarks Balu, my ancestry can be traced as far back as the 16th century to Hakkari, the heart of Assyria. Hakkari itself is Aramaic Ekarreh which means farmers. My ancestors were farmers and leaders of their villages for millenia not just centuries, that's just what our family has documented so before you attack someone claiming they don't know what they're talking about check yourself. Sharru Kinnu III 13:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose my ancestors were "farmers and leaders of their villages for millenia not just centuries", and so were everybody's in the hemisphere affected by the neolithic revolution. What does that have to do with anything?? Kindly discuss sources, and how to present them properly. Editors' ancestry simply doesn't enter the equation here. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was addressing his attack on my knowledge of my background. And the "farmers" statement is in referrence to Hakkari which is what the place is named after; farmers. Hakkari is derived from Ekarreh which means farmers in Aramaic. That has plenty of relevance to his argument and attack on my character. Sharru Kinnu III 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Translate
Anyone who could translate this into Neo-Aramaic with Syriac script? if so, thank you :) Balu2000 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus first
I reverted to last version by Garzo. Explanation in a moment... The article is well sourced, citing respected academic scholars like Richard Nelson Frye, Simo Parpola, and many others. The timeline image to the left is very informative, and should be included in the article. It is also, well sourced, to respectable academic scholars. I don't think this should be deleted from the article. It is very enlightening. Also, about the name dispute. Look, we are Assyrians. We don't take this lightly. I don't think anyone else, would like that someone comes and changes around his ethnic designation. This is a sensitive question. All evidence, point to that Syrian, or Syriac, means Assyrian originally. YES, some dispute this as a theory, but none of their arguments, are convincing. Also, ignoring the archaeological evidence that was found recently (and this was also removed from the article by dab, he is a deletionist after all), where Syria and Assyria are used as synonyms, is ignorance at best. Look, dab just removed a lot of content, of which I find both encyclopaedic and valuable. He did this without agreements here on the talk page. I am of the opinion that we should not delete every notable issue regarding the Assyrian people. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:54 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits are disputed, to say the least. The "Syria=Assyria" claim is also disputed. Besides, the image is plainly wrong, and lacks sources. Where do you prove that Assyrians are the descendants of the Akkadians? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article included those Syriacs identify themselves as Aramaeans, Chaldaeans and/or Syriacs. Until consensus has been reached, it should stay like that. I don't agree with the status quo, and believe Assyrian people should deal only with those people who consider themselves part of an Assyrian nation, but that's unfortunately the way it is right now. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Image is sourced to two academic scholars, and one ancient Greek historian. As for Assyrians being descendants from the Akkadians, the Assyrian people have spoken Akkadian, and there are still lots of Akkadian words in the modern Neo-Aramaic language. That's not without a reason. No more reverts with whatever you disagree, Benne. discuss it here, and we'll refute all of your erroneous assertions with sources. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:21 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Syrian means Assyrian. This is also sourced to a very respected Assyriologist. Yes, some object this fact, that doesn't make it a "disputed theory", because their objections are not backed up by any valid proof. In fact, they're just presenting inconclusive theories like "Hurrians" is supposedly Syrian. Right. Look, there are archaeological evidence of Syrian meaning Assyrian. We have been known as Assyrians by the entire world. Recently, some Assyrians began calling themselves Arameans. It doesn't make them Arameans. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:23 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias: stop the edit warring. you'll just get the article protected again. The naming dispute is well referenced. The "timeline" image is completely flawed, already because it goes back to 2,400, and because it inflates the 20th century to the size of about 2,000 years. This should be discussed in prose, or at best in the dynamic timeline at Timeline of Syriac history. The discussion of the etymology of Syria does not belong here. It is enough to state that mainstream opinion agrees that it is ultimately derived from Assur. --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, you know, that here on Wikipedia, we go by academic scholars. Three very respected and notable academic sholars, have presented historical facts that Syria comes from Assyria. Everything, points to Syria originating from Assyria. Removing academic sources, is not NPOV. This revert war is perpetuated by the self-offended pseudo-Aramaean Benne. I'm the one who wants to discuss this on the talk page before we do more edits. And by the way, there is a reason as to why we have an identity section in this article. Not everything is supposed to be merged into Assyrian naming dispute. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:27 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * did you even read my statement? I agree, and discussed this at Syria (etymology). For the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to simply mention the mainstream opinion (which also happens to be your own opinion, so what is your problem?) dab (𒁳) 09:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look dab, you and I, more or less, agree on the facts. It's just that I am not a deletionist. I am an inclusionist. I don't like deleting valuable encyclopaedic content. Especially not if it happens to be sourced to academic scholars. Benne says: Besides, the image is plainly wrong, and lacks sources. &mdash; Bullcrap. He's just making this up. The image is sourced to two very respected academic scholars, and they know this subject a lot more than "Benne". It is also sourced to Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian. He doesn't like it? We can source the image with ten or 50 more sources (which is exactly what I'm going to do; I am not finished with this image). This image, highlights very valuable information to this article. It adds some perspective on the whole naming dispute. It should not be deleted. How is this image "off-topic" (an overused word by you)? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:38 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a good reason why you reverted the article again dab? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:44 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * sheesh, the etymology discussion is offtopic. The image is ontopic, but highly dubitable in its presentation. Your image is "sourced to Herodotus"? What utter nonsense. No cited material was removed. The etymological discussion was merely moved, to Syria (etymology) where it belongs. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is ontopic, there is nothing wrong with it, it's sourced to several sources, and more sources will be added. It should stay in the article. Also, it' not just the image, you're removing lots of other content. Don't call it "off topic", it's very much the topic. Who are you to decide what's off topic? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 13:48 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

you have violated WP:3RR:. your behaviour is not acceptable. If you revert again, I will have no choice but to report you at WP:AN/3RR. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is being WP:OWN by you. You think you're the most neutral editor and no one should oppose your version of this article. You can't just remove valuable content in the article, both encyclopaedic and referenced, without consensus. Have you even bothered to listen to the other editors working on this article? Benne, is not a neutral editor. He is an Arameanist, and his reverts are without reason. He is removing referenced content because he doesn't like it. And don't threaten me with WP:3RR, I've told you several times, let's reach a consensus here on the talk page first, and then edit. It's just that you keep on reverting it, without consensus with other editors. This is not collaboration. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 13:44 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

neither you nor Benne are neutral. Without the 3RR, you would spend all day reverting each other. I do not own this article, but I am neutral. This may mean that my judgement can be decisive in your edit-wars, because it will make one side or the other run into 3RR earlier. It cannot be denied that there is a dispute here. You keep removing the reference to that very fact, simply re-inserting your favoured position. Hence my revert. If you have a reasonable suggestion to make, rather than simply restoring your preferred Aturaye, propose it here. I am certainly not on Benne's side. I agree this article should remain titled "Assyrian people". You and I agree on that, but we do not agree on the reason. My reason is Naming conventions, while your reason is the flawed assumption that Wikipedia should report "The Truth". --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about "truth". It's about presenting historical facts. If Benne, or anyone else, can instead of presenting Historical Revionism, present hardcore irrefutable facts, that this alleged "Aramaean" group, is indeed, Aramaean, I will not even try to argue against it. But he is not neutral on this. He has been brainwashed by some ridiculous obscure minority Syriacs, and he sees himself as some kind of protector or "oppressed minorities". I'm hundred times more neutral than he is. Do you know why? Because I've made up my own mind about this, after studying this subject for at least 6 months now. I did not grow up, calling myself "Assyrain". I have delved into my roots, and made myself my own objective picture about it all. I did not listen to priests and their incessant whining about some holy Aramaic people. I have not removed any references, I have added references, you're the one removing referenced content. That's why I object to your reverts. This version looks a lot better than this version. You can't be serious with listing up that many different designations? Just ad Assyrians, and a link to the dispute, and that's enough. I don't care about the "Aturaye" designation. I don't like it; I prefer Assuraye. But removing 50% of the article, is not okay with me. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:10 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on naming conventions, and NPOV policy, this article should be titled Syrians or Syriacs. That's what the people have been called for centuries, not Assyrians. That is, if the article is to deal with the people who refer to themselves as Sur(y)āye or Suryoye. If it is to deal with the current Assyrian nation (no one denies there is such a thing), with its own flag, festivals, etc., than go ahead, but don't claim to include all Syriacs, including those who consider themselves to be Aramaeans.


 * The image is flawed, and unsourced. Where on earth did you get the idea that Syriacs started referring to themselves as Aramaeans in the 1970's? This is nonsense, I've provided evidence for that so many times. Just check out Urhoy for once, you'll see plenty of references, taken from the entire history of the Syriac people. -Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Syrians/Syriacs means Assyrian. I know this is impenetrable in your mind, but if you have a rock solid case of facts presenting it as otherwise, you are welcome to bring that into the article, and based on these new undiscovered facts, we can change the article's name. But since no such evidence exist, it should be Assyrian. We have never called us Arameans. What some priests or "Church fathers" wrote is irrelevant. As a nation, we have called ourselves Suryoyo, not "Oromoyo". Suryoyo, as anyone in his right mind can see, is closer to Assyrian than to Aramaean. Does it exist any kind of documents from the Ottoman Empire of some "Aramaean" people? No. And those who call themselves Aramaean today, are a minority, and within their own community of relatives, a lot more of them call themselves Assyrian. As for the image, it is properly sourced to multiple independent sources. Don't call it unsourced just because you don't like it. And please, no more revisionist sites publishing bullshit from Megalommatis. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:21 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I have presented you (a link to) plenty of references that prove that Syriacs have called themselves Aramaeans. This fact is also acknowledged by Greek historians, Semitic scholars, and the like. Ephrem the Syrian, for instance, referred to Bardaisan as "the philosopher of the Aramaeans". Check out the website, and see it for yourself. It is crystal clear. You won't find anything written by Megalommatis, these are all historical references that equate Syrian (or Syriac) with Aramaean.

These facts are in contradiction with that silly picture, that states that identification with the ancient Aramaeans started in the 1970's, which is simply not true. And this statement is nowhere backed up with sources, so don't say it's properly sourced.

And concerning Parpola, like I said before, he does not prove a darn thing. All he does is make an attempt to make it seem likely that all non-Assyrians have lost their sense of ethnicity while being part of the Assyrian Empire. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, so tell me, since it is a fact according to you, where do we hear of an Aramaean people in the history books, before the 1970's? Yeah, thousands of years back. It might be so that the Aramaean self-designation was in use before the 1970's (I don't doubt that it began somewhat earlier), but not until the 1970's did it break out in more larger numbers. And still to this day, the "Aramaeans" are far from being a 50/50 case. Whether you like what Parpola says or not, is of course, needless to say, beside the point. He is an academic scholar, that of which, you are not. His opinion on this, matters, yours, don't. Tough luck. And you still haven't cited any academic sources either. Home-made Arameanist revisionist websites, don't count. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:50 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this isn't about historical revisionism, or even history. It is about the current English and Aramaic names for the people. What this group is called today does not necessarily have anything to do with what they were called in earlier times. It is a fact that they are known as both "Assyrians" and "Syriacs" today, and it is a fact that some prefer the self-designation Athuraye, while others prefer Aramaye. How this may or may not tie in with earlier history is interesting, but irrelevant for article titling or listing of self-designations. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just more of your anti-nationalist agenda. Calling yourself a bird doesn't making you a bird. You roar like a lion, you run like a lion, and you look like a lion, you are a lion, not an "Aramaean". Look, this revisionist crap, we must take this into consideration, and not include revisionism and present it as facts. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be presenting inaccurate stuff about an ethnic group of people, and that does not improve Wikipedia's reliability. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * ethnicities, unlike birds, are constituted by a sense of identity. If the Assyrians stop thinking of themselves as Assyrians, they cease to be Assyrians. Just like the Gauls, as they ceased to think of themselves as Gauls, ceased to be Gauls. Your argument is completely flawed because you keep implying that ethnicity is in some way 'real' regardless of convention. That's nonsense. Don't compare this to birds, compare it to a football team. If a team stops playing footbal, it stops being a football team, alright? If a football team decides to play volleyball instead, it becomes a volleyball team. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, your idea of an ethnicity is a joke. To you, ethnicity is like clothes. You can just wear it off and change it whenever you want. No, I'm sorry, but I look at it a lot more logically. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:58 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * the truth is somewhere between 'birds' and 'volleyball team'. I am playing back at you how unfounded your own convictions are. You have a right to them, but you should leave them behind when you edit WP, out of respect for WP:NPOV. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arameans
It doesn't really matter what they consider themselves; just as the people of Lebanon are called Arabs whether they like it or not. --Vonones 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it does. You can't force an identity upon people. And I the example you gave was really bad. First of all, Muslim Lebanese do consider themselves Arabs, so I don't know where your going with that. Chaldean 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that Lebanese Muslims are Arabs. It's not a bad example at all. If a small group of Japanese people suddenly think they're Koreans for whatever reason. Does that make them Koreans? No of course not. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 10:21 16 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Leabanese did just sudden belived they are Arabs, It is more a history things and the Arab empire did cover alot of middle east including Lebanon so that's logical that Lebanese are Arabs, for the Japanese may have been Korean regarding your statements. its not the same, Korea had not any influence on Japan, nor a empire covering japan or any thing so why should this compare whith Arabs and Lebanon, that just a silly compression. Balu2000 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Balu, you claim in your edit summary that the "Aramaean" faction claims that Aramaeans are a subgroup of Syriacs. I do not think this is correct. If there is such a position, please discuss it at Names of Syriac Christians first. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Muslims in Lebanon are mostly of Arab descent. The Maronites in Lebanon, are mostly of Syriac descent, with some other mixes. Most Maronites reject any Arab designation. They used to speak Aramaic once upon a time, you know. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:52 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * you keep talking about "facts" concering people's "descent". In this case, you should edit a "genetics" section, and cite genetic studies. Names have nothing to do with descent, so stop mixing the two topics as if descent somehow determined self-designation, or even exonyms. dab (𒁳) 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, please, all right? I am from the Middle East. I know a lot more than you do about this stuff. We Christians in the Middle East, avoid marriage with Muslims, because that would mean we must become Muslims. And since the Muslims are Arabs, that means, Maronites are not Arabs for the most part. Ethnicity and religion go hand in hand with marriage in the Middle East. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:58 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * so? I am not saying this isn't true, I am saying it is irrelevant. You are free to discuss Syriac genetic studies and marriage customs, no problem at all, but stop building a case on them. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dab my friend, I don't think you know what I mean, I mean that when you say "Also called as Syriacs pr Aramaean", it is like "Berber also called Amazigh", the term "Berber" and "Amazigh" refer to one same thing while "Aramaean" or "Syriac" are not the same as "Assyrians" because Assyrian nation compromise Chatholics, Orthodox and other sects, "Aramaean" may be synonym for "Syriacs".Modern Arameaen Identity are only claimed by small group of Syriacs which can not by the "Aka" for Assyrians. you understand me? Balu2000 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On top of that, those who claim they are Aramaeans, are only listening to priests. The Syriac Orthodox priests in Södertälje are spreading this Aramaean bullshit. And of course, Megalommatis. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:18 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

can we go back to citing sources please? all we have so far is that some people say that calling Assyrians "Aramaeans" is "historical revisionism", and others saying that calling Aramaeans "Assyrians" is "spiritual genocide". That's a dispute in my book. Are you saying the Chaldeans are not called "Aramaeans" even by the Aramaean faction? Look, I don't care one way or the other, just cite your sources, making clear who claims what, who agrees with whom and who disagrees with whom. Stop trying to create the impression that this is not 'really' a dispute, or not 'really' an open question, because it quite evidently is. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't a dispute. But do you know what's behind this dispute? I do. You see, we have different Churches. The Syriac Orthodox Church, is brainwashing their ASSYRIAN members, into believing that they are Aramaeans, through indoctrination, and taking advantage of its adherents belief that priests usually don't lie. You, are in your quest for neutrality, and anti-nationalism, perpetuating the lies of the Syriac Orthodox Church about the Assyrian people. You are not helping us out by doing this. You are only causing further disunity amongst Assyrians, by this. What's right is right. And I don't accept half-truths which jeopardize the future of my nation, in a time, when we are very vulnerable and being wiped out in Iraq, and we need to stick together, and help each other. Why the hell do you think assholes like Megalommatis is spreading bullshit about Europeans being the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, and he keeps writing articles about the Assyrian Genocide being a "spiritual genocide" (that sounds so ridiculous)? The Turks, and the Kurds, committed the Assyrian Genocide. It never crossed your mind, that Turks like Megalommatis have a political agenda with all these Aramaean revisionism articles, did it? Don't be so naive. They're playing us out against each other, and you, Dab, are unintentionally or intentionally helping them out. Benne, a Turkish speaker, and probably a Turk, knows this. That's why I don't take him seriously. &mdash;  EliasAlucard|Talk 16:53 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, but to me "Assyrian" and "Aramaean" are just two terms for the same thing. I can see that you like one but not the other, but I fail to see why one should be more 'correct' than the other. I agree that Megalommatis is clearly an idiot, if that's a comfort to you. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him? That's an interesting perspective of you and Megalommatis :) But seriously dab, I don't think you're some kind of Turkish under cover agent or something. But clearly, if you know, and the facts are in front of you, why keep on perpetuating this Aramaean lie? What this article should do, is to mention that some of us have recently taken on an Aramaean identity, but that we are in actuallity, Assyrians. Because when push comes to shove, that is what we are. We are just being historical by telling it like it is. No need to make "Aramaean" an equal with the Megalommatis conspiracy identity. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 17:15 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, the issue all comes down to naming a potential independent state. This is the issue on which our different religious sects cannot come to a consensus. The majority of Chaldean Catholics want to call it Chaldea, which would be feasible as the land of the Chaldeans, but their current geographical location of concentration (Nineveh plains) is better historically known as Assyria. The historical land of the Chaldeans was located in the deep South of Iraq . As for the name Aram or Aram-Nahrin, which is gaining momentum among the Syrian Orthodox Assyrians, there has never been unified political state known as Aram or Aram-Nahrin, either by the Aramaic-speakers themselves, or by their contemporary neighbours. As terms referring to the Syriac Christians of Assyria (the lands they have always inhabited til this day), all names are valid in my eyes, and refer to the same people: Aramaya, Kaldaya (Chaldean), Suryaya (Syriac), Ashuraya/Aturaya. Whether they like it or not, all members of the different religious sects share a common historical lineage and a common historical ancestry. If there was ever to be a state named Assyria, its inhabitants would be unified under the only geographically accurate designation in and around the Nineveh plains, which is where they are currently concentrated. All inhabitants could keep their preferred religious/ethnic designations, but they would remain citizens of Assyria (including Yezidis, Kurds, Jews, Arabs, Shabaks, etc). This would be equivalent to the concept of Canada (and other nations), where you have African-Canadians, English-Canadians, Polish-Canadians, etc. But this is also where sectarian pride interferes. --Šarukinu 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * well, it's a bit pointless to bicker about the name of a state that doesn't look like it's going to exist anytime soon. Of course I would like to see a stable mini-state called Assyria rise from the rubble that is Iraq. But if there's going to be a new state in northern Iraq, you and I know it's going to be "Kurdistan", not "Assyria". Look at Image:Iraq demography.jpg -- is this "Assyria" (the purple dots), a sort of Middle Eastern Lesotho surrounded by Kurds? I guess it is a sign of how hopeless the case really is that people are debating its name rather than trying to get their act together and make it happen. dab (𒁳) 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All inhabitants could keep their preferred religious/ethnic designations, but they would remain citizens of Assyria (including Yezidis, Kurds, Jews, Arabs, Shabaks, etc) &mdash; No thanks, such a state, I'll have to, regretfully, decline. I wouldn't want peoples who killed my ancestors living in my state. Don't be soft on this. We shouldn't take such issues lightly. An Assyrian state is for Assyrians, not Kurds or Arabs. They have their own states in large territories. As for Kurdistan, yes, it most likely will become a reality, but that is of course also an illegal state since it was founded on the murder of Assyrians. But hey, like the world cares about us. Anyway, Šarukinu is right. This Aram naming is a joke, it's based on an infatuation with the Neo-Aramaic language we speak today. Not on historical accuracy. And most Chaldean Catholics identify as Assyrians today. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:31 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, of course "'Kurdistan" is the next successor state, I'm not being unrealistic. I'm also very aware of the demographics. But that doesn't mean a small "state-within-a-state" can't form. The Pope has recently convinced George Bush to allocate $10 million to the Nineveh Plains, according to [this report] among others. While I (and many others) remain very skeptical about this, it is far better than nothing. If the Kurds want their own independent state, they need to convince the UN that their minorities will enjoy all the same constitutional freedoms and rights as the majority, which is currently the case in the Iraqi constitution, but not exactly honoured. Elias, there will never be a pure Christian state in the Middle East - this is far-fetched, and near impossible. We are far past the days of religious outcasting, nor is it very Christian of us to exclude others for whatever reason. Due to circumstances far beyond our control, our people are interspersed with Kurds and Arabs, and there's nothing we can do about it, nor is it such a bad thing. Lest the day that our nation follows the example of Israel. When Tiglath-Pileser III founded the Assyrian empire, he considered all inhabitants to be "citizens of Mat Ashur". To have that concept renewed in a future Assyrian state would be most fitting. Today we are a respectful people, Elias, not fanatics. --Šarukinu 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about being "fanatics". And don't use our own religion against our nation like that. That's not very intellectually honest. Yes, we have a forgiving religion, but I also, as a man, have my principles. We Assyrians as a people, have a right to our own national state. It would be ridiculous of Arabs, Kurds, and other people, to live in such a tiny state as the Nineveh plains would be, when they have so much area. Anyway, this is off topic, and I'm not expecting any Assyrians to survive in Iraq. I foresee a total wipe out of the Assyrians in Iraq. This is not the place to discuss that. Let's leave it at that. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 08:52 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to just leave it at that, because you, and many other of our brothers and sisters, have some misconceptions about what's best for the Assyrian people. I'm not using our religion against our nation, I'm just telling you how the majority of religious Assyrians think. Peace with our neighbours entails living amongst them as brothers and sisters, regardless of what's going on between Assyrians and Kurds and Arabs. Many Kurdish and Arab families have been living in the Nineveh Plains for many centuries now - is it fair to kick them out, and tell them to move elsewhere, when their whole livelyhood is based in that region? It's not fair when it's done to our people, so we should not reciprocate - "getting even" with them will not solve our problems. And in ancient times, Nineveh was a thriving metropolis, home to people of all different walks of life. Why should that change now? --Šarukinu 12:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience regarding the Aramaean issue...
I have NEVER heard anyone refer to our language as Aramith or refer to themselves as Aramayeh. This is a fairly recent revisionist concept propogated by the Syriac Orthodox Church in the diaspora similar to that of the Chaldean Catholic Church's promotion of the Chaldean identity which does NOT reject the Assyrian label per Sarhad Jammo on Kaldu.org. I hear Souraya and Sourith over anything wheather it be Aturaya or even Kaldaya to a lesser extent. I come from Iraq and there it was Souraya and the same goes for Turkey which was miles from one of my ancestral villages and Hakkari which was one of my others as well prior to the Ottoman massacre of my people including one of my great-great grandfathers. Again I will insist that Syrian is our designation in our language which is similar to how Germans call Germany Deutschland and their language Deutsche implying that Syrian in Syriac is in fact Assyrian though some may not accept that theory despite several scholarly sources from Assyriologists claiming so. Sharru Kinnu III 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * this sounds reasonable (thank you!). Still, Benne has shown that "Aramaean" has seen some use historically, too. Your self-designation translates to English "Syriac" or "Syrian". "Syrian in Syriac is in fact synonymous with Assyrian, though some may not accept that theory despite several scholarly sources from Assyriologists claiming so." indeed perfectly sums up the situation. What I don't get is, why is the "Aramaean" idea so terrible? That's a bit like a Frenchman referring to himself as Gaulois besides Francais, or like an Englishman calling himself a Briton, isn't it? The Syriac Orthodox Church with an estimated 750,000 adherents accounts for about a third of all Syriacs, so clearly, we cannot brush aside their opinion as some cranky fringecruft. We can say, "the Syriac Orthodox Church says this, the Assyrian Church of the East says that, and the Assyrian Democratic Movement says something else again", but we cannot just brush away the Syriac Orthodox perspective as irrelevant, no matter if others think it is completely flawed. dab (𒁳) 18:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, it's not that it's a terrible idea. It's just that most members in the Syriac Orthodox Church don't identify as Aramaeans, and never have. In the Assyrian Church of the East, every single member identifies as Assyrian (and rightfully so). In the Chaldean Catholic Church, it's like 20% who seriously believe they are Chaldeans. And that's only in the diaspora. In the Syrian Orthodox Church, it's even less than that, and they too, are only in the diaspora. Most members in the Syrian Orthodox Church, identify as Assyrian. In fact, the Syrian Orthodox Church Assyrians, have its own Assyrian political party, and its own Assyrian national soccer team (well, it counts as one in the diaspora). Case in point: you are clearly exaggerating the "Aramaean" faction. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:37 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, Benne has shown that "Aramaean" has seen some use historically, too. &mdash; Example? Can you give me one specific case except Syriac Orthodox priests? No, not really. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 21:43 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been few priests and bishops in the past who referred to themselves as Aramaya/Oromoyo, but there has never been a widespread usage of that name. This is similar to a few priests and bishops and other figures who, prior to the Assyrian nationalistic movements of the 19th-20th centuries, have called themselves literally "Assyrian", including Tatian the Assyrian, and in some rare cases, "Chaldean" (prior to the schism within the ACOE). So all these terms, in a widespread nature, are relatively new, with Chaldean predating "Aramaya/Oromoyo" and "Aturaya/Othuroyo/Ashuraya" by at least 300 years. "Suraya/Suryaya/Suryoyo" is the oldest, something that all religious sects identified as, prior to the aforementioned schism. --Šarukinu 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

that's more or less what I understood, Šarukinu. Since you seem to be on top of the question, factually and emotionally, what would be your suggestion to present the case (infobox, "Identity") in this article? dab (𒁳) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be Assuraya since we've recently reinserted the A again, and because we don't want to be confused with modern Arab Syrians (who are occupying our term). The infobox as it is right now, has too much. And really, this recent version of yours dab, is shitty. You removed the entire Richard Nelson Frye part as "off topic". That was very valuable content. Anyway, we have since Greek-Roman times called ourselves Suraya/Suryoyo (which does not mean Aramaean, obviously). Nowadays, most of us have reinserted the A again, mostly due to the state Syria, and a few immature dipshit Assyrians, are protesting this immaturely by labelling themselves as "Aramaeans". Nothing to be taken seriously. They call themselves Suryoyo everywhere. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:19 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Was the initial aleph always there or recently re-inserted? I was under the impression that it has been written with the initial aleph (although made silent) for many centuries now. Regardless, we do not call ourselves "Assuraye" - the initial aleph remains silent. Rather, we hear "Ashuraye", "Aturaye", or "Othuroyo". Anyways, here are the facts: Athuraya/Aturaya/Othuroyo is not disputed, simply because it has taken such precedence since the 19th century. An entire Church (and its adherents) refers to itself and the adherents as "Assyrian" (Assyrian Church of the East translated in Assyrian is Eta d'Madinkha Atureyta), and there is a growing number of adherents to the other major Churches who similarly refer to themselves as Assyrian. As a result, it is one of the more prominent appellations of the modern day Assyrians, next to "Suraya/Suryaya/Suryoyo". I guess the vernacular is the latter, and the official name is "Aturaya". "Ashuraya" (from Akkadian Aššuri) is used among the more nationalistic Assyrians, whereas "Aturaya" is the Aramaic equivalent. The name Aramaya/Oromoyo is heavily disputed, and perhaps does not belong in the infobox. That's my take on it. I'm not sure if that makes complete sense - pardon me because I'm pre-occupied with my upcoming vacation :) --Šarukinu 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree: we should take the "Aramaye" from the infobox to a footnote. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox looks great, but perhaps we should include the eastern Assyrian dialect Suraya as well (Suryaya is closer to the western dialect).--Šarukinu 14:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure "Assyrian" is disputed, just as much as "Aramaean". The only name that is not disputed, has been Suryāye. The name Assyrian became popular (primarily among East Syriacs) only since the 19th century, and the Church of the East only started to be (officially) called "Assyrian" in 1976. These are facts that are simply ignored, because Assyrianists have a bigger mouth, I guess. Moving the self-appelation Aramaean to a footnote is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Various opinions should be presented in a neutral way, without giving more weight to one side over the other. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your so are making inaccurate statements. Assyrian isn't disputed to the level of Aramean, since Suryaya is another way of saying Assyrian. For the last time, their is no such thing as an "Aramean" ethnicity. But I guess your too thick headed to understand that. And just because "it became popular after the 19th century" doesn't mean the word Assyrian was dead before that time. Their is no "Suryaya/Syriac" in the Armenian or Georgian language, because they continued to refer to us as Assyrian throughout AD. But again, I guess you too thick headed to even admit that too. User:Chaldean - proud of having a big mouth.
 * Benne, see this page, and see how uncommon the term "Aramaean" is, compared with "Assyrian", with regards to the modern Christian ethnic group indigenous to Assyria-proper. Note the search results for "X Christians" (X being Assyrian, Aramaean, Chaldean, etc). Just by looking at a google scholar search (or normal google search), you'll see that the terms "Assyrian" and "Aramaean" are nowhere on the same level. To place "Aramaean" in the footnote is not violating NPOV - the infobox is meant to give the reader a concise summary of the Assyrian people - the term "Aramaean" is not representative of the majority of Assyrians, so it does not belong in the infobox. --Šarukinu 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure "Assyrian" is disputed, just as much as "Aramaean". <--- This revisionist statement alone, puts your credibility in ruins. Suraya/Suroyo/Suryoyo/Suryaya, as everyone can see, is closer related to Assuraya, than Aramaya. Only a complete fool would say otherwise. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 10:32 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's not that we have a bigger mouth, it's just that we Assyrians are not as full of lies, and people take us somewhat more seriously. This is because we listen to Assyriologists, and their research, instead of trying to make up a new long since forgotten identity. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 10:56 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Suryāye is related to Ārāmāye, I am saying that it means the same. The Assyria equals Syria theory is, in my opinion, some kind of folk etymology. You know very well that Assyria was located to the east of Syria. The Romans made this distinction, as well as the Greeks before them. The Greeks acknowledged that the people whom they called Syrians, referred to themselves as Aramaeans, there are plenty of examples for that, such as Posidonius and Strabo. Throughout the history of the Syriacs, theologists and historians have acknowledged that fact. More recently, Western scientists such as Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch, Theodor Mommsen, Theodor Nöldeke, and Eduard Sachau did the same. You can read about this in detail at the Urhoy website. These are all verifiable sources. And how about a book like Sébastien de Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, The Last Arameans?

You say you've been spending six months studying the history of your people. I'm not at all impressed.

And please, leave my background out of this. Like I've said before, you don't have the slightest clue. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that Suryāye is related to Ārāmāye, I am saying that it means the same. &mdash; That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Either bring academic sources supporting your ludicrous theories, or knock it off with your revisionist websites. Strabo did not call "Aramaeans" Syrians. Your background in this matter, is of high importance. It could reveal innate bias. You say you've been spending six months studying the history of your people. I'm not at all impressed. &mdash; Sir, are you insulting my intelligence? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:44 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided you with many verifiable sources, including academic works. That is what we work with here, sources, not contributors' backgrounds.


 * I have not said a word about your intelligence. I've said that I am not at all impressed with six months of study. I've spent a bit more time on the Syriac language and the Syriac people.


 * You say Strabo did not call the Aramaeans "Syrians". Have you even checked it out? "for, says he, the people whom we call Syrians are by the Syrians themselves called Arimaeans and Arammaeans;" Strabo's Geography.


 * Also, you still have not been able to quote Tatian saying that he is an Assyrian. Because he hasn't. All he's said is that he came from the "land of the Assyrians". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Benne is right, it is a fact that the two terms are used synonymously. One is based on language (Aramaic) and the other on geography (Syria / Assyria). In English, "Assyrian" is more common. In German, "Aramäer" is more common, two names, same difference. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Benne is not at all right. Dab, you have no clue what you're talking about. In Germany, it's more common, because you have Assyrians almost exclusively from Turkey, members of the Syrian Orthodox Church, and the ones you have there, are organizing this revisionism. The ONLY argument they have, is that we speak a dialect of Aramaic. So did the Assyrians during the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and we have called ourselves, Suraya/Suryoyo for almost 2000 years now, not Aramaya. If an Aramaean people existed to this day, they would NEVER accept an Assyrian self-appellation for an entire 2000 years, because the Assyrian empire did conquer the Aramaeans and deport them. Yes, Aramaean is being used by Assyrians today, but they are not genuine Aramaeans, and any such historically false claims should be met with refutation. Especially considering that they always call themselves Suryoyo (they still do), yet they for some unknown reason, miraculously claim descent from some long since vanished Aramaean people. As for the "Aramaeans" in Germany, dab, try holding a conversation with one of them about their history. I'm sure you know more than they do about their own past, which should indicate of how little they know. They're all brainwashed. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:46 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * . In German, "Aramäer" is more common, two names, same difference.  - thats because those lost souls immigrated to the US in the 20th century. If these people had immigrated to another country, then their Germans would never heard of "Aramaye" Chaldean 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

look, I have got it by now: you think they are "wrong". That's an opinion, as it is an opinion that they are "lost souls". Unsurprisingly, they do not think they are wrong. It's called a "controversy". What part of this is difficult to understand? In German, Aramäer is also in use because there is no distinction Syrians vs. Syriacs: there is only Syrer, which is ambiguous. Hence, Aramäer is useful, because it is unambiguous. Assyrer is mostly used by Assyrian nationalists, and is confusing to people not familiar with this dispute, since it is commonly used to refer to the Ancient Assyrians. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More anti-Nationalist crap. Don't twist this around, dab. We have been known as Suraya/Suryoyo for a very long time now. I don't give a crap about what's known in Germany. They are not right. This is not about "opinions". It's about the fact that we have never called ourselves Aramaya. If, we had called ourselves that for 2000 years, I would defend the Aramaean self-designation. But that is not the case. Suraya/Suryoyo, MEANS ASSYRIAN. It's not like some completely different group started recently calling themselves Aramaean. The exact same people who call themselves this, have more relatives from their own people, calling themselves Assyrian. Since you are an extremely biased anti-nationalist, and you want to take away anyone's right to identify with their long past forefathers (in this case, the ancient Assyrians, and before them, the Akkadians), you are trying to some extent, work against us here, by spreading disinformation and somehow trying to legitimize this Aramaean nonsense by ad populum arguments, like "it is more common in Germany", well who cares about what's more popular in Germany? You think they aren't biased? You think they're not into your frequently used ad hominem attack, "antiquity frenzy"? Of course they are. They are completely obsessed with some ancient long since vanished people, whom they share a related language with, and perhaps some minor ancestry. That is all. They are not Aramaeans. Accepting their lies like you do, is dishonest, and immoral, and you should be ashamed of yourself for further splitting up an already, endangered, and soon to be extinct, people, thanks to this ridiculous name feud. I hope you're proud of yourself. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:05 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * oh dear, you are right, I am extremely biased in favour of anti-bias. Such rabid anti-bias is disruptive, and should be removed on sight, because it stands in the way of truth. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very convincing argument, dab. I guess that settles it; just resort to Wikipedia policies when you've run out of arguments. Pseudo-Aramaeans are genuine Aramaeans now, thanks to dab. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:57 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fair cop. I often "resort to Wikipedia policy" when I've run out of motivation for circular bickering. --dab (𒁳) 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Language?
The Syriac language was placed under the Language tab under the ethnobox before this change and has been placed for a long time. Regarding to the Aramaic, this is a confusing subject and may confuse other languages like Lishani Deni and other Aramiac language and may effect on the Assyrian identity. I suggest to use Syriac to refer more specified form of Aramaic. — Balu2000 08:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how about, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 10:57 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic refer only a dialect spoken by adherents by a specific church members. On Assyrian Neo-Aramaic article it does stated that "210,000 (fluent), 1-2 million ethnic Assyrians who speak other dialect". This cannot be listed as the standard language, or we could list those other three various dialects? — Balu2000 09:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Syriac, is a dialect as well, and it's a Church ritual language only today. It should just say Neo-Aramaic. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:26 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Neo-Aramaic is fine or just simply listing all the dialects. — Balu2000 09:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why there's a link to the #Language (Various Neo-Aramaic dialects). &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 11:35 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I also thought it would make sense having "Syriac" since we call our language Sureth. Chaldean 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi is back
Well, have fun reverting his edits. I'm sure it'll be just as exciting as last time. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:35 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ballo is Nochi. Chaldean 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you base your opinion on? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:59 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)